Jump to content

Talk:George Washington/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

BS (Crossing the Delaware picture caption change: "Although Leutze's artwork contains a few historical inaccuracies, it invokes a deep sense of American national pride.")

I changed the note on the painting to this: "Although Leutze's artwork contains a few historical inaccuracies, it invokes a deep sense of American national pride." That should be good enough. Based on the article, which reads: "Due to the time that had elapsed after the titular event, the painting contains a few historical inaccuracies, Parrish says." Readers need to know that this painting in the history section of a wikipedia article is confirmed, grade-A primo BULLSHIT. Bullshit supporters, you should be ashamed of yourselves for foisting this shitty painting on the readers of wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This will make the ump'teenth time this mole-hill to mountain issue has hit the fan. The image was present in this article for years with no POV issues. Why don't we make an issue with the image of Washington? It seems his pose is a little too serious, and his hair color is not quite accurate. And were the buttons on his coat in production at this time? As was discussed, the image is allegorical, like the Statue of Liberty -- this stuff belongs in the appropriate article. It has nothing to do with Washington's life. Though Dr. Spok excelled at math and science, he couldn't quite comprehend poetry. Silly humans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Besides this painting, there is no painting in the history section of any wikipedia article which includes mention of the 'national pride' the painting instils in the hearts of the American people. That stuff is relegated to a section about the 'modern cultural impact' of a person on society. So why is this painting included in a history section of George Washington? I already brought up the fact that including this painting in this history section misleads children readers, etc into believing that wikipedia editors believe that the Betsy Ross flag existed in 1776. That's why this can legitimately be called 'bullshit' in my opinion: the flag didn't exist at that time. This is the reason why the painting shouldn't be included in the history section, or we should tell people about the inaccuracy of the painting, which was the point of my edit today. The '13 stars in a circle' flag didn't exist until 1792. If we had a famous portrait of Mao Zedong crossing the Yangtze during the Long March with a modern Chinese flag, it wouldn't go in the history section of Mao's wikipedia article, it would go in the 'modern culture impact' section, or if it had to go in the history section about Mao, we would tell people that there was a major problem with the painting. Since the bullshit is so strong, I can only fight it by adding info about the fact that there are major problems with the painting, and can't do the full delete or moving of this painting to a 'culture' section that it desperately needs. IMO, since this painting includes at least four major problems that can only be explained with reference to time travel, this painting is a pile of absolute SHIT. I await your restoration of my edit. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to make an encyclopedia here. Would a reliable encyclopedia include a picture with blatant historical etc errors without telling the readers? No. But if it did, an encylopedia would tell you what's up: 'hey, this painting is supposed to be about xxx, but it's full of problems'. That's what wikipedia is for: give people a neutral point of view. In this case, a neutral point of view requires telling the readers of wikipedia that this majestic, important and patriotic painting is, what must be directly referred to as 'bullshit'. The flag is wrong. The icebergs are from a German river. The boats are not proportioned. It happened at night. No matter how long you have discussed it, the result is wrong. Also, the article is not by Parrish, it's by what looks to be a student from Perdue. The 'national pride' claim thing needs ACTUAL DOCUMENTATION (a paper from a journal) not some kind of college journalism BULLSHIT. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm never looking at this page again. Don't ping me or contact me about your bullshit George Washington page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a painting. "College journalism" It came from a College professor Parrish. Whether the photo is article does not matter. Yes. It is an inaccurate painting. Maybe it is best just to say that the flag depicted did not yet exist in the photo using Parrish as a source or not have any caption. I think there is an over reaction here. Parrish was the source who said it is a source of National Pride. The painting is a depiction and not meant to be historically accurate. The artwork, although in accurate, is rather good. But it is artwork. We have been through this arguement before. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually he is correct that the source is listed incorrectly. The author of the Purdue Today piece is Amanda Hamon, not Parrish as the cite states. As I argued above, the article by Howat in the MoMA Bulletin is a far better source to direct readers to regarding the painting. The Purdue piece is more of a news or trivia item in conjunction with an event, while Howat provides historical analysis on the development of the painting, other works on the subject, and he lists supporting sources. And the MoMA Bulletin is a long-standing publication with a more academic tone than Purdue Today. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Purdue Today is the campus newspaper, so this piece is indeed written by a student. Art history professor Parrish is quoted, though much appears to be paraphrased, including the part supporting the statement here; a lot of the article is the reporter's summary from an unstated source. The article by the MoMA curator is clearly a superior source. I don't want to foul up the citation style and templates, but the source in the footnote should be: John K. Howat, "Washington Crossing the Delaware," The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 7 (March 1968), metmuseum.org, pp. 290-91, 297-98, link, JSTOR 3258337. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The source of the Article is Parrish who was quoted. I don't mind of the source citation is changed. It was that way originally. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Howart (1968) would be the best source for the photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

La Nota

  • Agree I reccomend keeping the note (la nota) in the Leutze Washington Crossing the Delaware painting at least until FA. I don't want an edit war over the issue. We just do not want any more controversy over the painting until FA. It is a one sentence note. We can't be continually disrupting the article over Leutze's painting. The note only focuses on the Flag and has a solid source. The note only serves as a compromise. Yes. Readers are smart. But this photo has generated controversy over the Flag. Let's keep the note in for now. Thanks. The viewership could be bumped up significantly by readers on FA. The note would keep the Flag controversy to a minimum. I think it is a fair compromise. The note is a safety net. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

What, we go against RFC's now?

