Talk:George Washington/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Impossible reference to "brother" John Augustine

The "Interment and new tomb" section states "On January 16, 1932, John Augustine Washington, brother of George [...]".

John Augustine died 75 years earlier.

Mmcculloch (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Age at baptism

Under the heading "Religious Beliefs", the entry stated "Washington was baptized into the Church of London." What it did not mention is that he was less than three months old at the time. A significant percentage of Protestant faiths within the US do not recognize infant baptism as a valid form of the practice, so I have specified Washington's age at the time the practice was performed upon him, to remove that ambiguity. Bricology (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A "signifigant percentage?" By whose standard? What percentage exactly? ELCA Lutherans, for example, the most recognizable of mainstream (ah there's the rub, from your point of view, I take it) and easiest example of Protestantism in America, DO baptize infants as a matter of course. Your argument is spurious and it fails mainly because you both use weasel wording ("a signifigant percentage...") and because you are trying to sugar coat a theological POV. It is generally the more recent, grass-roots, Pentacostal "churches", i.e. Assemblies of God and the like, that prefer to baptize after infancy and do not recognize infant baptismal (which is a clever and insidious way for them to tell mainstream believer that their baptism is invalid, I would assume). You're not fooling anyone. Jersey John (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

First, Jersey John, here in Wiki-land, we add a semicolon at the beginning of a reply to indent it. Learn your way around before you then proceed to flaunting your ignorance. Second, a two-month old infant has no beliefs, so the fact that his parents imposed their religious beliefs upon him at that age has zero to do with "Washington's Religious Beliefs" and does not belong in a section of that name. However -- third, if one is going to add irrelevant information, then it is entirely logical to add the qualifier: that he happened to be 2 months old at the time. Or are you one of those wannabe Wikipedians who advocate less information in entries? Fourth, "a significant percentage of Protestant faiths within the US" indeed "do not recognize infant baptism as...valid". Indeed, it's quite clear to Biblical scholars and scholars of the historicity of Jesus that he did not consider it valid. He was baptized as an adult, as was John the Baptist. Indeed, baptism as adults was the standard practice among Christians until well into the 8th century when the Church of Rome decided that, by baptizing infants, they could increase their membership dramatically. Here endeth the lesson, but back to the point: there are about 670 million Protestants world-wide. Of those, about 337 million are Baptists/Anabaptists (110 million), Pentecostals (130 million), nondenominational Evangelicals (80 million), Seventh-Day Adventists (17 million) and members of other sects who do not accept infant baptism as valid. Do I have to spell it out for you? More than half of all Protestants don't believe in infant baptism. If 51% doesn't comprise a "significant percentage" in your book, then you don't have enough sense to be posting here. Bricology (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, pardon me, but, in the context of this article, who cares? You can argue details of cult vs. cult elsewhere. The article should mention that he was baptized as a child -- no reason not to, and it does make a difference in the implications of religiosity. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

JPGordon wrote "in the context of this article, who cares?" I do, and I'm not alone. I care because I care about accuracy in encyclopedias such as WP, and I care because Christians have been attempting to lay claim to George Washington since the 1770s, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Bear in mind that the entry is a general biography of Washington, of which "Religious Beliefs" is a fairly small section. However, unless one is going to change the title of that heading to something along the lines of "The Religious Beliefs of Washington and his Family", please explain two things, if you can:

Do 2 month-old infants, or do they not, have religious beliefs, and can they make the decision to be baptized?
Robert Ingersoll, Percy Shelley, Richard Dawkins, Madelyn O'Hair and many other outspoken atheists were baptized when they were infants, due to their parents' wishes. OTOH, neither Jesus nor St. Augustine (who essentially created the idea of infant baptism for Christians) were baptized as infants. Indeed, in Britain today, over 70% of the population identifies itself as Christian, yet less than 20% of all British infants are baptized (infant baptism is the common practice within the C. of E., by far the Britain's largest denomination). In light of these extreme discrepancies, how does infant baptism "make a difference in the implications of religiousity"?

I await your explanations. Bricology (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with your desired form of the article; the "who cares" is about all the argument you're wrapping it in. If baptism is to be mentioned, it should mention it was as a child; otherwise, the implication is that it was a conscious act, an expression of religion, on Washington's part. Everything else is just noise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

JPGordon, I think you may have misread my posts. I argued that very thing -- that without mentioning the fact that Washington's baptism was when he was a baby, and the result of his parents' wishes, it would (as you pointed out) suggest that it was his "conscious act, an expression of religion, on Washington's part". Just so. That's why I added his age at baptism, and argued for allowing that information to remain. Bricology (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You were making broad and unnecessary arguments, was my point; there was no need at all for the obfuscating philosophical discussion. That's what I meant by "noise". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You people might as well be arguing about whether Superman is faster than The Flash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why Locked

Why is this page locked?58.124.96.99 (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The page has had excessive vandalism for quite a long time. The protection log has all the details. Dawnseeker2000 06:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This entry is POV and reminds me of cult-of-personality propaganda. For instance, "Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment, to avoid setting a precedent whereby the presidency would be perceived as limited only to independently wealthy individuals who could serve without any salary." This tone persists through the whole article. He is the first president of the United States of America and the lionization of Washington is ubiquitous in American education. I think Wikipedia can do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Is it so hard to accept that maybe it's true? Sometimes facts are mundane, and sometimes they are a little bit grand. So what. Jersey John (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's all puffery. However, since he's one of the most glorified figures in the US, I suspect that attempts to lessen the bias will be reverted by his worshipers. Such is the nature of Wikipedia.

--citations and verifiability anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.95.59 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Born a British subject

Quote: The state of Washington is the only state to be named after an American (Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia are all named in honor of British monarchs, and Pennsylvania and Delaware after British subjects).

Comment: This highlights that nowhere in the article do we mention that Washington was himself born a British subject. To the casual reader it reads as if he was born an American, which is simply not so. The Constitution made special provision for Washington & co, it had to, otherwise he would have been ineligible to become President, not being a "native-born citizen of the USA". The whole point of his life was to bring the USA into existence, so by definition he could not have been born an American; it follows that he must have been born the citizen or subject of another country. This really needs to be spelled out. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a contentious issue as America had a government prior to Washington's involvment.... Wolfpeaceful 165.138.95.59 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but as a simple fact of law, when Washington was born he - like every other American alive at that time - was a subject of King George II of Great Britain. Does anyone dispute this? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Among all of the namesakes for the listed states, Washington is the only one that was at any time an American citizen. The quote above does not state that he was born American, but that he simply was American. There is no need to put an asterisk after every incidence of the word American in this article. It should be quite apparent to anyone reading the article that he wasn't born after the most important events of his life had already occurred. Tantarian (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

George Washington was a Freemason

George Washington was not only a Freemason, he was a Grand Master Mason and the unofficial head of all Masonry in North America. The Masons continue the oral transmissions of the ancient mysteries which include sacred geometry, sacred gematria, and reincarnation. There is no proof that GW believed in reincarnation, however, the General certainly could keep secrets. Because of GW having 74 generals in the Continental Army - 33 of which were Masons - these two numbers are proof of him practicing sacred geometry. Visiting the George Washington National Masonic Memorial in Alexandria, VA is perhaps the best way to research/experience GW's association with the Society Of Freemasonry.

