Talk:George Washington/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Please insert an external link to www.wartonstoswald.co.uk - this web page shows geneological links to the village of Warton in Lancashire UK. The featured Church has a ancient stone featuring the Washington crest upon which the Stars and Stripes is supposed to have been founded, along with a grave stone of one of the Washington family. The Church flys the Stars and Stripes on 4th of July each year, a flag that has been donated, and periodically renewed by a regular visitor from the USA.

Christos69 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done While the request was presumably made in good faith, there is a concern that the link would run afoul of WP:SPAMLINK.--JayJasper (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) Washington assumed command of the Continental Army on July 3, 1775

(edit request) George Washington assumed command (in-person) of the Continental Army on July 3, 1775, thus coincidentally, making the next day - July 4th - his first full-day as Commander-in-Chief.[ref]Lengel, Edward G. General George Washington pp 105-109, (Random House, 2005)[ref]

- Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The fact that he was appointed is sourced within the article, the actual date is not. Please provide a source for the July 4th 1775 date. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

[ref]Lengel, Edward G. General George Washington pp 105-109, (Random House, 2005)[ref] - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) Fabian "tactics"

The title of one of these sections asserts that Washington used "Fabian tactics." Washington pursued a Fabian strategy, not Fabian "tactics." There is no such thing as Fabian tactics. Please change the offending title to "Fabian strategy." The American Fabius will thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.131.132.186 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) Step-son John Parke Custis "Jack" died at Yorktown 1781

(edit request) After the British defeat at Yorktown in 1781, Washington suffered a tragedy when his step-son "Jack" Custis died there. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) tweaks to Freemasonry: Fredericksburg Masonic Lodge #4, Masonic ceremonies of Federal City southern boundary & laying of Capitol cornerstone Alexandria Masonic Lodge #22

(edit request) George Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredericksburg Masonic Lodge #4 http://masoniclodge4.org/index.php/history/history-of-lodge-no-4 . He was the main participant in the Freemasonry ceremony of March 15, 17-- at the laying of the Southern Boundary of Federal City ('Capital City', later known as Washington DC). GW also led the Masonic ceremony of the laying of the cornerstone of the US Capitol Building on Capitol Hill (previously Jenkins Hill) on Sept. 18, 1793. "Lodge #22 of Alexandria turned out in all their regalia and symbols of office" [ref]Ketchum, Richard M. The World of George Washington (American Heritage, 1974). I will find (or someone else will find) more references for these important editions to the article. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've produced a couple good references above. Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) Step-grandson/adopted son George Washington Parke Custis & step-grandaughter/adopted daughter Eleanor Parke Custis ("Nelly")

(edit request) "Lacking any children of his own, he had adopted Martha's two young grandchildren".[ref]Ketchum, Richard M. The World of George Washington p.251 (American Heritage, 1974). (There are many more references.) Step-grandson/adopted son George Washington Parke Custis & step-grandaughter/adopted daughter Eleanor Parke Custis ("Nelly"). Custis' daughter Mary Anna Randolph Custis would be the only remaining descendent of Martha Custis Washington. She married Robert E. Lee becoming Mary Custis Lee and they inherited Arlington House which at that time, had more Washington memorablia than Mount Vernon. [ref]Pryor, Elizabeth Brown Reading the Man - a portrait of Robert E. Lee through his private letters p. 49 (Viking, 2007)[ref] - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(fix request)

Could someone fix the birthyear (O.S.) from 1731 to 1732? It is mentioned in two places (main body, and in the footnotes). Apparently, other sites have glommed on this wrong year. -- GerardSchildberger (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but I suggest you take a look at the article's Note 1, at the article's first paragraph which states: "George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731]", and the many times this issue has been brought up previously on this talk page (every year since at least 2009). Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, I see from that article concerning the way the O.S. year was rendered. How about tieing the "Note 1" to the mention of the O.S. birthdate in the main body? I was trying to find G.W.'s birthday (Gregorian and O.S.) and there wasn't any tie-in to a footnote, and nothing in the talk page that hinted of this amount of of misunderstandings. Without your link (above), I would've never found the archived talk page discussing this issue, and I still have trouble navigating to that page without your link. Since this is such a common misunderstanding (and is sure to get more "hits" (misunderstandings) of this nature in the future), a link at this point (at the first mention of the O.S. birthdate in the main body) would save everybody's time. By the way, your quoted text (following "Sorry, but I suggest you take a look ...") from "Note 1" doesn't match what I see for "Note 1". -- GerardSchildberger (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Note 1 states:

Contemporary records, which used the Julian calendar and the Annunciation Style of enumerating years, recorded his birth as February 11, 1731. The provisions of the British Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, implemented in 1752, altered the official British dating method to the Gregorian calendar with the start of the year on January 1 (it had been March 25). These changes resulted in dates being moved forward 11 days, and for those between January 1 and March 25, an advance of one year. For a further explanation, see: Old Style and New Style dates.

I think this seems as clear as the issue can be made, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your point? In any case I have moved the first use of the "Note 1" cite to the first mention of the 'Old Style' birthdate. Also, when the article's editing window is opened up, there is an internal note stating:

Please read before editing!

Please, before you change anything about these dates, see the discussion on Talk:George Washington (Old Style Date section) and read the links in Ref #2. February 11, 1731 is the 'Old Style'/Julian calendar date for Washington's birth, February 22, 1732 is the 'New Style'/Gregorian (modern) calendar rendering of the date. Neither is incorrect and the 'February 11, 1731' date is correct as long as it is delineated as 'O.S.' or Old Style.

This internal note seems to perhaps be out-of-date and should probably be altered but I *think* an admin would have to do that. I'll see if I can find someone to fix it up a little bit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(fix request) "American Revolution (1775–1787)"

The fourth paragraph of this article is entitled "American Revolution (1775–1787)" but the American Revolution lasted from 1775 to 1783, not 1787. So shouldn't it be "American Revolution (1775–1783)"? Furthermore, the paragraph ends on the year 1783 and not 1787.