We just had a massive RFC in March. The image of the crossing of the Delaware was to be kept and the note under the picture was not to be changed. I look today and there is this silly American pride addition. That's almost impossible to source and very non-encyclopedic. I changed it back to the agreed on RFC unless another full-blown RFC takes place, where we inform all the last RFC editors once again. I'm amazed that it slipped in after the big debate 2 months ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind the fact that the word should be "evokes". This is a pointless addition. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the contentious parts of the photo are the flag and national pride. It is an artistic painting and not meant to be accurate. Hopefully this issue can get resolved. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
What issue? The issue of whether the painting stays was resolved as "it stays", the issue of what caption to use was resolved as "keep it the same." We can have another RFC to see if that will change but we haven't so far. What are the specific other issues? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a painting, not a photograph. Do people really think that it is going to be an exact depiction of the event? --Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Once again, the painting gets the important stuff correct. i.e.Washington crossing the icy Delaware during the winter in a small river craft with his men. "German icebergs"? That's the best one yet. By several accounts, the ice was chunky due to fast moving river currents, and no one knows for sure the exact type of river craft Washington made the crossing in, as several types were used. — The background in the Gilbert Stewart portrait of Washington is dark, suggesting night time and he is wearing a black coat, with no buttons. Was it really night? The coat in the original draft is brown, as it is in this portrait with daylight in the back ground and Washington's coat having brass buttons. Let's all gather around and debate this for the next month, shall we? — Cm's last edits are fine. The painting is just an allegorical representation of the event. We don't give the painting a per-item crtique, in a biography, any more than we would for any other painting. Time to move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but reiterating what I stated in the previous section, the current cite is incorrect, and a clearly better source is available. At the very least the cite should be corrected. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay — To avoid all such issues in the future, we should just list the title and artist's name in the caption with no cites, as the filename in of itself along with the file summary has this basic information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about the citation in the footnote in the caption. Parrish is not the correct author. I do think the explanatory note in the caption should be retained, but with Howat as the source. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
A note has been added to the photo. It concerns the Flag. That seems to be the most contentious issue. It is a one sentence note and Parrish (2014) is the source. There is no mention of patriotism nor pride in the Flag. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see that adding a note/source is against the spirit of keeping the caption the same. So I have no qualms with the addition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Parrish is the person interviewed in the article. The article was written by the reporter. Citations are to the author of the work cited, not to the person interviewed. I think the addition of the explanatory note is useful, since this keeps coming up. But we should cite the academic journal, not a campus newspaper. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
All that needs to be said to clear this up is that it is an artistic representation by so-and-so made in the year such-and-such. If you can't understand that an artistic work created years after the event may not be an absolutely accurate depiction of that event I have to wonder how you manage to dress yourself each day, let alone use a computer. --Khajidha (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC) PS - Look at the depictions on the Battle of Hastings article. If we have to add these caveats here, imagine what would be needed there. "Actually, there were no giant letters on the ground spelling out words in Latin. Also, human and equine anatomies don't actually work that way." It's just ridiculous. --Khajidha (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you are addressing this to me. Why not respond to Geographyinitiative, who keeps bringing this up? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean it to be a specific reply to you, just meant as another comment in the discussion. And was not meaning "you" in reference to any poster, but in reference to a supposed viewer who might be confused by the historical inaccuracies. --Khajidha (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Recommended per WP:PA that comments be directed to the content not the contributor. Hoppyh (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Are we planning on adding notes on the inaccuracies of other artwork on this page, too? Because the image in the "Demobilization and resignation" section depicts individual's known not to be there. This is a totally silly proposition. Artistic works made decades after the fact are not expected to be totally accurate. --Khajidha (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Not every photo. This particular photo, because of the Flag has generated controversy. A simple note gives information on the Flag. A note was added because there was protest that the Flag was not made, at the time of the 1776 crossing. A note is there to prevent controversy. That really is the main reason. It is not that myself or readers are "brain dead". I did start a conversation on the note La Nota. It is a very simple note, only there to prevent controversy, expecially for Featured Article, when viewership could sky rocket. We want this article to be tightned up and precise for FA. It should have no controversies. The note is to prevent controversies over Leutze's painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Explanatory caption

Considering that 1) the previous RFC was against its inclusion and 2) the fact that a picture painted decades after the fact and an ocean away canot reasonably be expected to be photo accurate, the note should be removed unless and until another RFC demonstrates a positive consensus for its inclusion. --Khajidha (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The note is only there to prevent controversy for Featured Article. That is all. The photo has generated controversy, particulary the Flag depicted in the photo not being made during the time of the crossing. A simple expanitory note is meant to prevent controversy. I started a discussion, La Nota. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Memorial Day Wishes

My sincere wishes that all the collaborators here will today be inspired and encouraged by the memories of friends and loved ones, and all the nation's patriots, who have sacrificed to protect and preserve Washington's national legacy. You all have shown enviable dedication to the article and I am grateful to be in your company. Hoppyh (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and encouraging words. Yes, we should remember -- there is much we all tend to take for granted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