65.34.180.54 (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL

George Washington in Masonic garb

From the article: On September 18, 1793, he laid the cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol wearing full Masonic Grand Master regalia.

There should be a footnote for this. I have heard that this was made up.

Hemp

Someone should really include in the Mount Vernon Section that Cannabis was a popular George Washington product. "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" -George Washington in a letter to his gardener in 1794. The Writings of George Washington, Volume 33, page 270 is the exact location of this letter, found in the library of congress. Washington also recorded his concern that the male and female plants be separated:

       May 12-13 1765: Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp.
       August 7, 1765: —began to seperate (sic) the Male from the Female Hemp at Do —rather too late.

His interest in separating the male and female plants is an indication that he may have used Indian cannabis medicinally to treat his chronic tooth aches. Maelstromlusby (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

College of William & Mary alumni and "Surveying Exam?"

College of William and Mary Alumni
Even though some sources apparently have Washington possibly taking a surveying-exam at the College of William and Mary, George Washington did not attend college there or at at all (per http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/21/). The 'College of William and Mary Alumni" section has therefore been deleted from the listing of "Articles Related to George Washington" at the end of the article. Washington's name has also been deleted from the "College of William and Mary Alumni" article itself.
According to a May 2007 article in Professional Surveyor (http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=1835), even though Washington did receive a commission from the College that appointed the 16 year old as "Crown Surveyor of Culpeper County" he never attended school there. He also never paid the College the one-sixth portion of his surveying monies that the College was due (as part of his Commission).

Surveying Exam?
According to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gwmaps.html, Washington was largely self-taught as a surveyor...

'''After flirting briefly with the idea of a career in the Royal Navy, he began studying geometry and surveying, using a set of surveyor's instruments from the storehouse at Ferry Farm.'"

and, (in the same source ) referring to the 1748 surveying trip he was a member of (for Lord Fairfax)

'''Although the surveys were actually performed by the more experienced members of the party, the trip was Washington's formal initiation into the field'"

Additionally, there does not seem to be any evidence that Washington ever sat for a formal surveying exam (http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=1835).

Shearonink (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Honorary Degrees and alumni status

From http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/index.html ...
George Washington was awarded five honorary degrees within his lifetime, from Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Washington College(Maryland) and Brown. In generally-accepted usage, holding an honorary degree from a college/university does not make one an alumnus, a person has to (at the very least) have attended classes there, some even consider the only true alumni to be graduates from an institution. I have therefore removed the Category/Wiki-link "Washington College alumni" from the listing at the bottom of the article itself.

Shearonink (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Electoral victories

Given the confusion that occasionally arises over Washington's unique electoral victories, I have added a 'ref' note explaining the situation, based on the aforelinked talk page discussions. Someone should probably add a citation; I didn't have one at hand. Also, regarding the wording in the article itself, it currently says, "he remains the only president to have received 100 percent of the electoral votes". Wouldn't it be more accurate (/less confusing) to say something like, "he remains the only president to have received the vote of every elector"? - dcljr (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Alleged slave child

I believe it is important to mention that GW allegedly had a slave child with Venus, a young female slave on his half brother's estate. This article appeared in the New York Times and is a legitimate source. The slave child is mentioned in the in the GW and slavery article, however, it would be good to put in the main GW article in the subsection "Slavery". Here is a link to the article Descendants of Slave's Son Contend That His Father Was George Washington Any suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue about which there is still much controversy. With the acrimonious second term that Washington had, I would have thought the claims would have been brought much more into out into the open at that time than they were? This link from a PBS show [1] has an interesting perspective on the matter. The oral-history/tradition is already covered in George Washington and slavery, I'm not sure that additional coverage is needed in this article as well.

Regarding an additional question about genetics... DNA-testing of alleged hair-samples of George Washington's hair would only determine relationships through the mother unless the root and follicles are still attached (+ four complete strands are needed)WebMD - Using Hair for DNA & Drug testing, plus the Washington material itself is apparently so degraded that DNA testing seems impossible. I am puzzled by this source's conclusions 2005 HNN story re: the Association's 'testing-refusal' since the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association didn't refuse to have samples tested....both the MVLA and The DAR Museum actually had their Washington hair-samples tested for viable DNA by the FBI. Shearonink (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is currently believed that Washington was sterile, which would make the dubious claim even more uncertain. While we do not suppress such claims when they are discussed by reliable sources, a decision needs to be made as to how important such information is in relation to the rest of the information that exists about Washington and so where to place it on Wikipedia and how much attention to give it. We have rather more information than the article can hold, and much material is thus placed in sub-articles. If it was certain that Washington fathered this child, that would make it important and so should be placed here, but as it is dubious speculation which experts dispute, then the right place is in a sub-article, and George Washington and slavery appears appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be good to expand this issue in the sub-article GW and slavery. There is the issue of sterility and the side issue of Washington having relations with Venus as a concubine. It is only speculation, but if Venus was treated as a concubine, then other members of the Washington family could have had relations with her. Dr. Foster, while he was alive, advised to DNA test Washington's relatives. That test would only prove that a Washington family member could have fathered the child. It would be interesting to know if the FBI tests showed that the Washington hair samples had viable DNA. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge legacy article

I am suggesting that the Washington's legacy article be merged with the GW bio article. It seems unnecessary to have the legacy as a single separate article. Any comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Leave it because it will make the bio article too large BTW you should sign your comments. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohio Company

I added information on Washington's involvement with the Ohio Company, historically recognized as starting the French Indian War. It is important to know that the Virginia colony was in fact attempting to colonize the Ohio Territory. Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie and the Washington family were both divested in the Ohio Company. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean 'invested' rather thandivested? Also Virginia claimed much of Southwestern Pennsylvania until the legal/territorial matters between Pennsylvania and Virginia were settled after the Rev. War (I think). Shearonink (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and input. The Ohio Company has allot to do with American History and should not be overlooked. I believe it should be put in the article since Washingtion had commerical interests in the Ohio Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained large deletions

SilkTork, please explain why you deleted a large amount of content (RE: militia) (to include a ref) here, without providing an appropriate edit summary. Given your level of experience, you should know that a deletion of that size deserves a bit more as to why it was deleted. Thank you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That section had already been commented out. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old Style Date

The Old Style date of Washington's birth is currently listed as 1731-02-11, which is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.77.244 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that gives a different date? That would be helpful in fixing the problem. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much an issue of reliable sources as of style. This excerpt from the Old Style and New Style dates article details a similar example:

From the 12th century to 1752, the civil or legal year in England began on 25 March (Lady Day) so for example the execution of Charles I was recorded at the time in Parliament as happening on 30 January 1648 (Old Style). In modern English language texts this date is usually recorded as "30 January 1649" (New Style). A full conversion of the date into the Gregorian calendar is 9 February 1649, the date by which his contemporaries in some parts of continental Europe would have recorded his execution.

Currently, the article uses true Old Style, showing the year as 1731 rather than 1732. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fellow editors, please stop arbitrarily changing the year date on the article's Line 1 from 1731 to 1732 in the "O.S(Old Style)" rendering of George Washington's birthdate and year. In the then-valid and historically-accepted Old Style/Julian calendar, George Washington was born in 1731. Really! He was! In the New Style (which is how we date things today), his birthyear is rendered as 1732 and his birthdate is rendered as February 22. The issues are numerous when dating events from the early to mid 1700s.