The heading was changed by another editor to show the end year as 1783. —ADavidB 11:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Can someone please remove the last paragraph of the Religion section? I've been tracking this article for a while since I first saw this, and I'm baffled that something as unencyclopedic as this paragraph has persisted for so long. 71.219.46.239 (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind. I didn't realize that it was quoted text from a podcast. It doesn't seem formatted like quoted text, but this might be an artifact of my mobile device. Apologies. 71.219.46.239 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

some dates and information are missing such as role in boston massacre and other events relating to the constitution 24.45.109.211 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My editing of the idea that Washington was the "universal" father of our country

Prior to my edit the previous writer had written that Washington is "universally" regarded as the father of our country. I feel that "universally" excludes any dissenting voices. Like all leaders Washington had many dissenters, both contemporary and since his death. He also was known to be a modest man about his own achievements, so I suspect he may have blushed at the idea of being known by all as the father of this country. :-) So in lieu of "universally" I put "has historically been regarded by many" which is more accurate in my opinion.Matthewdgonzalez (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No GW did not have any dissenters on this point. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible hatnote Linkage to the Simple English version of this article

I have been keeping an eye on the Article Feedback for this article. There are multiple posts that indicate some readers are having difficulty fully understanding the content, for whatever reason....maybe it's the sheer length or size of the article, could be the advanced level of the language used, the reader might be a student or comes to Wikipedia with English being their second language... I think a hatnote at the beginning of the article with linkage to the Simple English George Washington article would be very useful as a method of outreach to Wikipedia customers/consumers/readers who need to know that this content exists in a more easily-accessible form. Yes, yes, I know that there is a link to Simple English over there on the side, between Sinhalese and Slovenian, but how many casual readers are checking those side-links out? Would appreciate any thoughts about a Simple English hatnote (as seen in one possible form here). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

that's a good idea. it's a job typically done by teachers, parents or friends, but that assumes THEY know about the Simple Wikipedia. This will help them all. Rjensen (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the GW Article Feedback, I see about 4 statements that people are looking for simpler material, and some that they are bored (which they may be also with the simple article). I think this issue ought to be addressed not on at article-by-article level --- for then we would soon end up with thousands of articles with the same kind of hatnote --- and also many without one where there were simple versions. Many articles already have far to many "other places to look" links atop the article. A more systematic approach would be to bring this up community-wide for all articles that have a Simple-wikipedia page. I do agree that a more prominent link to Simple wikipedia would be helpful - but not just for this article. Having only SOME articles with the hatnote would make it less likely that readers would learn to look for the already existing link in the left column (way down on the GW article) -- and some will assume there is no such article if there is no hatnote. A more prominent link does seem to be a good idea - maybe 1> an icon that says "simple version" on the same line as the title - for all articles that are also on simple wikipedia OR 2> put the simple one first IN BOLD on all pages that have a simple version. (Likewise, the simple version should have a MORE prominent link to the full version.) However, the GW simplewiki article does itself also have serious issues in promulgating unexamined myth - and it too would not satisy those in the feedback who wanted to know exactly what he died from. We could also be less boring if we more directly stated he was the first president of the US, rather than "The Constitution established the position of President of the republic, which Washington was the first to hold."--JimWae (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are 4 that found the Article Feedback and posted shorter/simpler/"I'm bored" post, but there are possibly other readers with similar comprehension problems underrepresented in the sample who didn't post any Feedback (maybe they couldn't find it because the article's too complicated)?...

Anyway, funny you should mention the systematic approach, because I also posted about this issue at two of the Wikipedia internal-workings pages, first at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) with Possible hatnote linkage to Simple English versions of some general reference WP articles and also in a reply-post at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) in RfC complicated articles. Shearonink (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"put the simple one first IN BOLD on all pages that have a simple version." = very good idea. The problem is that wikipedia is optimized for editors, not for readers, and they give very little help to beginners. On the other hand it's the role of parents/teachers/friends to help the beginners in middle school and high school find their way around. Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Did this happen?

So, about the cherry tree, is that for real? SmartyPantsKid (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

it's possible. Parson Weems told the story and he really did interview a lot of old people who knew George 60 years earlier as a boy. Weems said they told him. The problem is that no one else did such interviews, and Weems was prone to embellish and exaggerate. Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd need to re-check the sources, but as I remember it is often suggested Weems took the story from an English book on moral etiquette from earlier in the 18th century and recycled it for Washington. Notwithstanding its truthfulness, I do wonder if a separate article entitled Cherry Tree story or Cherry Tree myth might be worthwhile given the prominent association with Washington. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Weems said he was told the story by people who knew the Washington family. There is no particular reason to doubt that statement. We know he was privy to important info on GW's youth (such as the navy cadet business). If the story was circulating it had to be GW's father who first told it. He may have invented it, but we have no reason to support that notion. Indeed, if the father says XYZ of a boy, then that is a reliable source. If Weems made it up, no one at the time challenged it. Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington's modern bios (or at least the two I have to hand) tend to be extremely sceptical:

• Chernow (2011): "Parson Mason Weems, who fabricated the canard about the cherry tree" (p.326) "he manufactured enduring myths about Washington refusing to lie about chopping down the cherry tree" (p.813)
• Ellis (2005): "The most celebrated story about Washington's childhood - the Parson Weems tale about chopping down the cherry tree - is a complete fabrication" (p.7)

The wider point I was making was that, whether the story is real or made up, it is notable enough to deserve its own article where the question of its veracity could be set out in greater detail. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Grizzard has the best discussion. He points out that historians today lack evidence one way or the other. Frank E. Grizzard (2002). George Washington: A Biographical Companion. ABC-CLIO. p. 46. The idea that it is a fabrication is based on assumptions not evidence. Grizzard makes the point that the historicity of the story was not Weems point, it's the moral lesson. I will add that Chernow & Ellis are making his own moral point (that historians today are not allowed to let moral values substitute for concrete evidence, which is why they use the language of criminality to condemn what Weems wrote.). Rjensen (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured two major British armies at Saratoga in 1777? What's the source?

I remarked on this sweeping, unqualified statement before (in May 2012), but it still stands. What is the source for this contention?

This is tantamount to, let's see, saying 'Because of Stalin's strategy, the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad in 1942-3.'

It's not that simple; and it is very misleading to the layman, because Washington was not anywhere near Saratoga, and given very primitive and slow communications, was hardly in a position to remotely guide operations over there (even assuming the local American commanders there would have listened to him). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerre1859 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Washington strategy was to prevent Gates from reinforcing Burgoyne. See The compact history of the Revolutionary Warby Richard Dupuy & Trevor Dupuy - 1963. They write: "The military analyst must unquestionably award to Washington's strategy the credit for these victories at Saratoga, which were to lead directly and inevitably—if somewhat slowly— to the final victory at Yorktown." (p 478) Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Presuming you mean Henry Clinton, not Gates? Magic♪piano 14:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2013

Found a higher-quality image of George Washington Sagerfrog (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your apparent intent to insert File:Real George Washington.png, based on your edit to George Washington University, is rejected. —ADavidB 09:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2013