It's best to settle this before the FA nomination, as I fear this issue will rear its ugly head right in the middle of the review, and will torpedo the nomination if we don't come up with a fair compromise beforehand. There seems to be a neutrality issue here. Criticism of the painting, generally, comes from those who had little to nothing good to say about it, and there is much to say there. If we must have a footnote for this painting (while the 1000's of other paintings throughout WP don't receive a peep of criticism) we should simply say, in the footnote, For a historical analysis of this painting see the Emanuel Leutze article. I believe, in terms of compromise, this should satisfy all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The most controversial issue in the painting is the Flag. That is what the note addressed. Patriotism is also controversial. We should avoid patriotism but address the Flag only. The picture is inspiring. The Flag was not made until 1777. The painting was meant to inspire both German and American patriotism. I think having the note is just a good thing. Is there even a source that says there was a Flag on George Washington's ship ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
We've been through this. The issue is a compromise and tallying up consensus here. I take it you disagree to a compromise that we all can live with. Fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Response: I am for a compromise. I don't disagree. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Response: The RFC was to keep the note in March that explained historical inaccuracies. It was dropped. What was readded was on historical "Memory". I replaced that with patriotism. I favored inclusion of inaccuracies to prevent controversy. Had we kept the original note none of this would be happening. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The RFC was closed as: "There is a clear consensus to retain the image of Washington Crossing the Delaware. There is no consensus to substitute any of the offered alternatives nor for any suggested corrections to captioning or explanation of the image." The note was not present before Geographyinitiative added it on 3 March 2018 (previous version of page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&oldid=828608094#Crossing_the_Delaware). Leading to a dispute and eventual RFC. The last version before the RFC (made by yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&oldid=832068129#Crossing_the_Delaware) also did not have such a note. Seems to me that the existing consensus is against it.--Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Response:Howat (1968) says the painting is an inaccurate document. I was going be the earlier March 2018 concensus that was to keep the note. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was accurate. I said that calling it out is even beyond "the sky is blue", tofally unnecessary to say. Which earlier consensus? --Khajidha (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Response: March 2018 Cmguy777 (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean the one I cited? The one that did not include or support such a statement? --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Response: Please refer to this closed talk:Request for comment... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
That's the one I am referring to. I don't see how you are interpreting it to support this note. --Khajidha (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
At a minimum it was discussed in that RfC. I can understand why you don't want something being presented as established consensus if it is not, but frankly the both of you are getting out into the weeds at this point. If we assume for the moment that inclusion of the note should not be considered as a part of the previous consensus, that still only leads to the open editorial question of whether consensus will now find that the note is appropriate, and I am not surprised to find that consensus is leaning towards inclusion. So if you have a compelling argument to present for why it should not be included that you think may move the needle on our perspectives, you should share it now, rather than getting distracted by the close of a discussion which (by your own assertion) does not directly resolve this matter. Snow let's rap 01:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
A note would be appropriate if there were a reasonable expectation that the image would be totally accurate. But I just can't see how anyone can expect an artistic representation made decades after the fact, in a land an ocean away from the location, by a man who wasn't even born at the time of the event (heck, his father was probably not born at the time and it is conceivable that his grandfather wasn't either) would be so true to history. Especially given that other images (both on this page and throughout Wikipedia) that have similar "errors" are given a pass. This "this image is fake, it doesn't represent what really happened" idea is one that keeps coming up over at Muhammad, where hardline Muslims try to use it to remove all images of that individual. The response there has always been that the nature of artistic portrayals is such that absolute accuracy is not expected. I simply did not think that the note should have been readded given the previous outcome without more people commenting. While I find the idea of having such a note ridiculous, I will not remove it should this discussion go that way. --Khajidha (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I just cannot track your reasoning there, nor understand the strength of your objection to the note. Frankly, as a compromise solution, it's pretty milktoast; I would have been willing to endorse mentioning the anachronisms in the caption itself as a reasonable middle ground solution to the parent dispute here, wherein one side wanted to remove the image entirely (which clearly wasn't going to happen) and the other side wanted no change what-so-ever. A note which is itself embedded in a caption is so unobtrusive you couldn't possibly make it more out of the way, short of moving it to a subpage. As for your perceptions of how obvious the anachronisms are going to be to the average reader, I think you might really want to check out our article on the curse of knowledge, because I don't think you are correctly evaluating the likelihood that the average reader has enough background knowledge in revolutionary era vexillology to know at a glance which flags in which mid-nineteenth century paintings are period accurate, or can be anticipated to not be so by the provenance of the artist in relationship to the dates of particular battlefield engagements. This is an encyclopedia article, meaning it is designed with the intention of being a surface-level review of a topic; few scholars are using this article and even amateur historians are probably a small minority. Hell, we're talking about George Washington's article here, afterall; children are probably a significant fraction of its readers. Now, I'm not saying that it would have occurred to me to demand notation of this anachronism, but as a solution to the overarching dispute, I find it completely unobjectionable. And, incidentally, comparing your opposition in this incredibly trivial, easy-to-disagree-upon editorial matter to religious fundamentalists using bad-faith editorial tactics to try to control content is...well, let's be diplomatic and say "hyperbolic". Sorry, I for one am unconvinced and will stick by my original keep !vote. Snow let's rap 11:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the anachronisms are obvious, I think people aren't even going to think about the flag one way or the other. They simply aren't looking at the picture for the purpose of finding out what the flags of that time looked like. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, you may be right there. But as a measure to arrest/foreclose confusion for that minority of readers who are the concern of this discussion (however large a group they may, in reality, be) and therefore put this dispute to bed, I personally can live with the note as a compromise without having absolute evidence about the absolute size of the class being aided. Snow let's rap 21:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