The 'Old Style'("Julian") year started in March, not in January.
The 'New Style'("Gregorian") calendar was adopted in Roman Catholic countries in 1582.
Great Britain and its colonies adopted the 'New Style' calendar in 1752.
Eleven days were just dropped from September 1752, September 1752 only had nineteen days.

Ancestry Magazine has a great explanation of the Old Style/New Style issues Time to Take Note:The 1752 Calendar Change and of how the year and date that George Washington was born should be rendered now and how it was rendered in the 18th Century When is George Washington's Birthday?.

If you think it's confusing to modern-day historians and writers, then take a look at how confusing it was for people living in the early 1750s::(direct quote from Ancestry Magazine(Volume 18, No.6), November/December 2000 edition):

Summary of the 1752 Calendar Change

31 December 1750 was followed by 1 January 1750

24 March 1750 was followed by 25 March 1751

1 December 1751 was followed by 1 January 1752

2 September 1752 was followed by 14 September 1752

31 December 1752 was followed by 1 January 1753

I am adding some additional lines to the article's Ref #2 as well as a Comment that hopefully will alleviate the edit & revert cycle that has been occurring. Shearonink (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying, Shearonink, but if the change didn't take effect till September 1752:

how could 31 December 1750 be followed by 1 January 1750? The year was put forward, not back, but this was 21 months too early anyway.
how could 24 March 1750 be followed by 25 March 1751?
how could 1 December 1751 be followed by 1 January 1752? The change affected September, it didn't knock out the whole month of December.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I understood it all, Jack, but yeah...that's pretty much the way it was. December used to actually be the tenth month of the Julian calendar-year with the 'Year' starting in March (not like we do it today with the modern 'Year' starting in January. The days themselves still existed as they always had, but the specific date associated with the days changed. The bullet-points I quoted above are from that Ancestry magazine article, it explains the various permutations much better than I can. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias addressed

I have read through the article. It appears that bias in the issue has been addressed. The issues of religion, the Ohio Company, funding and giving weapons to the French slave owners, and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 has been addressed. Are there any areas that need alternative views? Any suggestions? Another issue that could be pointed out is the Naturalization Act of 1790 that only allowed white people to be U.S. citizens; possibly mentioning Washington's view on blacks.Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How about his views on Chinese, Arabs, Persians and American Indians? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

America, according to Washington, was only for "white" people. All those mentioned above could not be citizens. American Indians were alright, as long as they gave up their land to the Ohio Company. Other then denying citizenship to other races Washington treated people fairly. This is only my opinion, the Naturalization Act, in a sense endorsed the racism that took place after the American Civil War during the Reconstruction era of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

George and Martha Custis Washington related

I can't find any reference that even suggest Washinton and his wife Martha are related. Washington had many cousins growing up, however, it is not know if Martha was one of them. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree Cmguy. I've been researching this matter extensively today and the only place I can find this supposed connection mentioned is in the Wikipedia article itself and since this claim is an unsupported assertion I have deleted it from the article at this time. Shearonink (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Militia vs. Regular Army?

I know this section was commented out (I missed that happening). I apologize for not posting my thoughts earlier but in working with the edits, sometimes I forget what's actually 'live' on the page.
In my opinion Washington's experience as a Virginia Militia officer and his interactions with the British Army establishment (dating from his unsuccessful attempt to purchase an officer's commission and then his subsequent stint as Braddock's aide-de-camp) is an integral part of understanding the man's character and psychology. I am not sure where this information should be placed within the article, but I do think it should be included. Shearonink (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of modern Washington biographers are social scientists who can not differentiate between a Colonel and a Corporal, let alone the vast difference between the Militia and the Regulars. Any book or discussion on this topic which fails to cite THE ONLY basic reference -- Anthony Bruce, "The Purchase System In The British Army, 1660-1871" (Royal Historical Society: London: 1980) is a joke, and must not to be taken seriously. GW never attempted to purchase an officer's commission in the Regulars. That was beyond his means and station. Rather he sought, desperately, to be given one for free in 1754-55, before finally accepting a position as aide-de-camp to General Braddock. To understand the (then) aged 20-something George Washington it is important to realize that his role model was his own (half) brother Lawrence, who, at age 22, was handed, for free, a Commission in the Regulars, as the senior company officer within the 4 companies raised in Virginia to serve in the American Regiment in the Caribbean in August 1740. It was the first time England "raised" entire Companies in the Colonies and "placed them on the Establishment". Lawrence's Commission of 1740, signed by King George II, survives in the Mt. Vernon Estate archives. Despite enormous casualties sustained during Brigadier General Thomas Wentworth's campaign in the Caribbean in 1741-42, not a single American company officer was promoted to fill any vacancy above the rank of Captain. Lawrence then parlayed that Commission to win appointment, in early 1743, as Virginia's Adjutant General (militia commander). Lawrence, dying of tuberculosis by 1751, positioned his younger brother to (more or less) inherit the militia post before he (Lawrence) died in 1752. In 1753, Virginia's new governor, Robert Dinwiddie, divided the Militia into 4 regional districts, each with a Major, of which George was given one command. In 1754-55, George Washington held the rank of Militia Major, and he wished to be so recognized in the Regulars. However, the British Army was not raising new regiments in British America and, thus, was not issuing new Commissions (as it did in 1740). A Major's Commission would have cost several hundred Pounds - an enormous sum of money - which, even if Washington had the cash, would not be permitted to be sold to a Colonial. The British Army's so-called "Purchase System" tightly regulated to whom Commissions could be bought and sold. Typically, a serving Captain - with the requisite military qualifications and, more importantly, the right "connections" - would sell his Captain's Commission and then apply that money towards purchasing a vacant Major's billet. While senior-level appointments (Majors and Colonels) were common in the colonial militias, to simply enter the Regulars at the rank of Major (a field officer rank) in 1755 would be an absurdity for anyone but those of royal blood. (Rick Gamble, 26 Sept 2010.) In addition to Bruce's essential/classic "The Purchase System", for an explanation of how the British Army worked in mid-18th century, see: Stuart Reid, "WOLFE: The Career of General James Wolfe" (Sarpedon Press: New York: 2000), and Alan J. Guy, "Oeconomy and Discipline: Officership and administration in the British Army 1714-63 (Manchester University Press: UK: 1985). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swegam (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You sound quite knowledgeable about the subject, perhaps you should consider writing up a section about the realities of Militia vs. Regular Army in the Colonial era for this George Washington article...any additional referenced materials could only help. Washington's reaction at not receiving a full commission, however it happened, is part of his character and (I would think) probably part of how he came to regard the final break with Great Britain. I think the fact that this major part of George Washington's life is missing from this former 'Good Article' leaves a gaping hole in the Wikipedia coverage of the man. And in the interest of full-disclosure, even thought I am very much a history enthusiast (and was aware that Lawrence's royal commission resides within the Mount Vernon archives) I am not at all a social scientist. I just think it would be great if this article could be improved enough to reach its former status. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. I mean, you seem to know, so why not help us out and rewrite /add a bit of that info? Some of us have done a bit, but I for one am no military expert. Any work by those who can contribute useful work is much appreciated - show us the facts with the militia/army information, then maybe this article will be one of the better ones. We're in need of blokes like you who know it & tell it how it is - or whould I say was? Ebanony (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the French ancestor ?