Patmunson (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC) In the first paragraph the text "the Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation." is incorrect; the Articles of Confederation were not replaced by the United States constitution. The Articles of Confederation are part of the four Organic Laws, so it is impossible for them to be repealed and replaced. One of the Organic Laws, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, written about the same time as the Constitution, repealed a prior ordinance, so the Continental Congress and the Framers of the Constitution knew what words must be used to repeal laws. Those words can be found in the last sentence of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. Those words are found nowhere else in the Organic Laws. On May 25, 1787 the Constitutional Convention met in secret and continued to meet in secret until September 17, 1787, when the Constitution was given to the States for ratification by a least nine States, which would confirm the continued viability of the Articles of Confederation. Article VII of the Constitution establishes the Constitution between the nine States that ratify, so at that moment both the Articles of Confederation and this Constitution are still binding on those States. Ratification of the Constitution by all thirteen States confirms what nine States could accomplish under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation nine States could create a Committee of the States” that could conduct business while the United States, in Congress assembled were not in session. The nine States under the Articles of Confederation are the same as two thirds of the Senate of the United States. The Constitution created a new Union comprised of the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America in and without the original thirteen States, called the “United States.” The Congress of the United States was to have the power to legislate for these United States, but the States under the Articles of Confederation would remain as sovereign and independent as they had been before.

Also, the very next sentence states, "The Constitution established the position of President of the republic, which Washington was the first to hold." Again, this is incorrect; Washington takes the oath of Office of President of the United States, the Constitution created a new Union called the United States and the President of the United States takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The references are the actual Organic laws themselves; namely the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution. I am a student taking a very extensive course in Organic Law & government from a Constitutional lawyer of over 30 years. You can get all the information and more, including the course at www.EdRivera.com

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We don't operate under the Articles any more, so I guess it depends on your definition of "replaced". Nobody ever said the articles were repealed. If this is really true, I need to see links to actual pages with the content and consensus on this page to implement this change. Thank you! Vacation9 12:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Tales from the crypt

The article states: "His remains were moved on October 7, 1837 to the new tomb constructed at Mount Vernon, presented by John Struthers of Philadelphia.[133] After the ceremony, the inner vault's door was closed and the key was thrown into the Potomac.[134]" How is this possible when later members of the family were interred in the inner vault?  Giano  19:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don`t think anyone else was buried in the vault..I`ve been there..there are two tombs..one for him one for Martha both outside of the vault which as I remember was empty but I could be wrong..the tour guide said the caskets were left outside because when they constructed the vault they made a mistake and the door was too small for the stone caskets..there may have been other burials in the vault I just don`t remember but I don`t think so...you may be thinking about the old tomb directly behind the house where he was originally buried..there were originally several burials in there...there is a wall around his grave and a locked gate but I`m pretty sure whoever maintains the property has access..I don`t know about the key thing they never said anything about that..I know when they moved the body to the new location there were other family members in the original crypt--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere I heard that Washington commited massacre of women, children and old people in some French fortress of French, while he was working for Britain army...Is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.75.212 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

not true in any way. -- and no historian has ever alleged it. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Category:Spymasters is missing due to Washington's association with the Culper Ring. --108.38.59.50 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

plan to free slaves

I read a pretty good book a while back about a plan Washington had to free at least some of his slaves long before he died..it was resisted by local politicians and his wife..I can`t remember the name of the book or the writer but when I find it I`ll be back..I`m sure there are many references to him and slavery in the archives but as to whether this is included I don`t know..I`ll give it a look..the book was well written and referenced history and fairly recent..it probably should be mentioned in the article--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Henry Weincek's book, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America:http://www.amazon.com/An-Imperfect-God-Washington-Creation/dp/0374529515

In correspondence with Dr. David Stuart (who married the widow of Martha's son Jacky, and was stepfather to Martha's grandchildren), Washington discussed a scheme to free the "dower" slaves. The "dowers" were owned by the Estate of Daniel Parke Custis (Martha's first husband), and held in trust for their son Jacky — and, following Jacky's 1781 death, for Jacky's 4 children. Martha had control of the "dowers" during her lifetime, after which they were to be divided among her grandchildren.

Washington's scheme seems to have been to rent out the "dower" slaves as laborers to other plantations, with the income going toward buying the "dowers" from the Custis Estate. This scheme would have needed the cooperation of all the parties involved – Martha, granddaughters Eliza (and her husband), Martha (and her husband), Eleanor (still a minor), and grandson G.W.P. Custis (also still a minor).

We don't know why the scheme never panned out. Maybe there was not enough of a market to rent out the slaves, or maybe one of the parties objected and squashed the whole idea. Wiencek speculates that one or both of the married granddaughters' husbands may have been responsible. Upon marriage, the granddaughters inherited other Custis slaves, and the husbands speedily set about selling off those slaves.

-- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I really think the whole issue raises a lot of questions as to how he really felt about slavery..while he obviously accepted it in his youth he seemed to have eventually have some serious misgivings about it long before he died possible as a result of black soldiers serving with him in the war..from what I understand Martha was totally opposed to him on this but actually freed some of her own slaves eventually out of fear that they might turn against her..I really don`t know much about it as I`m not an historian..I do believe he was ahead of his time in a lot of ways and pretty much was only able to get away with it because of his wealth and influence at the time. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 14 May 2013

Category:Ninth President President George Washing was elected in 1789, after the United States had been a sovereign, independent nation for 13 years. Before him, 8 previous US presidents were elected, Each presiding for a 1-yer term, from 1782 - 1789. President John Hansen (elected 1782) was the first US president. More specifically, his legal title was "The President of United States in Congress Assembled" under the ratified articles of Confederation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.78 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Final illness

There was some disagreement among Washington's physicians as to the diagnosis. Dr. Craik's original impression was "inflammatory quinsy." Dr. Dick disagreed with that diagnosis when he examined Washington sometime later. When Craik and Brown subsequently wrote their account that was published in the news report, they called the diagnosis "cynanche trachealis."

We should be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that our modern-day meanings for these terms are the same as what the terms meant when used two centuries ago. The Wikipedia article on "quinsy," for example, defines that term as meaning a peritonsillar abscess. However, in the late 18th century, a number of different forms of quinsy were recognized, such as scirrhous quinsy vs inflammatory quinsy, the latter of which was further divided into various subcategories. The current Wikipedia article does not explore this history or explain how the current meaning of the term quinsy compares to what it meant historically. Cynanche trachealis and inflammatory quinsy were probably just very general descriptive terms for illness due to upper airway inflammatory disease, from our contemporary perspective, given the still fairly limited knowledge of human pathophysiology in Washington's day (and given his physicians' inability to perform any sophisticated diagnostic studies or a post-mortem examination in his case). Dezastru (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that medical terms yesterday and today do not mean the same thing.