As I said: "While I find the idea of having such a note ridiculous, I will not remove it should this discussion go that way."--Khajidha (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, no, I believed you about that the first time you said it; indeed, I generally assume it about other editors as a matter of AGF. I just question why someone could not have given way on this; a second discussion of this scope for such a trivial difference in content just does not seem like good cost-for-benefit with regard to community time, if I am to be blunt. I mean its a tiny concession to a contingent of editors who are, after-all, just concerned about accuracy. You or I may think they are maybe a little overly concerned, but I can't really prove it, and its such a minor thing and such a more constrained approach to resolving their editorial concerns than the changes they originally sought. So while I believe you that you'll respect consensus when it is established, I just still think this is the very definition of a tempest in a teapot. Snow let's rap 00:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree This looks like a very reasonable compromise. It is time to get George past these turbulent waters, and on to FA review. Has anyone touched on the GEICO commercial of GW crossing the Delaware turnpike? Check it out on You tube—it is a hoot and in the spirit of that, I respectfully suggest we move on—there are bigger fish to fry. Hoppyh (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This needs to be settled before the nomination. The issue has reoccurred by itself several times, once by my doing, as the footnote at the time was massive. My proposal includes the footnote directing the reader to the Emanuel Leutze article without any details, since it was this artist that painted the picture and got the flag and time of day wrong. I would love to move on, but not if we're just going to sweep this under the rug, leaving some editors disgruntled. — Some editors want no footnote at all, including myself. Some want a footnote pointing out specific issues. — A fair compromise would be to include the footnote, with no specifics, but at lease bringing the matter to the readers attention, directing them to the artist's page where this can be covered at length if need be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This and perhaps other untold matters do indeed need prior resolution. Hoppyh (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I still agree that the note should be used in limited form to point out the flag. Interestingly, I went to WP:TRUTH to see if it could help. At one point the article uses our handling of GW’s DOB as the example for handling “conflicting” truths—assuming some element of truth can be attributed to the artist’s use of the flag in existence when he created his artwork. This supports the use of a note. I do hope you all can find a way to settle your disagreement so your energy can be more productively applied for GW’s benefit. Hoppyh (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Appropriaate notification :  @Shearonink, Laszlo Panaflex, Rjensen, Fyunck(click), Dimadick, and Snow Rise: The debate needs to be settled with more than just a few opinions. — Some editors want no footnote, others want a footnote that covers one or more details about the painting. A compromise would be to have the footnote but with no specific details mentioned, while directing readers to the Emanuel Leutze article where these details are outlined. Please indicate agree or disagree so we can move on and get this article nominated. If the issue ever comes up again, we'll be able to refer back to this survey and address the issue quickly. Your help would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree I will support " footnote but with no specific details mentioned, while directing readers to the Emanuel Leutze article where these details are outlined" Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep note. The note is unobtrusive and potentially useful to who knows how many readers. Frankly, as someone who was bot-summoned to the last RfC on the issue of the painting, I did not expect that the discussion would arrive at such a reasonable compromise solution as this, given how polarized the views still were when last I commented. This seems like a pretty small concession to the minority side in that discussion, and one which balances the arguments of both sides more or less appropriately, if you ask me. Continuing to litigate this minor detail this far after that resolution to try to remove even this degree of reasonable compromise feels more than a bit like refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, possibly to a WP:DISRUPTIVE extent, depending on the specifics. Snow let's rap 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue came up again where a minor edit war resulted. We're trying to reach a fair compromise that we all can live with, one that will still direct readers to information about the painting. None of us, with one exception, asked that this issue be mulled over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's more or less what I expected had happened. When I said I could imagine that there are WP:STICK issues here, I was not meaning to suggest that the RfC was a part of the problem; it's a perfectly reasonable means to try to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible, if someone just cannot let the compromise (and the incredibly minor concession it is based upon) stand without arguing it all the way through) to an explicit consensus. It just seems like a waste of a lot of editorial time, in this instance, that it had to go that far. Snow let's rap 01:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - since I was pinged. There are so many important items that really need fixing for our millions of readers that a footnote or a source is too trivial for me to care one way or the other. As per the last RfC, as long as the wording is exactly the same, and the painting is kept, I'm good. Good luck to you all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Response: I don't really like having my comments singled out in a section in a talk I start. I have agreed already but I am making a general response. The Flag simply did not exist during the Crossing. It was not created until the following year 1777. That requires a note. The Flag should be the only thing mentioned in the note. Readers will assume the Flag existed when it did not. That would be fabricating the truth. Other than the Flag, any inaccuracies of the painting are minor. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Fyunck(click), I can appreciate the sentiment about the painting issue, it is indeed trivial but it is causing issues that we need to resolve. Was hoping you would support a compromise so we can be done with this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777, you're reaching when you say anyone is "fabricating" anything, esp since there will be a link to the article that explains the matter at length. No one editor is going to be 100% satisfied. So collectively we compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. The Stars & Stripes flag is an important issue. The painting is inaccurate. I apologize and I struck out my comment. The note has two reliable references and only concerns the flag. The note is solid and I believe will prevent future controversy. It is only one sentence and has two solid references. The readers should be informed on the flag in the painting. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