George Washington has for ancestor (in right line) the first French emigrant in Virginia in America, a Huguenot native of the île de Ré, named Nicolas Martiau ( 1591-1657 ). He entered America with the boat Francis-Bonaventure, on May 11th, 1620, five months before the arrival of the Fathers pilgrims of the Mayflower.We speak about it in the French version of the article.This French ancestor had exercised the function(office) of military engineer, judge of peace and deputy to the local assembly of Jamestown. He was elected a representative of the peninsula of Pamunkey. 1631, 150 the years before the decisive battle of Yorktown during the American war for independence,Nicolas Martiau buys a ground on which his heir was going to become famous in 1781 to "York-town" against the British troops.

We speak about it in the French version of the article. It is necessary to add it in the English version...

There is a family tree and sources in the French version. Furthermore there is also an impressive statue of Washington in Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romano75 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Marquis de Lafayette or Marquis de la Fayette/Marquis de La Fayette?

This is tangential to a discussion about George Washington and the Wiki-article, but should probably be mentioned here since the man's name is referenced above.

It seems that the form of the name that combines 'la' and 'fayette' is incorrect in the mother tongue, even though it is commonly combined in American references (as seen if a Google search is done for the word 'Lafayette', with results like 'Lafayette College ' and municipalities named 'Lafayette'). I have searched for which form would be considered 'encyclopedic', but the closest I could come is a French Embassy article French Embassy Article on the Marquis de La Fayette (and even this source renders the name with a capital 'La Fayette' instead of 'de la Fayette'. There's a Wiki-discussion about nobility naming conventions that mentions the man here: Naming conventions for noble names.
The 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica renders the name with 'la' and 'Fayette' divided and a capital F for 'Fayette' Marquis de la Fayette.
The Marquis' Memoirs (Butler's 1825 Edition) rendered the name as 'de La Fayette' Chapter One Header of Memoirs.
The Edmund Burke, James Dodsley authored book ("Reflections on the revolution in France;...") published in 1790 rendered the name as "de la Fayette" Mention of 'proposals for a declaration of rights by the Marquis de la Fayette'. --Shearonink (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a footnote in the Lafayette article claiming that Lafayette's family primarily wrote it "Lafayette", and that historians are all over the map on the subject. I think as long as an article is consistent in usage, either "Lafayette" or "La Fayette" is probably OK. Magic♪piano 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Postage stamp images layout

I have reverted the postage stamp images to their September 24 appearance/layout, as they had been misplaced within the text by a subsequent edit. Shearonink (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Does every sentence need a citation? Many of these citations seem to be done out of spite rather then necessity. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah, do we seriously need seventy citations in every article? someone should remove those. Ruggles the Editor —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

I agree many appear to be added just for the sake of adding them. Nonetheless, the article is significantly under referenced. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you blokes can point out a few, then others will work on them; if you notice a problem, you can also edit it.Ebanony (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If there really is interest here in getting this article successfully through a GA review, the quality and quantity of citations needs to be changed.

unreliable sources (like ushistory.org, u-s-history.com, and 19th century travel guides) need to be scrubbed out and replaced
citations need to be in a consistent format -- this means picking a format, changing existing citations to follow it, and making sure contributed citations are fashioned into that format (by asking regular contributors to follow it, and by reformatting contributions by one-off editors)
footnotes that are not actually citations need to be moved to a separate section (e.g. note 49 in this version)
although per-sentence citations are not required, all material should probably be cited at least every third sentence, and quotations should always be cited at the end of the quote
intrepid researchers could scrutinize existing citations to ensure the sources actually support what is written

This is not work for just one editor on an article of this scope. Magic♪piano 03:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see yout point. Some writers get a lot of use & others get none. No reason why more historians can't be included.

What I've noticed is that there's a lot of unecessary stuff, and most have no citations - hence the reason for "citation needed". That's not out of spite, though they should be at end of sentences. Problem is editors said a lot of things, readers don't know the sources, and other editors don't either. Why is that?

So 1) remove the unecessary info (paragragh with citations 49 & 50 & 93 have this problem), and then properly source whatever needs to be said. Mt Vernon website, as Magicpiano was saying, is just another example of relying on things that don't need to be used. So if we can agreee on some the problems, then some of us will be willing to adjust a few things; I'd like to know what others think & get their input before doing anything (to make sure we've got no edit wars).Ebanony (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree about consistency in format, I like 'citation' rather than 'citeweb', 'citebook', etc., it's very flexible and can be easily adjusted but whatever the consensus is is fine with me. Was wondering what is wrong with perhaps using the Mount Vernon website as a source? I mean, their Archives are incredible, they have priceless docs in the vaults (like Laurence's Royal Officer's commission, etc.) And I'm not sure what the specific objection might be to 19th century travel-guides other than maybe the generally-hagiographic tone. The facts are the facts, regardless of where they might be found. Shearonink (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Started a 'Notes' section, have placed one citation there, others can be added as editors have time. Shearonink (talk)

(outdent) My snark about 19th century travel guides is in reference to the fact that 20th century travel guides are also not considered reliable. I personally judge the reliability of a source by whether or not its sources (primary and secondary) are documented. Places of historical interest (I'm not sure which site I listed above is the Mount Vernon site) that have online archives of documents are clearly appropriate for referencing those documents; their scholarship should be subjected the same scrutiny as other sources.

This is veering off-course for this discussion, but I was looking at the various WP style guides and Verifiablity & sources states that

"Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers" and while the term 'travel guides' is cited as one of the examples of 'what Wikipedia is not supposed to read like' here Wikipedia is not..., but in my mind a researched book is a researched book, regardless of what it might be called, so I agree with you that all the scholarship of whatever sources are used should be subject to scrutiny. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as citation format goes, I'm used to using cite web/book/journal, but I'm also OK using {{Citation}} for describing sources if consensus is there. My comment about citation formatting also extends to how the inline cites are formatted: is it "p. 5", "pg 5.", "pages 5–7", "pp.5–7", etc, and how books used as references are identified. Magic♪piano 15:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any form is fine by me, just so long as it is consistent. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One example of the Mt Vernon site being used is footnote 77 http://www.mountvernon.org/dis_missingPage.cfm First, this source is a "missing page" & second, Mt Vernon is not a neutral source. Their organisation promotes a certain image of him that is inconsistent with that of many historians. They promote the pov that he was anti-slavery, among other things. At least use historians who say these things (a website?); plenty of scholarship on him. Ebanony (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though there are a total of three references that are partially or fully from Mount Vernon, I only see one that is completely from Mount Vernon, the broken #77. The information on 77 (that Washington did not wear a wig, but instead powdered his hair) is found at the Mount Vernon website (http://www.mountvernon.org/visit/plan/index.cfm/pid/808/) and also elsewhere (such as The Papers of George Washington http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/index.html). References 89/92 source what happened with the Mount Vernon slaves, one incident being the rotating of slave-presence/residency during the Philadelphia presidency and then another after George's death. The material is a collaboration between Mount Vernon and the Center for History & New Media (so is not completely controlled by Mount Vernon) plus the scholarship seems well-researched (with about 40 or 50 references). Just because the organization is thought to have promoted a certain image of him (especially in the past) does not necessarily make all their scholarship on the man suspect. I'm not sure it is even possible to ignore the Mount Vernon archives/available materials when writing and editing an article about George Washington. If the consensus arises that all Mount Vernon (website/organization) references are to be scrubbed from this article as being considered unreliable or as not having a NPOV, then maybe all Monticello website/organization references would have to be scrubbed from Thomas Jefferson articles as well.Shearonink (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mount Vernon source is a high quality RS and certainly can be cited; I was there last summer and was highly impressed by their skills and professionalism. Ebanony may prefer his own views of what Washington was "really" like, but Wiki reflects the work done by experts, which Mt Vernon has in spades. Rjensen (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand: I did not question GW's use of a wig; I said the link wasn't working, & on that alone was subject to deletion. 2nd, that Mt Vernon have had problems with neutrality in the past; & even you Shearonink admit as much. So you should understand why I urged caution (I didn't say the site was 100% bad, though). Scholars have published on these topics; there is no need to rely on one source that filters & presents what it wants - which it appears to be doing by choosing Weincek's thesis for the link I posted. Those 40-50 citations do not all share that man's pov, & many did unrelated work; you've already pointed to the scholars thy cited, so why not use them?