Washington's primary cause of death was probably actually suffocation. His throat was so swollen by a severe sore throat infection (whatever type of sore throat his physicians characterized it as or whatever other commentators might theorize it was) with the additional complication of Hypovolemia Shock due to the loss of half his blood-volume from intentional bloodletting.

Now, that being said, all that the article can rely on is verifiable references from recognized medical experts or from those who were present during Washington's terminal illness and who left written records (Tobias Lear, Doctor Craik, Doctor Dick, Doctor Brown and his stepgrandson George Washington Parke Custis).

Craik & Dick published their account 5 days afterward in The Times of Alexandria, at that time calling the sore throat "cynanche trachealis". Dr. Brown wrote a letter to Dr. Craik dated January 2 1800 (found in The Writings of George Washington(Volume 14) on Page 257) which quotes Dick as saying "he assured us it was not really quinsey, which we had supposed it to be, but rather a violent inflammation of the membranes of the throat, which it had almost closed, and which, if not immediately arrested, would result in death." Lear's December 15 1799 letter to William Augustine Washington described the General's condition as being "quincy" (which he called "an inflammatory sore throat").

I have adjusted the text a bit and added some references. Shearonink (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Deist or Christian

I have seen in documentaries that and books that George Washington was a Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Maigne Event (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You would need to provide referencing from reliable sources that would verify such a change to the Infobox, merely posting a claim without providing specific sources does not prove your case. The present editorial consensus is that Washington most probably should be considered as a Deist, this doesn't mean that he was not a Christian, just that his flavor of Christianity/religion can be characterized as being on the "Deist" model. Please refer to the several previous discussions about this issue as found in this talk page's Archives here. Besides, infoboxes are intended to be summaries of article content, Washington's religion is covered within the Religion section and has a stand-alone article at George Washington and religion. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Spymaster

Shouldn't Category:Spymasters be added? See Spymaster and Culper Ring? --72.67.93.68 (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Informed feedback is needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page regarding whether we should list Architect in the info box on that page. The issue has been discussed at length there in the upper sections. -- Gwillhickers 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peritonsillar_abscess for the terms "quincy" and "quincey" in the section on his death

In the article for Elisha C. Dick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_C._Dick), an attending physician at Washington's death, the term "quincy" is linked to the article for Peritonsillar abscess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peritonsillar_abscess) In the George Washington article in the section under his death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Death) where the diagnosis is discussed, the terms "quincy" and "quincey" are both used. Linking these terms to the article on peritonsillar abscess would be consistent with the reference under the Elisha Dick article.

69.244.72.61 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Chris Garman, kazak9999@yahoo.com

George Washington is the 4th President of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckyfelldownahill (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Medical treatment at last illness included aggressive use of mercury

The doctors called in to treat Washington in his last illness were believed by some to have contributed to his death by the use of aggressive bleeding and excessive doses of the mercurial compound, calomel. The report of attending physician Craik, and the testimony of Washington's attendant Tobias Lear coorborate this event. Initially Dr. Craik bled Washington, and gave him “two moderate doses” of the mercurial compound calomel, and a suppository “which operated on the lower intestines”, and sent for his colleague Dr. Dick. When Dick and Brown arrived, they consulted with Dr. Craik. Washington’s attendant Tobias Lear reported that the physicians left the room as a group and that Dr. Craik returned and administered calomel. Dr. Craik’s report, co-authored with Elisha Dick, differed somewhat. He reported that “one of” the consulting physicians gave Washington “ten grains of calomel.”

I believe the possibility that Washington's death was caused not by his illness, but by the treatment of his own physicians, has great historical importance.

Mary Hammond (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Mary Hammond

Calomel is mentioned in the article's Note 8 as being part of the treatment Washington received before his death. The section about Washington's death in the article relies on published reliable sources and already mentions the various controversies surrounding Washington's death and the medical treatment he received during his last day at Mount Vernon. Eyewitness accounts mentioned in your post above are already referenced within the article: Craik & Dick's account (as published on Dec 31, 1799 in the Alexandria paper and from the UVA Collection of George Washington's Papers) is Reference # 137, Lear's diary account of the death is Reference 135, Lear's letter to Wm. Augustine Washington about George Washington's death is Reference 131. Modern articles by Doctors Vadakan, Felisati, Serati, and Wallenborn delve into the various controversies including accusations of medical malpractice that date back to almost immediately after the death occurred in 1799. None of the articles from reliable sources that I have read posit the theory that Washington died from mercury poisoning. Shearonink (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014

In the officeholder infobox, I believe the use of the "nowrap" markup for the "death_date" property may be throwing off the auto-extraction of this information by DBpedia (specifically, dbpedia-owl:deathDate). Washington is the only dead US president missing a DBpedia death date. I request that the "nowrap" mark-up be eliminated. Snorkelguy (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Done There's no reason it should have been there in the first place, I am fairly certain that {{death date and age}} applies it's own nowrap anyway... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Hello would any editor please kindly alter the statement about George Washington being an Deist. it is untrue and the only reason why Washington used the word "Providence" like any Founding Father was to refer to God in a reverent manner. "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God."-George Washington Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#Qwp87dQEJiUfd8AF.99 according to this quote the theory that Washington was an Deist is false. He most clearly used the name God and not any other. I am not denying that Washington never said Providence, I am simply saying he was not a Deist.

    Thank you if you at least read this.   

68.8.242.207 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There is a lot more information on this issue at George Washington and religion. Based on that I don't see any grounds to change anything within this article. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 03:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Today

Happy Birthday George. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice information but next time just try to give the day of George Washington's birthday which is February 22.Allied Rangoons (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations in lead

I was extremely reluctant to flag something so close to the top of an important page, but the introduction to this article makes sweeping claims that go unaddressed later in the article without providing citations. Among them:

• "He oversaw the creation of a strong, well-financed national government"
• "won acceptance among Americans of all types"
• "Further, the peaceful transition from his presidency to that of John Adams established a tradition that continues into the 21st century."
  • Is the peaceful transition of power really a "tradition"? Where did this come from?
• "Historians laud Washington for his selection and supervision of his generals, encouragement of morale and ability to hold together the army, coordination with the state governors and state militia units, relations with Congress and attention to supplies, logistics, and training."
• " After victory had been finalized in 1783, Washington resigned as Commander-in-chief rather than seize power, proving his opposition to dictatorship and his commitment to American republicanism."

I could keep going, but it would be silly to. I thought it better to add one flag at the top rather than using inline comments all over the place, though I may have been incorrect in that regard. Just wanted to bring it up. Thanks. Rabdill (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

those statements reflect the consensus of scholars...is any one inaccurate? Most of these are covered in footnotes 3 and 4 Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Retirement" sentence needs clarity

"The lands out west yielded little income because they were under attack by Indians and the squatters living there refused to pay him rent."