We all have opinions. We're trying to reach a compromise — one that will satisfy those who want no footnote, one that will satisfy those who do and which will direct readers to info about Leutze's painting. The footnote is a criticism. For balance we should also say something good about the painting, or again simply compromise and link up with a dedicated article where both the good and the not so good items can be explained. Once again, the Washington biography is not the place to be talking about the artwork of one particular artist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The painting is popular. We could put that. Any mention of patriotism seems to foster controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I added "widely recognizable" Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Critisism should be allowed. We are talking about the American flag here. It is not about the artist, it is about the Stars and Stripes. It did not exist at the time of the Washington's crossing. It is the United States official flag. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I agree that criticisms should be avoided or need to be counter-balanced, as a necessary matter in all contexts. That can easily lead to false balance, which is one of a number of reasons that we treat these matters through the approach of WP:WEIGHT instead. For that matter, I am not certain I would even classify notation of the anachronisms as 'criticisms' per se. That said, I have no objection to the addition of "widely recognized", nor any strong feelings on expansion of the caption or note generally. Snow let's rap 01:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of false weight, the painting, over many years, has received far more acclaim than criticism, and is used on the cover of numerous books on the revolution and Washington, for openers. In any case, we are discussing a compromise, but it seems a couple of editors are only talking about what they want with apparently no regard for other editors. Cm, you're not helping matters by continually making edits to the footnote in the middle of a survey you are taking part in. No one else is doing this -- you are provoking another edit war and bring instability to the article. Again, the Washington biography is not the place to have a one sided footnote about the painting of one particular artist. — Several editors want no footnote. — Some want one with one or more comments included. — We need to reach a fair compromise, one that allows the footnote, but directs readers to the appropriate article where both criticism and acclaim are outlined. A compromise will also spare this article the neutrality issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. One sided ? I used two reliable sources. Any artistic inaccurracies of the photo by the artist are not addressed nor should be. What is addressed is the flag, the official flag of the United States, that did not exist at the time of the crossing. That is not artistic. That is history. Again it is not a criticism of the artist. It is no reflection on Washington either. Artistically the painting quality is very high by Leutze. The flag is painted very well. I don't want to keep editing on the note. I believe the note is a neutral note. I have avoided any use of the word inaccuracy or inaccuracies. I think that was the mistake of the first note. Does the painting artistically inspire American patriotism ? Yes. I understand that the note is still under review "to reach a fair compromise". I believe I have offered one. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
To that topic, I think the balance in the current version (with or without CM's recent tweeks) strikes a fair balance. I can see the argument for too many critiques combining to become UNDUE to this context. If the proposition is that only the anachronism of the flag needs to be addressed, I can get behind that !vote--though I could also see myself supporting a slightly broader note. Do I interpret correctly that you support the current wording of the note, more or less? Snow let's rap 02:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Several editors want no footnote at all. Where is the compromise — by including a footnote with only criticism while ignoring the years of acclaim and credit? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"Widely recognized" is a generic comment that doesn't say anything specific about the acclaim and credit the painting has received -- while the footnote contains a specific criticism. Again, we should avoid this ongoing debate and neutrality issue and simply refer acclaim and criticism to the Leutze article -- he is the one who painted this work. We need to stop regarding the flag in this one piece of artwork as something that's stretched out across the top of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not a compromise Gwillhickers. Not having a note opens up the debate about inaccuracies in Leutze's painting. The reader will think that the flag in the painting existed at the time of the crossing. That is not good history. We had had a note compromise before. That note was taken out. Why is their the need to protect Leutze's photo ? And it is not criticism either to tell the reader that the flag in the photo did not exist at the time of the crossing. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No one said anything about "not having a note" as our compromise. Please try to look beyond what you want. We all 'want'. If we have a note that includes criticism then we need it to include acclaim and credit also — but then, that takes us back to having a lengthy footnote like before. With a link to the Leutze article, readers can read up on this stuff, if they're so inclined, almost all are not, and we avoid all this controversy and move on towards the nomination. You're acting as if we're trying to hide this issue entirely. The painting is only viewed some 4-5 times a day, and that includes our views, and in thumbnail form the image is too small to see much of anything, let alone the folded flag. The Washington page is viewed well over 10,000 times a day, Far too much weight is given to this image. You're acting like this flag is draped all over the article. It's time we all came to terms and emplyed a compromise footnote. You're giving as much weight to this flag detail, in one rarely viewed image, as your are to Washington himself. Time for us all to compromise and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal footnotes

  • Proposal for compromise footnote : For historical analysis and opinion of this work see the Emanuel Leutze article.