Appears that Vernon exceeds Monticello in some areas of scholarship. Ex. Monticello say "Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life." http://www.monticello.org/gettingword/views.html Again, this is controversial, and that's not my opinion. There's only a select few writers pushing that pov. So again I'm saying: consider a variety of sources (I've made 0 edits so far). And yes we've had to remove some Monticello work from other articles, and for this very reason (plagiarism as well). Which brings me to my next point.

Rejensen, before accusing me of "opinion", notice I posted a link & cited Weincek - for a good reason. Shearonink and I may not agree, but he/she backs them up & presents evidence. You gave your personal opinion of Vernon based on your visit there - if anything is opinion, that is it. So please, if you want to talk about professionalism & scholarship in connection with my work, back it up. Otherwise your insinuations on here (& other talk pages) about me needs to stop; no personal attacks, mate. Ebanony (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that all Wiki editors have their opinions; that is why we rely on RS. In turn the RS like Weincek all filter their publications (for the record I think Weincek is an excellent historian). I actually went to MtV last summer specifically to look at how well Mt V handles evidence and presentations at its physical site (which has far more info than its website) and I think it does a very good job of original research and presentation. Ebanony suggests that perhaps he made his judgment on the basis of congruence between his political views on slavery and those he senses at MV's website, but has little basis for commenting on the quality of the research done by the teams of experts at MtV. He needs to cite RS that actually criticize MtV, since he has not been there himself. Rjensen (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen you present no evidence, just claims based on your opinion & even admit it. 1) You speculate when you say "he has not been there himself" , since you do not know if I've been to Mt Vernon - not that it's not relevant anyway. We must rely on published facts, not personal opinions of Mt Vernon's based on your visit there, which is original research & inadmissible on Wpedia articles, though you insist otherwise; read the policy on Wpedia articles. 2nd, how can you equate my comments here with my political views? This is again speculation on your part, since you do not know my politics. Again, more opinion & unsubstantiated claims.

I cited a direct link to their website & mention Weincek's work because that is where some of it comes from. So your opinion is Weincek's work is good; but your opinion is irrelevant here. The problem isn't his scholarship as much as it is undue weight of that controversial pov; many historians do not agree with him, and to give such pov prominence is not neutral. That's what Vernon do (don't confuse website with all the work they do). Again, even Shearonink alludes to problems they've had in the past, something you've only used your opinion to reject, though you haven't refuted it. As usual, you cite opinion, not evidence or facts, and this is why we clash.

Now I asked you to 1) not use personal attacks; 2) not to make claims you cannot back up; and now 3) to stop speculating about me. And, from a person who plagiarised on the Monroe article (& presented an innacurate version of his interactions with slavery specifically to put him in good light- likewise based on your opinion & not the source), it seems strange you would dare lecture me on scholarship, professionalism or opinions. I warned you there about your scholarship & I'm warning you now about personal attacks. You can focus on the problems with the citations or pretend I'm the problem. Ebanony (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Parking previous reference #86

...ref name="Note"... He has gained fame around the world as a quintessential example of a benevolent national founder. Gordon Wood concludes that the greatest act in his life was his resignation as commander of the armies—an act that stunned aristocratic Europe. Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992), pp 105–6; Edmund Morgan, The Genius of George Washington (1980), pp 12–13; Sarah J. Purcell, Sealed With Blood: War, Sacrifice, and Memory in Revolutionary America (2002) p. 97; Don Higginbotham, George Washington (2004); Ellis, 2004. The earliest known image in which Washington is identified as such is on the cover of the circa 1778 Pennsylvania German almanac (Lancaster: Gedruckt bey Francis Bailey). .../ref... (substitute < and > for each appropriate set of three periods...)
At least one page citation is incorrect, tone of initial sentence is an issue. Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

George Washington was not a "deist"

I would rather the administrator refrain from commenting on the religious beliefs of George Washington then mislead the readers in describing him as a "Deist". A "Deist" is someone who believes that God created the world but remains indifferent. George Washington, as can been seen in many of his writing's was far from indifferent to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela2411 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a {{fact}} tag on the Diest comment. SilkTork *^YES! 14:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Washington never personalized his relationship with God. However, Boller contends that he was a practical Diest who had beliefs that the "Supreme Being" did in fact influence human events such as the American Revolution. Washington, in effect, had a fusion system of Diest and Calvinist beliefs. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

George Washington's religious beliefs fell squarely within the mainstream Anglican Church beliefs of his time. Religion in the life of George Washington was analyzed and presented by one of the foremost experts on his life, Mary V. Thompson, in her 2009 book, "In the Hand of a Good Providence" (University of Virginia Press: Charlottesville, VA; 2009) (251 pages). Thompson drew upon her 20 years of study as a Research Historian at George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate, combined with her upbringing as the daughter of a Baptist chaplain in the U.S. Army. She exmaines not only Washington's personal writings, but the religious views of his mother, wife, and close friends. It is the definitive study of Washington in his own time. Thompson concludes that Washington was a "Latitudinarian" (which, today, would be considered "Low Church Anglican), who held only the most basic/core Christian beliefs, and a wide latitude (liberal beliefs) towards church practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swegam (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The primary act of the Christian belief is taking communion instituted by Christ at the last supper. Washington refused to take this communion. Being a Christian is a personal experience with Christ. There is no writing or any acknowledgement from Washington that Christ was his savior. The Anglican church practices communion and acknowledges that man is a sinful creature. There is nothing in Washington's writings that mentions anything about the deprevaty of man or that Washington himself was a sinner. The Ten Articles (1536) by Thomas Cramner as early as 1536 advocated penance and confession. Only Washington knows why he did not take communion, however, the refusal to take communion is in essense a rejection of Christ's work on the cross. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Party Bias

George Washington should not be associated with any Political Party; past or especially current. He discouraged for the formation of parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.131.90 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, George Washington was not affiliated with, or by association with Jefferson's "The Republican Party", a founder of the "Republican Party" of this future. The prose seems to be from an un-cited quote, as well. 2to2to2too2to2to2 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph of 'French and Indian War' section