Which "lands out west" ? 66.225.161.37 (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In the article under the section: Between the wars: Mount Vernon (1759–1774) it states "with Washington subsequently receiving title to 23,200 acres (94 km2) near where the Kanawha River flows into the Ohio River, in what is now western West Virginia". That's most likely the land that's being referred to. 98.209.42.117 (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Colonel

Look, I know it says "rank: general" but it i think should be "rank: colonel" because the "rank: general" is inacurate, i think. because originally he was a colonel in the British Army he just got the promoted to general by either civilians with guns or by himself. and i do not think self or civilian promoted ranks count as official. i think a commander can only be promoted by a leader or supperior officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.202.56.178 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some neutrality issues in this article ex g.

"enormous stature" "declaring himself monarch!" et cetera.

I would edit it but some moron has disabled the function.71.34.240.167 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

" suppressed rebellion, and won acceptance among Americans of all types" im guess he didnt gain acceptance among the rebels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.56.59 (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

but he did gain their approval--they were very happy he did not shoot them (as happened in France at this time). Rjensen (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hemp Activist/Farmer

George Washington pushed for the growth of Hemp and even grew hemp himself. In may 1765 he noted in his diary about the sowing of seeds each day until mid-april. Then he recounts the harvest in October which he grew 27 bushels that year. He and Thomas Jefferson (also a hempnut) would also share the flowers of the plant for smoking. They both preffered this to drinking alcohol or using tobacco, which they both saw as health concerns for the new land.

George Washington also imported the medicinal Indain Hemp plant from Asia, basically Marijuana, which was used for fiber and intoxicating resin production. In a letter to William Pearce who managed the plants for him Washington says, "What was done with the Indian Hemp plant from last summer? It ought, all of it, to be sown again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raisied, but to have desseminated seed to others; as it is more valuable then common Hemp." He anxiously sent more letters to Pearce, to get the most out of the seeds.

Other president's known to have used cannabis include James Madison (claimed it inspired him to found a nation on democratic principals), James Monroe (used until he was 73 years old), Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Bill Clinton (pretty sure), George W. Bush (pretty sure), and Barack Obama.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.111.170 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent "New Yorker" quote edit

The points below are a repeat of what I stated on another editor's talk page regarding my reversion of his edit. In case others read the purported quote in the magazine and want to add the statement to the article, I thought the discussion should continue on the actual article's talk page.

There are a couple of problems I have with the purported quote/statement that were added/re-added to George Washington with this edit.:

• Even though the New Yorker article "says so", I can find no record of this statement being said by George Washington on his deathbed.
• Just in case the New Yorker writer was mistaken in her timeline/attribution, I did look for some record that he shared the sentiment elsewhere, perhaps in a letter, or was quoted as actually saying it in a conversation or in a speech but I was unable to find any record of this statement other than in the New Yorker article itself. If he did say or write this, I was unable to find any contemporaneous records in his collected writings (held at the University of Virginia) regarding "Beware of innovation" to someone or that he wrote it in some document.
• I cannot find any contemporaneous statements from any of the people known to have been in Washington's Mount Vernon bedroom as he was dying - Drs. Craik, Brown, & Dick, Overseer Albin Rawlins, Martha Washington, Personal Secretary Tobias Lear - that record him saying anything about innovation on his deathbed.
• The actual sentence that the quote appears in uses what I consider to be weasel words: "George Washington, on his deathbed, was said to have uttered these words: “Beware of innovation in politics.” So, my question then is, who is the ultimate source that Washington said these words? If literature somewhere states that George Washington said this sentence, who wrote it? Doesn't seem to have been any of the 6 people I mentioned above so I have to assume that it was someone like the hagiographer Parson Weems (whose book on Washington should be understood as morality tales for the young rather than as a reliable biography) and, since this source appears to be someone who came along after the fact then the alleged quote has to be regarded as basically unsourced and unreliable and should not be allowed to remain in the article.

Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks to Shearonink for the detective work. I think it's a sloppy mistake by Lepore. Many biographers have written on GW's death and none have reported any such statement. Lapore herself hedges --it's not clear she thinks he said it. The phrase "innovation in politics" was first used long after Washington's death-- in Britain in 1823 according to Google Perhaps a student assistant provided Lepore with a garbled line from Washington's Farewell Address that advised the people regarding changing the Constitution to "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts." I suggest that the student assistant may have thought "Farewell" = "deathbed" (surely Lepore would not have made that mistake--the Farewell text came when GW was still president and very much alive intellectually.) Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We should always use the best sources available. A magazine article about innovation is not the best source for Washington's last words, even if the writer is highly qualified. The farther removed from the subject, the less likely a fact is likely to be checked, the lack of footnotes makes it difficult for editors to check the origins of the mention of the quote, and publication in a popular magazine does not establish its significance. TFD (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014

George Washington was not the first president John Hanson was.

209.169.202.84 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Being President of Congress is not the same as being President of the United States of America. This has been discussed several times before. Please put John Hanson into the archive search box above - and see this article which explains it quite well - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

American

Shouldn't the lead state that he was American? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Yes, if you mean that he was born in what was to become and called America. -- Btw ...

Lede length

... regarding the length of the lede, I removed the tag because imo the lede for this article is comparable to other important/major subject articles with a word count that's not too long considering that it's the G.W. article with all the related history involved. We shouldn't always hold the same standard for 'all articles'. Lede and Page length guidelines should be observed, but with discretion, and exceptions allowed when warranted as in cases like this, imo. WC for the lede in this article is 823. Coincidentally, the Thomas Jefferson lede has a WC of 823 also. The FDR lede is 789, the American Revolution lede at 768, etc. All with larger than average ledes, all warranted. Will see if there's anyway we can trim things without making the prose read like a police report. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is quite right. Washington was an unusually important and busy man. Keep in mind that most people only read the lede and need a good overview in a nutshell. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

Section: Presidency (1789–1797) Change: The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a large sum in 1789. Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. To: The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a large sum in 1789. Washington, although severely in debt, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. Source: Chernow, Ron. "Washington, A Life." pp. 552-554

70.172.222.120 (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Done per the already cited source. went with "facing financial trouble" instead to be closer to source. Cannolis (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous reference to slavery being exclusive to Southern Colonies.