Against both: The first proposal is not a note. It is just a lead in to a link. Both proposals do not have any sourcing. There is already a link to the Emanuel Leutze article and to the painting article. Emanuel Leutze is not in question. There are historical inaccuracies in the photo. One of them is addressed directly, the Stars and Stripes. There seems to be a strong push not to have any "criticism" in the note of the painting in the George Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Please try to read what is written, not what you wish was written. You've been doing this often. The first proposal note mentions "historical analysis and opinion" -- a neutral comment. The second proposal mentions " both acclaim and criticism". Another neutral comment. Both notes direct the reader to the Leutze article for explanations specifically for the this purpose. Neither note needs any sourcing as the they only refer the reader to the Leutze article. Your objections are completely argumentative and unreasonable, and once again, you've digressed into arm-wrestling, as every one of your objections have been well addressed, some repeatedly. It has also been pointed out that almost all the readers don't even look at the image closely, yet you carry on as if the flag is the paramount issue regardless. You obviously only care about what you want and won't even compromise with fellow editors, many of whom want no note at all. This behavior is disruptive and is holding up the nomination. We are willing to compromise, you refuse to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Because this article is not the place for such. That should be in the articles for the artwork itself and for the artist. Here, it just serves as "here is a picture of how one artist portrayed the events". --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Then why have a note ? Just put in a link. Should Wikipedia tell the reader that the flag actually existed during the event ? Without a note the reader will think the Stars and Stripes crossed the Delaware. That is not historically accurate. The painting is a heroic portrayal of Washington. It is not a reconstruction of the scene. I have no objection to saying that the painting is a heroic portrayal of Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That's my point. People DON'T look at these pieces of art as exact realistic portrayals of the events. Go look at the images at Battle of Hastings or the Crusades or many others. There are all sorts of problems: historical innaccuracies, impossible perspectives, incorrect anatomies. Heck, here on the George Washington page there is another painting that includes people known not to be present at the event. That isn't called out in a note. Art is art, it isn't going to be perfect and no one (except you and Geographyinitiative, apparently) actually expects it to be so. We aren't telling the reader ANYTHING about the flag or anything else in that picture. We are simply saying "here is a picture someone made". We give links to the articles on the image and on the artist if people want to know more. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Compromise note: Leutzes's widely recognized painting, a heroic history of Washington crossing the Delaware, has received both acclaim and criticism. The "Stars and Stripes" flag did not exist at the time portrayed, but was later adopted by Congress six months later.[1] Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Howat 1968, pp. 290, 293, 297; Nowlan 2012, p. 66.
I'll let the others decide if this is worthwhile, but you need to remove the word "later" from "later adopted" or remove the entire "six months later" from the end of the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777, there are presently four editors who feel your ever changing footnote is uncalled for in this article, while three agree a compromise note is best. In the recent past we have had three editors who agreed that a lengthy footnote was overkill while you were the only one to object. You seem to be ignoring them all while editing and adding to the footnote in the middle of this unsettled dispute, as if you own the article. You have also engaged in an edit war reverting edits (May 26) made by two editors to get your way. A compromise footnote has been offered, linking to Leuitze's article that explains all the things you seem to think readers here are lined up waiting to inquire about -- even after it's been pointed out that almost no one views the painting close up, and this painting occurs in several articles, with still next to no views. The adaptation of the flag has nothing to do with the Washington biography, while the painting was made many years after his death. The lengthy footnote simply does not belong in this article, yet we are willing to compromise, but yet you continue to snub almost everyone around you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, you choose to make personal attacks on myself and avoid discussion of the Stars and Stripes. You obviously don't want a note. I believe you took out the last one. The Leutze's article does not explain all things. Why you are in such opposition to a note on a flag that did not yet exist is beyond me. I don't need to explain my view. You want it all your way. Editors including yourself can edit at anytime on this article. There is no need for you to launch a campaign with other editors against me either. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three options presented immediately above: Look, I'm glad that discussion has moved on to proposing specific wording, but I'm afraid the options presented by both sides in this subsection are missing the mark by miles. This isn't about the level of "acclaim" this painting has achieved; to the extent that consensus (tepidly) supports a note, it is for the purposes of accuracy for the reader with regard to the event the image sits beside and illustrates. This is George Washington's article, not the painting's, and not Leutzes'--nor is it any other article about art criticism or the stature of particular works. The only policy-consistent reason for preserving the note is to address anachronisms which may become problematic when we couple this image (which there is an overwhelming/WP:SNOW consensus to keep because of its strong cultural currency with regard to the topic) with a section on the actual event, where the two may differ in small but potentially confusing details.
So if this is to move anywhere, I strongly advise losing the language of criticism/acclaim, and instead detail (very briefly and directly) the top one or two anachronisms, and then WP:DROPTHESTICK already. We have two extreme minorities here, who should have been able to arrive at a compromise in the shadow of the last RfC. Consensus has made clear that we don't need to deconstruct the image with regard to every inconsistency, but I believe it is equally against previous respondent feedback (and common sense) to reduce the note to "some people have criticized this picture, and we'll take the time to allude to that fact in this note, without actually providing any useful elucidation." I can pretty well guarantee you that such an approach is not going to get an consensus endorsement, as it is just plainly awkward, pointless, and inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Likewise, we don't need to "balance" the act of pointing out an anachronism by pointing out the painting's stellar qualities and reputation (some Wikipedia 101 perspective on this is available at WP:WEIGHT and WP:DETAIL); Wikipedia does not operate under the fairness doctrine in any sense--we are allowed to provide details, context, or yes, *gasp*, even criticism (provided it is not WP:original research), without the need to also provide concessions to some imagined "other side of the issue"--and if there is any consensus in the above discussions with regard to the note, it is that it should be used to square the image with the rest of the content, not exhaustively litigate the quality of the painting and whether its status as an historically iconic image is well-deserved.