To me, this paragraph seems somewhat out of place. The tone is problematic - most of the rest of the article is fact-based while this paragraph is hagiographic in its use of adjectives. Also, regarding the timeline presented within the article, the paragraph draws some fairly weighty and final conclusions about Washington's character-development & military-knowledge. I don't know what (if anything) should be done, group-consensus will rule, but to me it just doesn't seem to fit, that's all. Also I am not sure about MOS citation-forms for e-books...how can I verify statements from an e-book [2] since I don't know where they are in a physical copy? Shearonink (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think some sort of summarization of what GW learned, and how his actions enhanced (or hurt) his reputation during the F&I war is appropriate. The last sentence of Rjensen's contribution is clearly somewhat over the top; that sort of assertion needs to be demonstrated (e.g. by reference to GW's or other relevant period writings) rather than baldly stated. Ditto things like "followed him without question". I also agree that citing a Kindle location number, whatever that is, is virtually useless for identifying where to find something in other forms of the cited work. (Yes, I do know what a Kindle is.) Magic♪piano 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kindle references...

I raised the question of how a Kindle reference should be stated here: Citing e-books as sources. The best suggestion I've found so far is for the form to pretty much follow this example:

Albert Einstein, The World as I see It. Citadel: 1933; republished by Kindle [undated]; material cited from "Chapter (X)" at ¶This is the start of the cited paragraph… -- Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1) I agree re Kindle cites; 2) no it is not "hagiographic" whatever that means. It is a summary of what scholars say about GW (in this case based on Chernow, but many other RS say pretty much the same). The problem is to explain what makes him a world famous military leader--one that many thousands of men followed and admired, for as they said, he was "first in war." Rjensen (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

2)Hagiographic means "excessively flattering" definition. Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

the complaint about the last sentence is misplaced--it closely follows Chernow (last sentences of his ch 8). Here is what Chernow said: "most important, his experience in French and Indian War made him a believer in a strong central government and a vigorous executive. Forced to deal with destructive competition among the colonies, dilatory legislative committees, and squabbling, shortsighted politicians he had passed through an excellent dress rehearsal for the prolonged ordeal of the American Revolution." Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is what Chernow said, then that is what he said... In my opinion, the paragraph as it now stands does not closely follow Chernow's thoughts but instead has expanded the author's original conclusions beyond the scope of his statements. Washington was a man not just a symbol, this is an article about George Washington the man. The terms used in the paragraph as it now stands refer mostly to the symbol and, frankly, at this point in the narrative Washington the man could just as easily have been considered a military failure. I think that yes, Washington's experiences on the Western frontier shaped his character in many ways and agree with User:Magicpiano that a summarization (of what Washington learned during the French & Indian War & how his actions then enhanced or hurt his standing) is appropriate.

In looking at history, I do think the actual people - how they lived, what they thought - are more intriguing than our perceptions of them. The person is much more intriguing to me than adjective-laden symbols seen dimly through the years. But whatever the editorial consensus is about this paragraph/section is fine by me. Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

our job is to report what the RS say, not to eliminate their analysis from this article. Many of the RS have explored the issue of when and how GW learned to be such a powerful leader, and especially how he learned to be a senior general. Chernow says he learned by watching the Brits very closely during the F&I war. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The fragment that piqued my concern in the last sentence was this: "his experience in French and Indian War made him a believer in a strong central government and a vigorous executive" (copied from above, but it's practically verbatim in the article). It appears to me to be Chernow's opinion, and should thus be presented as such if it's to be in the article. How does Chernow (or other biographer/historian) know what GW believed, and that his F&I war experience influenced it? (I accept that Chernow is a reliable source, btw, but we also shouldn't parrot their opinions in the editorial voice.) Magic♪piano 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How does Chernow know these things? He explains in his preface that he read the 60 thick volumes of GW's correspondence as well as thousands of letters and comments other people at the time made about GW, not to mention all the major studies by other scholars who also worked through the same materials, as well as numerous studies of other leaders at the time (Chernow has written biographies of Alexander Hamilton and other big name leaders). That's what historians do for a living and to call it "opinion" is seriously misleading. It professional judgment based on enormous research.Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My point about attribution vs. editorial voice is equally applicable if you substitute "judgment" for "opinion" when talking about what someone dead 200+ years believed (in the absence of documentary support). Magic♪piano 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Chernow studied tens of thousands of documents, as did the other major biographers. Undergraduates have "opinions" based on reading a chapter of the textbook; scholars make judgments based on studying thousands of sources and comparing the judgments of other scholars. Their books are reviewed by other scholars and become the standard interpretation. Wiki reports the standard interpretation, as well as any minority judgments by other scholars.Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, that didn't address my point at all. Some scholars, including those writing for a popular audience, actually manage to quote some of those thousands of documents they study to justify their conclusions and illustrate their points; why can't Chernow (or some other of the many sources you are implying contain similar judgments) do so to illustrate this alleged belief? Magic♪piano 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for GW to say "I did ABC because of XYZ" you won't find it in the popular authors either. That's because GW (as Chernow explains at length) always kept a poker face and did not tel;l people his motivations. Jefferson and FDR were exactly the same way. (Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, by contrast, did explain what they did). What lessons did GW learn as a young soldier? Every historian has looked at the matter and there is not really a lot of disagreement. Besides Chernow look at Freeman 1968 abridged ed. pp 135-39; Flexner abr ed. pp 32-36, Ellis ch 1; Higginbotham 1985 ch 1--they all work on the problem--and they use the same approach as Chernow, with few quotes from GW. Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking for "smoking gun" quotes; I'm looking for plausible indicators, rooted in contemporary language, that his opinions on governance followed or arose from his F&I war experience (a connection I personally find somewhat strange, but not impossible). Even experienced historians get things wrong; I will be looking at other sources for evidence and opinions on this claim. Magic♪piano 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen - I know you don't need any lessons about how Wikipedia's articles are created and authored by consensus and according to general principles like Verifiability(with Reliable Sources) and Neutral Point of View. Let me be plain...I do not have as much of a problem with some of the conclusions reached in the F&I War final paragraph as I do with the general tone, especially two sentences, the fourth sentence and the final sentence. Words and phrases in the fourth like 'keen insight', physical grace (which hadn't been mentioned before in any of the other paragraphs), and hardiness (actually, Washington could be considered to be somewhat of a hypochondriac according to the articles by Drs. Vadakan and Wallenborn) in my opinion go beyond what should be expected of a neutral-in-tone encyclopedia article. I do think that Washington was the man of his hour and seemingly made for that time in history and had some type of charisma that made people want to follow him but that doesn't mean that he needs to seemingly be presented as some type of Colonial Saint. It seems to me that Chernow makes a giant leap from how Washington's experiences on the frontier during the French & Indian War gave him experience in command to "(it) made him a believer in a strong central government and a vigorous executive". Really? When he was hacking through the wilderness in Western Pennsylvania he was still a British subject and didn't become revolutionary until perhaps the early 1770s, and yet the reader is supposed to believe the experience is what made him believe in a strong national government (like in the Articles of Confederation?.. or in the Constitution)...so I suppose I do disagree with the great Chernow.