Exclusive reference to Southern Colonies having become slave societies is erroneous and misleading. The practice of slavery was widespread in the Northern Colonies as well, northern abolition haven taken place in 1840. Famed abolitionist and former slave Sojourner Truth was born in slavery in the Hudson Valley of New York. After having at least three separate owners ranging from kind to cruel, she was freed and became a prominent leader of the movement to abolish slavery in the South. The reality of Northern slavery is unfortunately swept under the rug and has lead to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of a significant part of history. 65.190.54.112 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence you apparently are referring to is, "At this time, Virginia and other southern colonies had become a slave society, in which slaveholders formed the ruling class and the economy was based on slave labor." While there certainly were slaves in northern colonies, no northern colonies met the criteria for a slave society as described in the bold-faced portion of the quote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

In the first para on Washington's early life, his date of birth under the Julian calendar (the first given) should be February 11, 1732 (i.e. not 1731) The gap between the Julian and Gregorian calendars was only 11 days, not a year and 11 days, and his Gregorian date of birth is correctly shown as February 22, 1732. The gap between the two calendars is adequately explained in the page on Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 referred to in the article itself. Carrick roads (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see the following:

• article's Note 1
• article's Note 2
• The 1st paragraph in the Recurring Themes section on this talk page

Please keep in mind that the Old Style calendar's 1st day of the year/New Year's Day was March 25th *not* January 1. Also, Slate.com's article "What's Benjamin Franklin's birthday?" explains the confusion over the Julian/Gregorian calendar dates.

The article as it now stands is not incorrect. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion

Okay I know very little about George Washington, but how can someone both be a deist and an Episcopalian? Christianity holds to a God that has revealed the Bible as his divine word, whereas deism believes in a God who has not revealed a divine text. So what religious belief did he hold to; deism or Episcopalian? They're mutually exclusive whatever way you look at them.--Enpassent 10:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enpassent (talk • contribs)

It was very common for people to be both a deist & an Episcopalian ( Anglican is the better term at this time). To be an Anglican means to follow the formalities Of the established church of England, which Washington always did. To be a deist is a theological position, not an organized denomination. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Washington & religion, instances of Washington using the word "God"

A recent edit (though improved from its previous versions) has added some additional sourced information and statements to the article. To me this information seems like it might constitute original research since these statements are conclusions drawn straight from Washington's writings but maybe I'm wrong - gathering an editorial consensus about this issue would be useful. Shearonink (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Being a new contributor I didn't realize it was better to cite a book versus original documentation. I read a book called George Washington's Sacred Fire a few years, which makes reference to the approximately 140 times Washington used the word 'God'. (Having forgotten the exact number I researched it myself and mistakenly came up with almost 200, but that has since been fixed). Here is the quote from the book (which may be better than the primary document citation I was using):

...[Washington] used the word "God" some 140 times in his writings. Furthermore, Washington used approximately 90 different respectful titles of God (some from the Bible, some not - Almighty, Great Governor of the Universe, Lord of Armies). On top of this, he used the word "Providence" approximately 270 times. Like the preachers of his day, Providence was either another name for God, or referred to the work of God in human history.

(I haven't completely figured out the Wikipedia ref system, so if there is a better way to write out the book please let me know.)Enoels (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Enoels - thanks for responding, and don't worry about not realizing stuff - Wikipedia is always a work in progress. I did leave a referencing help on your talk page about how to use the cite templates - it's pretty easy to use that, you just have to fill in the blanks of the form. Since I started writing this I see that another editor has deleted your text & refs, referencing how detailed the information was. The information would certainly seem to belong in the GW & religion article, I'll try to add it there. Shearonink (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This summary article has to cover all of Washington's career and it does not have space for elaborate details on his use of specific words that is much better suited to the "Washington and Religion" article. Rjensen (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I think we have this pretty cleared up, the only question in my mind at the moment is should I change the information in the "George Washington and Religion" article to include the quote from George Washington's Sacred Fire as it would probably be better than my original research? Also, thanks Rjensen for your added information, I think your revision is very neutral and good. Enoels (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

I would like to edit this document, theres some things that needs to be touched on it.

Best Regards, ~ Devin Fontan 165.155.204.127 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Please be more specific. What things "need to be touched on it"? You can request specific changes by using the "change X to Y" format. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

173.168.104.202 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC) he farted alot

 Not done Requests should be made in the form "Change X to Y" or "add Z between P and Q", and provide a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015

please im a historyin and alot of info is left out im just trying to help:)

Kaiden4o1 (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the place to request extra user rights. You would need to request confirmed status here: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Or you can wait 4 days, and make 10+ edits, and then you'll be autoconfirmed, allowing you to edit this page. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph and slavery

Later in the article, it's clarified that Washington had little control over the slaves that Martha separately owned (the "dower" slaves?). The third paragraph is a little confusing on this point when it states Martha's slaves went to her inheritors. In many jurisdictions today one spouse's property passes to the surviving spouse at death. So maybe the third paragraph should include a sentence explaining that, while Washington manumitted his own slaves in his will, he had little or no authority as to Martha's slaves under the controlling property law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.108.249 (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

i adjusted the sentences, hopefully the legal status of the various people held in bondage is now clearer.Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourced content about the ultimate fate of the slaves that lived at Mount Vernon...

Let's have a discussion as to whether the content removed in this edit should stay or if it should go. Also, if it does stay, should it be in the lede or should it be placed within the slavery section as this edit did. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Town Destroyer

Under what justification is the article for Town Destroyer not worthy of being linked to somewhere in this article on George Washington, and how is the omission of these of such a link consistent with NPOV?

While arguments have been put forth on the associated talk page Talk:Town_Destroyer claiming that there's too much content in the George Washington page to include this section, I find it most irregular and highly questionable that this page doesn't even link to the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickbeard (talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Any auto-confirmed editor can edit this article - your account is old enough and has enough edits, so you're able to edit the article and add the information if you wish to do so. The easiest place to add the link would be to the "See also" section since the article about Washington's Native American name & its genesis are not mentioned in the main article (which presently is over 600kb long). Shearonink (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be bold and make an edit. I saw there was already mention of this under the section here on the 7 years war, it says: "He was given the epithet "town destroyer" by Tanacharison.[38]". Why not make that a link to the town destroyer wiki article? I did by using brackets to make "town destroyer" Town Destroyer . Popish Plot (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

About Jumonville Glen

The Battle of Jumonville Glen, which is a singular paragraph in this article, is in need of some touching-up, considering that a decent amount of information is either incorrect or not included. As said in the article:

Dinwiddie sent Washington back to the Ohio Country to protect an Ohio Company's crew constructing a fort at present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. However, before he reached the area, a (1)French force drove out colonial traders and began construction of Fort Duquesne. A small detachment of French troops led by Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, was discovered by Tanacharison and a few warriors east of present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. On May 28, 1754 Washington and some of his militia unit, aided by their Mingo (2)allies, ambushed the French in what has come to be called the Battle of Jumonville Glen(Should be linked). Exactly what happened during and after the battle is a matter of some controversy, but a few primary accounts agree that the battle lasted about 15 minutes, (3)that Jumonville was killed, and that (4)most of his party were either killed or taken prisoner. (5 & 6)Whether Jumonville died at the hands of Tanacharison in cold blood or was somehow shot by an onlooker with a musket as he sat with Washington or by another means, is not completely clear.