I know you two are having trouble seeing eye-to-eye on all of this, but you should try to hammer out an agreement, because if you don't soon, I'm just going put forward a straight up-or-down !vote on whether to use the version of the note present in the article right now. It's perfectly suitable as far as I am concerned and I'm sure most of the editors here would agree to it as a reasonable solution to end to this outsized contest of wills over a truly trivial difference in content. Snow let's rap 21:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not want to be continued attacked on the note I put in backed by two reliable sources. I have expressed opinions. As long as the note is in the article I feel I have made myself a target of attack. There seems to be expressed opposition about mentioning theStars and Stripes in the note. Either keep the note, change the note, or get rid of the note. Please stop attacking me. I personally want to take the note out so attacks against me will stop. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Snow Rise, Listing the "anachronisms" is a criticism. And yes, this is Washington's article, not the artist's, which is why any comments about the painting belong in his biography, not Washington's. And we've already established a consensus not to have a lengthy note, and we can't ignore what others editors want, which is why a compromise was offered. Thanks for your interested but you really haven't presented anything that is better than the compromises offered. They allow for a footnote while staying away from criticism and acclaim, and directs the reader to where information about the flag etc is outlined. What is so wrong with that? Meanwhile we have an editor making ongoing edits while we're debating this issue and has resorted to reverting the edits of two other editors in the process. That is very inconsiderate and smacks of a 'me-first, me-only' attitude, not to mention article ownership. We can "drop the stick" when we have something we can all live with. That hasn't happened yet, and this debate wasn't initiated by me, and no one else is ignoring other editors while making repeated edits in the middle of the debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, let's see if I can be more clear about the distinction I am trying to make here:
  • Listing the "anachronisms" is a criticism. Is it really, though? I don't see the point in getting into a semantic/tautological debate here, but so long as the focus is not on the painting itself, I don't see how a factual note is particularly "critical" of the work or its artist. Those who have urged for the note seem to be doing so to avoid miscommunicating facts about the event, not to tear down the standing of the artwork.
  • And yes, this is Washington's article, not the artist's, which is why any comments about the painting belong in his biography, not Washington's. I 100% agree. But this is actually why I think your proposed versions are problematic; they may shorten the note by a few words, but each keeps the content of the note fixated on the artwork itself and upon criticism levelled at it, rather than on the factual issue which is the entire purpose of the note. Your approach actually runs much more afoul of the argument you've used repeatedly above: "We don't reference the history of criticisms of other images here, why would we do it for this one?" Changing to a link doesn't dodge those concerns which you rightly raise; we're still stuck with a note that is fixated on the painting and its reception, which is just not a WP:DUE topic for discussion in this article. What is due for discussion here is the fact that the image disagrees with the reality of an event from Washington's life which is (quite appropriately) a focus of this article, in a section which this image sits right next to. Those factual divergences (which do not need to be based in "criticism" to be noticed) are appropriate subjects for (very brief, notated) discussion in this article, while taking time to talk about the broader topic of criticisms of the painting (even via a short link like the one your propose) is not appropriate, in my opinion.
  • Thanks for your interested but you really haven't presented anything that is better than the compromises offered. True, but I don't need to; I'm perfectly happy with the version in the article right now. If you wish to gain my (or any other editor's) support for an alternative, the WP:ONUS is upon you to prove that it is the better solution and generate consensus support for it. You pinged me here for this discussion and my opinion so far is that the current version is more consistent with legitimate encyclopedic needs than the alternatives you have proposed.
  • Meanwhile we have an editor making ongoing edits while we're debating this issue and has resorted to reverting the edits of two other editors in the process. Well, that is neither here nor there with regard to my opinion on the underlying content issue. If you think the user is being disruptive with their edits, you can always take the matter to WP:ANEW, but I can't recommend it under these circumstances. I think Cmguy should cool it with further edits during this discussion, but the only one I've seen referenced in this discussion seems to be one which he made to try to meet your concerns. That may have been a misguided action, but I don't think he's trying to thwart consensus (and it will only blow up in his face if he unilaterally presses forward with further edits).
Anyway, that is about as clear as I believe I can make my perspective on the content issues here and why I don't think you or Cmguy have quite the focus to your proposals that would be appropriate here. Take said perspective or leave it; I can't see it as useful to further debate these points if my clarifications haven't shifted your perspective, so I'll leave it to you two to hopefully work something out. But as I said before, if you can't come to an agreement, I think the alternative is a strawpoll on the current wording, which I suspect will be endorsed by the other editors here, who want to move past this issue. Snow let's rap 00:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777, providing sources doesn't legitimize your behavior and make the note any more inappropriate for the Washington biography. This has been explained but you seem to block out and ignore the many points that undermine your debate, such that it is. Criticism of your edits and behavior has been well explained and is warranted. "Attacked"? Don't remove the note to stop the "attacks", simply do it out of compromise and fairness -- we can still prompt and link the readers to the information about the flag, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. You don't want the note. You remove it. And yes. You are pressuring me to remove the note. It is a good note. I would remove it only to stop the attacks. My note was the compromise. Criticism has not been well explained or warranted. You say viscious things and control the debate and the article. Again. You remove the edit. I won't stop you. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

edit break

  • Snow Rise — Okay, you say "I 100% agree" that the footnote doesn't belong in the Washington article. Fine. But we still have to compromise. Though the compromise footnote makes reference to the painting, it doesn't get into specifics. We gotta realize that no one is going to be completely happy here, so we have to do something. We can't simply ignore editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