Anyway, I do think we all need to remind ourselves that everyone participating in this discussion should be assumed to acting in good faith and that while some areas of Wikipedia might be languishing at present here there are many editors who are willing and able to work, really work on this article to improve it back to its former status. We should all be able to do that with each other and together. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

MagicPiano has a valid point: the edit appears to be almost identical to the text in question. Rjensen wrote on Oct 6 above:

"most important, his experience in French and Indian War made him a believer in a strong central government and a vigorous executive. Forced to deal with destructive competition among the colonies, dilatory legislative committees, and squabbling, shortsighted politicians he had passed through an excellent dress rehearsal for the prolonged ordeal of the American Revolution."

Now compare that to the article

" His experience in the British Army made him a believer in the importance of a strong national government, and a vigorous executive agency, and gave him the diplomatic skills necessary to deal with officials at the local and colonial levels."

Rjensen, please remove the plagiarised text. Ebanony (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

plagiarism = taking credit for originating some IDEAS; here all the credit is given to Chernow. So it's not plagiarism. It's a paraphrase that accurately reflects what Chernow was saying and gives him the credit, which is what Wiki recommends. Rjensen (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In conformity with Wikipedia's policy on plagiarism & copyright infringement, I have removed the section in which the above text appeared. Some text was copied & pasted. This editor (Rjensen) has ignored an earlier request here as well as mine to remove the text; as an experienced editor, he/she should know the policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations & http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use This is not the fist article on which he's plagiarised text and been warned for it. If other editors want to contribute on said topic, they should make a complete rewrite using an easily verifyable text & with explicit page numbers, not chapters only (this is too vague). Ebanony (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And no, your definition does not match that of the dictionary "the practice of taking someone's else's work or ideas and passing the off as one's own." This is what you did when you copied the text; citing Chernow but taking his words is plagiarism. A paraphrase "express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity." Oxford English Dictionary. See Wikipedia's policy "If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless duplication is limited and clearly indicated in the article by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism Anyone who looks at the text can clearly see that is what you did. Ebanony (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ebanony needs to check again and see if he's satisfied.Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of plagiarism is incorrect; it is not limited to "ideas". Chamber's Dictionary says "to copy (ideas, passages of text, etc) from someone else's work and use them as if they were one's own." http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=plagiarism&title=21st You copied text without quotes, so even if you cite Chernow, you're still claiming its your writing. I've warned you before about plagiarism & copying text. Your editing has made working on this article more difficult for other editors like Shearonink & MagicPiano to work on this article. You're wasting their time on your editing. Please follow the guidelines. See your talk page. Ebanony (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

plagiarism means for Wikipedia to take credit for Chernow's words, and Chernow was always given the credit--both in the article itself and on this talk page. To repeat one more time, does Ebanony have any problem at all with the current text? Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's what you say; I've instead posted Wikipedia's policy & urge you to read it on copying text; as to your current edits, one cannot be sure they meet Wikipedia's standards because you continue to argue that your opinion, not written policy on plagiarism, is what counts (in your talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen#Plagiarism_.26_copyright_infringement ).

In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, I'm notifying other editors that these problems hace been referred to administration:Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copying_.26_pasting_of_copyrighted_text I'm sorry to do this, but you refuse to even admit there's a problem despite numerous warnings freom more than 1 editor in more than 1 article. Ebanony (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing - editors continually going against this have been blocked in the past. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform other editors, the administrators say they have resolved the dispute I raised with Rjensen. Anyone interested in copyright/plagiarism in this case should see Dougweller's comment above and the other administrators' opinions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copying_.26_pasting_of_copyrighted_text

Maybe we can work together to improve this article & avoid similiar problems/misunderstandings in future. Ebanony (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Influence of French and Indian War experience on opinions

Setting aside the plagiarism/copyvio debate, I surveyed a number of Washington biographies yesterday, including but not limited to works of Freeman, Flexner, Ellis, Ferling, and Higginbotham, with the specific question of whether or not his French and Indian War service influenced his opinions on a strong central government, as asserted by Chernow. While I didn't read thousands of pages (I primarily searched indexes for potentially relevant subject material pages), everything I could find connected his opinion on this subject to his revolutionary war experience, specifically his difficult dealings with Congress and the states. This suggests that if Chernow says this, it's not exactly a mainstream opinion.

So the question that I ask of User:Rjensen is: what does Chernow base his opinion on? (Rjensen incorrectly described something he attributed to Fischer in a recent edit that was obviously wrong; is it possible that Chernow is mischaracterized here?)

Sentence at issue: "His frustrations in dealing with government officials led him to stress the advantage of a strong national government, and a vigorous executive agency that could get results". If my research is not far off the mark, a more nuanced writing would be appropriate: "Although historian Ron Chernow suggests that Washington's later advocacy of a strong central government was rooted in his experiences in this war, other biographers typically ascribe this position to his later Revolutionary War experiences." Magic♪piano 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano, despite the snide and unnecessary asides, makes an interesting point. The other biographers all agree he was unhappy in the 1750s re how political failures interfered with his mission (for example, not enough troops), and likewise was VERY unhappy with similar failures in the 1770s. In the 1780s he demanded a strong national government and historians agree that this was rooted not in theory but in his experiences in warfare. Chernow says the root of the idea that a strong government was needed to wage war came in the 1750s. Do other biographers deny this? I think only Ellis comes close, but Higginbotham (p 42, 48) leans to the Chernow position, noting that GW had "had first-hand knowledge [from the 1750s] of the inability of Virginia and her neighbors to execute joint undertakings" Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that I had a datapoint that you (presumably unintentionally) incorrectly used a source. If my tone offended you, I apologize. I have plenty of reason to assume good faith, and actually think that much of your contribution has merit.

In any event, I have now read the relevant parts of Chernow, and do not think you have omitted anything of importance; my dispute (as I suspected) appears to be with Chernow. Although he states this as a conclusion, I don't see how he arrived at it from the preceding materials (his entire coverage of the F&I war). This is a defect in either his writing, his conclusion, or my comprehension of it. Based on the fact that I understand other biographers' arguments on the point (bolstered by contemporary quotes), I'm inclined to believe the issue is Chernow, not me. Most of what GW was learning then was politics, leadership, and working with power centers; I have to wonder why the idea of "strong central government" would have even been on his radar in 1758. This is much more obvious in the context of the revolution and the non-functioning confederation.