(1)It should be known that a French convoy, led by Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, were parading innocently through the Pennsylvania Frontier, on their way as diplomats with a letter to make the British aware that they claimed the Ohio Valley. Washington, his Virginia militiamen, and his Native American "Allies"(See 2) came across them. Disobeying orders not to attack, Washington and his men(Not using standard British strategy, but instead sneaking up to them using Native American tactics. (2)Washington trusted the Indians very little. This isn't something that must be removed, but a different wording might be preferred. (3)There is no controversy to the fact that Joseph Coulon de Jumonville was killed in the attack. More of this topic will be discussed on numbers (5 & 6) (4)More specifically, there was only one escapee. (5)Jumonville was killed at the hands of the Native American, who was getting revenge for the murder of some family members at Jumonville's hands. Even more specifically, scalped. (6)Something that I truly believe is worth mentioning is the fact that George Washington actually confessed to the murder of Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, despite now being proved otherwise. It is believed that in an attempt to 'apologize', or something of the sort, Washington signed a document saying that he launched the attack, however he, unknowingly, also confessed to the murder in the document.

This is all in Kenneth C. Davis' book America's Hidden History, and I will read through the book and cite these if you feel these are necessary changes.

Рилеы (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Рилеы! You may correct whatever changes you think are necessary, as long as they are justified by a justifiable source. If you need help referencing, use this page to help you with that.

Also as a brief side note, can you change your signature to contain latin characters, as this would make it easier to type in. If you need help changing your signature, you can ask me here. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mount Washington

Under legacy there's a picture of Mount Washington, stating that it is the tallest mountain in the eastern United States. This statement is inaccurate. The Tallest mountain in the eastern United States is Mount Mitchell located in North Carolina.Bmanning6889 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)5/19/15

NCParks facts Mount Mitchell

You're right. (PS - Hope it's ok, I altered the forms of your references, other wise it looked like I added them). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

George Washington Being An Independent Is Wrong

This is wrong. In the party it should say "none" because george washington did not believe in political parties because he thought it would divide the country. North vs South and that these parties wanted more power. And this is not what he wanted. I can't change it since it's semi protected. If someone else can change it, it would be right.

99.109.57.201 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Christina Mcdermott

Just added more sources:

99.109.57.201 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Christina McDermott

References

Image Removed

I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding of text. A very similar portrait follows in the succeeding section. (File:George Washington in 1772 at age 40.jpg|thumb|right|Washington at age 40 (1772)) Hoppyh (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

For benefit of others, you're referring to the last image in the section shown in this revision.

I'm not sure whether, by "overcrowding of text", you mean that there are too many images, or that the image you removed was encroaching on the following section. I would disagree with the former, but I'll assume the latter. I have restored the image and eliminated the encroachment (for me, at least) by moving the image up one paragraph and shrinking it a little (it is now the same width as the image of Martha directly above it). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Postage Stamps

It has been my understanding from past discussions in other presidents' articles that some editorial consensus exists in opposition to the use, at least the overuse, of stamp images. The argument has been that in most cases stamps lack the appropriate level of "pertinence/significance" to the subject per MOS:IMAGES. Those pres. articles of FA status do appear to have been purged of stamps, or have a reduced number. Links are provided to the major stamp articles for the readers' use in these cases. If the article is nominated for FA review, this issue will likely arise. Hoppyh (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES does not mention stamps one way or the other. In my opinion, postage stamps are highly representative of the memory of a president, and provide the face that is in fact most often seen by the public. Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps acknowledging the double standard

In the sentence below the first two words "And perhaps" are mere conjecture. They should be replaced with the word 'Without" as there is no inference from the quotation of GW that "And perhaps" is in any way accurate, relevant, or apt. If there is some additional evidence that implies GW was aware of the monstrous irony of his statement, then it should be included, as it would be extremely informative as to the nature of GW's character to know if he was aware of the irony or to any degree ashamed of the hypocrisy:

And perhaps acknowledging the double standard of a slaveholder, he also said that Americans must not submit to acts of tyranny "till custom and use shall make us as tame and abject slaves, as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway."[76] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.174.12 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the statement is a POV-statement and has no place in the article. Look at the sentence construction - it is clear that the statement is editorializing on the behalf on the writer and that does not appear in the cited source, so I have removed it. Shearonink (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Lies and coverup should not be in Wikipedia: GW was the 1st President after the original U.S. government was disbanded

Somehow, American propaganda workers try to alter history by calling Washington the first President. There was actually another U.S. government that was disbanded (peacefully overthrown). This was the government under the Articles of Confederation. Washington was President under the second republic or second reich (not to be confused with the third reich, which is Germany under the Nazi party). Washington was NOT the first U.S. head of government. Dharahara (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dharahara: Please see Note 8, cited near the beginning of George Washington#Presidency (1789–1797):

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress called its presiding officer "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". The position had no executive powers, but the similarity of titles has confused some into thinking there were other presidents before Washington."

It is followed by the citation of what appears to be a reliable source. If you can produce reliable, published sources that support your view, you may present them here for consideration. Perhaps the article could give a little more space than one footnote to the question. Until then, the article appears to already give it appropriate weight. See WP:FRINGE. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Notes about thumbnails

Regarding the size of thumbnails, let's keep in mind that this is not a book or magazine article, where the image size you see is all that's available to you. These are thumbnails, and the reader is expected to click through to the full-size image if they want a better look at it. That's why the thumbnails are clickable links. In most cases the default size is the best choice (that's why it's the default), but tall images should use the "upright" parameter. A thumbnail can be made larger than the default using an "upright" value greater than 1, as in |upright=1.2, but this should not be done to save the reader a click-through. Per WP:IMGSIZE, px should almost never be used, and I don't see any justification for it in this article. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to remember is the user preference setting for default thumbnail size. If a reader prefers larger thumbnails, they can specify this in their preferences, and we should leave that decision to them. If a user has specified a larger default thumbnail size in their preferences, and an article uses a lot of "upright" values greater than 1, the thumbnails in that article will be too large for them. This practice diminishes the value of the user preference setting. Readers do have to register an account to specify the setting, and that is one of the many good reasons to register. The default thumbnail size (width) for unregistered readers, and registered readers who are not logged in, is 220px. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Most appreciative for your enlightenment here. I was unaware of the px rule - picked up the bad habit from a previous (misguided) mentor. Thanks for going to the trouble here.Hoppyh (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I should note that WP:IMGSIZE says: |thumb|upright=1.4 might be used for an image with fine detail, so that it will be rendered "40% larger than this user generally wants". This is inconsistent with the thinking in my first para above, in particular,

A thumbnail can be made larger than the default using an "upright" value greater than 1, as in |upright=1.2, but this should not be done to save the reader a click-through.

So, if someone wanted to oversize selected images with "fine detail" to avoid click-throughs, they would have policy support for that. I still wouldn't do it myself because, as I said, they are merely thumbnails in my view, simply graphical links to images, in some cases already large enough to make a click-through unnecessary. It bothers me not a whit that the maps, for example, are pretty much useless at 220px, and I fully expect all interested readers to click through to view those maps. And "fine detail" is a very fuzzy and subjective concept, anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the gallery

From this to this. The hover variation is an interesting concept but in my opinion there are some issues: 1)Image-size & Gallery now too large, 2)hover-captions & information now obscure the image they are pointing to. Any other opinions? Shearonink (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Monuments & memorials image gallery

I have removed the redundant $1 bill image since that should probably appear within its appropriate/home postage & currency gallery and have also moved the coin images to the postage-currency gallery as well. Shearonink (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Re: this edit

Zacwill16 added the Washington coat of arms in Early life (1732–1753), I moved it to the infobox in Ancestry of George Washington, Zacwill16 added it back here and thinks it should be in both places. My take is that good layout practice precludes any more thumbnails in that section, and there is really no other logical place for that image. I also disagree with Zacwill16's assessment of the relative importance of the image in this particular article. I'm ok with leaving it in while this is discussed, assuming we can get any other participation here (this page is fairly quiet). Although I don't propose that's it's equivalent, it's at least worth noting that this article already has a small version of the coat of arms at the bottom of the box generated by {{WashingtonSeries}}. Comments please. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't fit especially well in the "early life" section. I don't mind where it goes, as long as it's included somewhere in the article. I don't think the version in the "Washington Series" box is a suitable replacement, as it doesn't include the fact that the design influenced the American flag. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Rjensen disputes that "fact". As I said, the little one is not the same, if only because it's so little. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think he was actually disputing the claim that the arms are often said to have inspired the flag. At any rate, I've replaced the arms without the "often" and he hasn't removed them again. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

see "in our Seventeenth Annual' Report (1912), at pages 233—239, in discussing the origin of the United States flag, we showed that our flag was not derived from Washington's coat-of-arms" Annual Report of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society to the Legislature of New York. 1914. p. 267. Rjensen (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is a "false myth", it is a very prolific one and one believed by a number of eminent heraldists, e.g. Arthur Fox-Davies: "The stars and stripes were suggested by the arms of George Washington" The Book of Public Arms. 1915. p. 18. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

the Old myth was discredited in 1912 & has no place here. Fox Davies in 1915 was a Brit who had not seen the New York report when he gave a one-line mention of the old myth. Wikipedia depends on a RS on the FLAG not a foreign heraldist who knows coat of arms but is ignorant of the American flag. Rjensen (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the matters of substance to those who clearly know more about them than I do. As the layout advocate in this, I'll just say that, without the flag reference, all the image does is enlarge the little one and identify it as the Washington coat of arms. In my opinion that doesn't justify the added image clutter. That's about all I have to contribute here, but someone be sure to update Ancestry of George Washington when this reaches a resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Spartan7W has now removed the coat of arms from the Washington Series template, apparently because it doesn't conform with the Manual of Style. Zacwill16 (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

See Annual Report of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society to the Legislature of the State of New York. 1912. p. 235ff. What happened is that the myth originated in England around 1851 that the American flag was copied after the coat of arms of the Washington family in England. the English claim appeared in a poem By Martin F Tupper, that was widely reprinted in England, and therefore accounts for the beliefs in the myth by Arthur Fox-Davies and other British heraldists. The American effort to validate it 1912 shows there never was any evidence for the claim. the 13 Red and white stripes pattern is used in flags by 1704. thus the 1912 report found ""Our conclusion in regard to the stripes... Is that they are not copied from Washington's coat of arms." [p 236] As for the connection to stars, the 1912 report said that was quite unlikely (citing Washington's words). So the only "evidence" for the myth turns out to be an 1851 English poem. Standard scholarship on the American flag no longer mentions the Washington coat of arms. See William Furlong et al. So proudly we hail: The history of the United States flag (Smithsonian Institution 1981) esp p 99-101. Rjensen (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I don't particularly care where the coat of arms is placed. Seems the correct approach to describing it would be to acknowledge the popular myth and indicate that it has been debunked, although I think the relative importance of such detail in an article of this size is marginal. older ≠ wiser 14:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That detail sounds about right for Ancestry of George Washington, which could do with a little more text anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

About the coat of arms: did Washington or his family use the coat of arms during his lifetime? was it a known symbol of his branch of the family? In my opinion, if any of those are so, then the image should be included. If not, and it is a coat of arms that was in use only in British heraldry, then it shouldn't be included in this article. I think its appearance in the Ancestry article is fine. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

See Washington's bookplate. Zacwill16 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In detailing the Series Box for President Washington, these series boxes have a specific style and theme associated with them to reflect the office whose individual they represent. Washington was our first President, and he and other significant presidents who warrant a series box have the same, uniform style. This features the Presidential seal because it is representative of the office they held. In Supreme Court cases and public law articles here, we use contemporary seals to represent the various branches of government, even though the Great Seal did not appear in its current form until 1885. See Series Boxes Spartan7W § 15:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have modified Ancestry of George Washington for consistency with this article, in this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Wasn't there a president before him? Aaron Saltzer (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/FAQ#Q1.--JayJasper (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Misspelled / Incorrect word under heading "Defeat at New York City and Fabian tactics"?

Quoted:-

"Subsequently, Washington was forced to retreat across the East River at night. He did so without loss of life or materiel."

I accept that this might be a direct quote from literature of that age, but it looks odd in modern usage.

Is this correct?

ChrisJRMason (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be, per Merriam-Webster. It doesn't say it's archaic. M-W seems to think we need a diacritical mark there to be strictly correct, but they also show the word without one as a variant. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Legends of George Washington

Mabey some of the legends should be mentioned. "WASHINGTON THE ATHLETE BY ALBERT F. BLAISDELL AND FRANCIS E. BALL --- Many stories are told of the mighty power of Washington's right arm...In the days of the Revolution, some of the riflemen and the backwoodsmen were men of gigantic strength, but it was generally believed by good judges that their commander-in-chief was the strongest man in the army." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.40.123 (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)