Other biographers don't deny what Chernow says; they seem to entirely ignore the F&I war in their reasoning. For example Ferling, Ascent of George Washington (link), pp 258ff, quotes from GW's writings on the subject in the 1780s, and mentions "wartime experiences" as playing a role, but the context is fairly clearly revolution and Congress. In discussing the aftermath of the F&I war (pp 42ff), the subject is absent. Magic♪piano 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Chernow has made an original point--how the reviewers will handle it I can't predict (maybe this discussion on Wikipedia will alert reviewers to the issue! Rjensen (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Further up, you justified inclusion of this material as "what scholars say about GW (in this case based on Chernow, but many other RS say pretty much the same)". Since that doesn't seem to be the case, what do you think of the language I proposed above? (I will provide a few citations from the "other biographers" in due course.) Magic♪piano 22:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph in question has been completely rewritten with footnotes 35-41 now pointing to the conclusions not just of Chernow but also Ellis, Higginbotham, Fischer, and Freeman and Harwell. Chernow on strong government gets one-half a sentence: His frustrations in dealing with government officials led him to stress the advantage of a strong national government, and a vigorous executive agency that could get results; --it makes no explicit link to the 1780s. By the way the first reviews of Chernow are VERY positive Byrd says "this is far and away the best life of George Washington ever written." Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I was aware that you had rewritten the paragraph when I wrote the above; it still implies (by its presence in a section on lessons learned in the F&I war) that the position on strong government is rooted there, and widely supported by authorities (your claim is contra my research, indicating at best ambiguous support by other authorities). Hence my suggestion to modify. Magic♪piano 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate

The first three footnotes in the lead, regarding the calendar date of Washington's birthday, are distracting for the summary. I suggest they should be merged with the same information later in the main body of the text, where his birthday is discussed. Rjensen (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

With the addition of the 'Old Style' birthdate information added, does the first paragraph of the Early life section now seem a little truncated? Practically the only reason many schoolchildren or others know about 'Old Style" vs. 'New Style' is because of Washington's birthday. I don't know...guess I'm not sure where the information should go within the article. Shearonink (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of footnote(s) (and inline HTML comments) are needed just about everywhere that his birthday is mentioned, because of people who "helpfully" "correct" differences between Old and New Style dates (in this case, adding in confusion over when Old Style years begin). IMHO, the old style date and footnotes should be present in the lead for this reason (and, for reasons Shearonink expresses, these distinctions should not be relegated to footnotes in the Early Life section.) The whole business would be less obtrusive if the note material was all placed in a single note, rather than 3. Magic♪piano 13:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

we have changes every day that have to be reverted, so a "preventive" footnote is unnecessary. The lede should be as clean as possible--a long disquisition on calenders is misleading to most people interested in GW. Of course the details are given in full in the main text and there is no need for people to read them over twice. Rjensen (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the lead contain anything beyond both OS and NS dates, and a single footnote elaborating the distinction. (Yes, we have editorial breakages and vandalism to fix every day. This doesn't mean we can't try to minimize repetition of common problems.) Magic♪piano 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the OS-NS business is 1) too confusing for many. 2) The lede should tell people what is most important to know about, and the OS-NS business does not make the list of the top 100 important things about GW 3) worries about confused people making changes are exaggerated--the article is very closely watched and a troublesome edit will be taken care of quickly. Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Age at time of death?

This has to do with how Washington's birthdate/birthyear(1731 Old Style, 1732 New Style) are rendered. Today I have come across two different ages for how old Washington was when he died, one being 68 and the other being 67. Are there any definitive and/or scholarly accounts of what his age at his time of death should be? Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Any source that claims 68 is using incorrect date math, subtracting the OS date of birth from the NS date of death. The only correct way would require using dates from the same calendar (i.e. NS), at which point it's obvious that 1799-1732=67. I'd just cite a source claiming 67; if there is discussion or complaint, text can be added to the note explaining his birth date, extending it to the age at death calculation. Magic♪piano 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

On Slavery Lack of Neutrality & Steering

In the section On Slavery the following comment is there:

"Even if Washington had opposed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, his veto probably would have been overridden. (The Senate vote was not recorded, but the House passed it overwhelmingly, 47 to 8.)"

This citation link leads to:

"Washington makes no known comment on the Act, and signs it into law on February 12, 1793 (probably in his private office in the President's House)."

http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/slaves/numbers.htm

1) The article cited does not support the statement in the article. 2) The statement presents Washington as someone maybe interested in opposing the Fugitive Slave Act. There is no indication he would have opposed something he supported (by signing). Lacks accuracy and neutrality.

Problem 2:

"It has been argued that Washington did not speak out publicly against slavery, because he did not wish to create a split in the new republic, with an issue that was sensitive and divisive."

Source is Dorothy Twohig, "That Species of Property"

1) This selective comment directly implies Washington was against slavery. Where is the evidence for that? There is no concensus Washington was against slavery. This POV steering lacks neutrality by giving undue weight to that argument. Ebanony (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support of Catholics (Including giving funds to Saint Mary's Parish, Alexandria for their first church building)

Rjensen - Regarding this particular recent edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&diff=next&oldid=390397307 - "Religion: he donated some cash when asked by his ex-aide; very routine charity that is not notable for encyclopedia (and not based on RS--need info researched by his many biographers" The fact that Washington donated money to help fund the building of the first Catholic church in the Commonweath of Virginia is acknowledged to be a fact in your edit summary and yet to you this fact is somehow not important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? I assume you know that (according to 'Catholics and the American Revolution" "At peace with all their neighbors" (Page 242)) that when the War began there were a total of only nine Catholic men in Alexandria and one of them was Fitzgerald who became one of Washington's Aide-de-Camp and helped fund Saint Mary's parish-church. There were not many Catholics at that point in time in the area, they would most probably not be considered part of the plantation aristocracy and yet...during the War Washington insisted their rights be protected and he considered Fitzgerald an 'old friend' (Rjensen quote)
By the way... how does anyone know if this was a routine act of charity? And even if the consensus is that this act was a routine matter for Washington, wouldn't the idea that giving money away was routine (in this case to fund a church that was antithetical to the Virginia religious establishment of the day) be important? Washington's religious open-mindedness in these instances is what strikes me as important. Shearonink (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The link you posted doesn't allow one to read the text; is this the correct verson (there's also a vol 1 edition)? Here on pg 366 they discuss Fitzgerad in Alexandria & Catholics. But it seems 242 discusses supplies; am I following you correctly or is there a different version? http://www.archive.org/stream/catholicsandame00grifgoog#page/n382/mode/2up/search/fitzgerald Ebanony (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Ebanony, I made a mistake in the link, it should have been this: http://books.google.com/books?id=sdBKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA347#v=onepage&q&f=false . Shearonink (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether it is important in the life of Washington. All of the biographers have decided to skip it as unimportant. Chernow mentions Washington was very generous and gave $ to many charities (Chernow: as Philadelphia's "foremost citizen, Washington took the lead in dispensing charity to widows and orphans." He often attended charitable events and fund-raisers. He was especially generous when former aide's needed help--for example he paid for the education of the son of Gen Greene when Greene died poor. It was another aide who ran the Catholic fund.) Chernow states that as president he made a point of attending church services at numerous denominations (not just Episcopalian but also Presbyterian, Quaker, and Catholic) -- but no one tells this trivial episode of giving some $ when a former aide was chairman of the building committee. So why is it important? One other point: antithetical to the Virginia religious establishment is false. The Anglican Church had been legally disestablished in Virginia at this point and was under a cloud because many ministers had been Loyalists in the war.Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. You've quoted the mighy Chernow....and said 'all of the biographers have decided to skip it as unimportant' and have characterized this act as 'trivial', 'unimportant' and have characterized my posting (re:Virginia religious establishment) on a talkpage as 'false' (I would think most Virginians would probably have considered themselves to be Anglicans before the War, not sure what the exact church membership statistics were afterwards)....I hadn't heard about it but I suppose this is some new way of building up consensus. Anyway, so perhaps if there isn't now maybe there should be some text in the article about Washington's acts of charity, generosity and ecumenicalism since that speaks to the man's character. Shearonink (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm great minds think alike?...there *are* some sentences about Washington's acts of charity in the article now... Shearonink (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)