What I 100% agree with is that the topic of criticism of the work is WP:UNDUE for this article. What is WP:DUE is notational content that observes (for the benefit of our readers, not to give voice to particular critical POVs) that some details in the image may be inconsistent with the reality of the actual event, which the image is being used to illustrate. Again, provided said notation is kept brief. That is the entire reason we have explanatory footnotes: for content which would be distracting in the body of the article but which is useful for fact-checking purposes. I'm sorry if I was not as clear about that distinction in my comments above as I tried to be. As to the other point, nobody is arguing to "ignore editors", by which I assume you mean ignore consensus. At least I'm certainly not arguing for it. But I'm not sure consensus aligns as completely with your preferred approach to the specifics as you seem to feel it does. But I could be wrong, of course, but there is an easy way to test: we can simply put it to the editors here whether the current explanatory note is acceptable, which, as I noted before, would be suggested resolution if you can't generate a version with Cmguy that everyone can get behind. Snow let's rap 06:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777 — My criticisms were true -- you made several edits in the middle of this controversy, completely forgetting, or ignoring, the debate and consensus not to have a long footnote, and have reverted the edits of two other editors in the process. Your note was not a compromise, it was specifically critical and rather one sided, and lengthy, and had nothing to do with Washington. Several editors do not want any footnote, while several do not want a long footnote. Several editors want a compromise that simply links to the appropriate article. — As for "controlling" the debate and the article, I don't recall doing any such thing. Perhaps I was "controlling" in my sleep. I can't force editors how to think and what to say, nor can I force them as to what edits to make, or revert, so please stop taking these wild pop-shots into the dark. I'm just one editor trying to resolve a debate that was thrown in our faces by another editor, once again, where you chose this particular time to lengthen the footnote all over again. As I said, though I would prefer no footnote I'm willing to compromise and simply prompt readers about historical analysis and opinion about the painting and refer them to the Leutze article. If you say you won't stop me I will go ahead and do this. Before I do, I'll wait a day or two to see if there is going to be any further hassle over this. Then we can get on with making the final touches and nominating the article. I can only hope that no one will try to torpedo our efforts again when we commence getting back to work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Editors are free to edit at any time. There is no main editor barking out orders to staff editors. You have never addressed the "Stars and Stripes" flag not being there. And now you are speaking for other editors. It is within the normal use of Wikipedia to use the Undo button. One of the Undo's I received said anyone who read my note was braindead. That is a personal attack. You have attacked my integrity as an editor. I had used two reliable sources for the edit and believed it worth keeping. Again I believe you are protecting the flag that did not exist at the time of Washington's crossing. I don't want to be attacked for a good faith edit that had two reliable sources I believed worth keeping. I am tired for being abused. It is not me keeping George Washington from getting to FA. It is the continued opposition to exposing a faulty history in a painting verified by reliable sourcing. I want to take the edit out to stop personal attacks against my self. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Cm, could you do us all a favour and try to keep your indentation levels consistent with the standards at WP:Talkpage guidelines/WP:THREAD? (WP:INDENT has further illustrations); it makes tracking discussions and responding to messages a much easier task, and prevents formatting issues where someone appears to be talking to someone they did not intend to be talking to. Thank you! Snow let's rap 06:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No one is above criticism. No one has "barked orders" to anyone to make or not make edits. Speaking for myself, I have not made edits and reverts in the middle of the controversy. I did not say anything about "brain dead", that was someone else, and it was a generic comment not directed specifically at you, yet you drag it into our discussion for effect, apparently. I have also not spoken for other editors, but have only reminded you of their positions, thank you. Also, no one has attempted to "protect the flag", but merely have criticized this preoccupation of this flag in an allegorical painting that is rarely viewed close up -- something that has nothing to do with Washington. Please try to read what has been written, not what you wish was written so you have an excuse to vent. Btw, you say I'm "protecting the flag" as if this was somehow wrong. Noted. Please keep your line straight. You speak about "personal attacks" and in the same breath unload this stuff at my doorstep. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Just answer me this. Why should there be no note concerning a flag that did not exist during the crossing but was put in the painting ? It is a lie. Why protect it ? To stop the personal attacks and "brain dead" comments I feel it is best to withdraw my good faith edit. This is not fun anymore. All I want is respect as an editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Because it's not "a lie", it's artwork. It's allegorical, not meant to be an exact record of what happened. It is no more "a lie" to show the Stars and Stripes than it is to have Washington in a boat otherwise filled with people who are not actually meant to be the individuals that were in the actual boat with the real Washington. --Khajidha (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a lie because the flag did not exist yet. All the note says is that the Flag did not yet exist. Why such opposition ? The Continental Army, Washington, and boats existed. I can remove the note. I don't understand the resistance. All I wanted was for the flag to be addressed in this talk, not personal attacks against me as an editor. Should we put the Stars and Stripes on Columbus's voyage across the ocean or the Vikings discovering America (Vineland) ? That would make great artwork but not great history. The note can be removed at anytime. I won't fight that. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's get this settled. How about this ? I will go with Gwillhickers Alt II but have added footnotes: "This painting has received both acclaim and criticism.<Howat, 1968, pp. 290, 293, 297  Nowlan, 2012, p. 66> See Emanuel Leutze article for details." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Then why aren't you upset about the "lie" in the painting in "Demobilization and resignation" further down where people are shown who are known to have not been present at the event? Are we even sure that the use of this flag was an actual error and not a stylistic choice to avoid the greater confusion that using the correct flag (with its incorporation of the Union Jack) would have caused? This entire "it's fake" mindset is at odds with the very concept of allegorical art. But if it will end this, go ahead and put that note in. --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to compromise Khajidha and you are still personally attacking me. Let's focus one issue at a time. Are you in favor of my proposed compromise, and not because "it will end this." ?
I see no personal attack in my last post. No, I am NOT in favor of the proposed compromise. I find the idea of notes saying that a work of art is not entirely historically accurate to be ludicrous and contrary to the usage of such art on Wikipedia and in the world at large. I am willing to compromise on having the note as posted above only as a means to end this drama. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Khajidha, this is not the place for such critiques on a particular piece of art work, esp one that is rarely viewed in full view. However, it's good to see two more editors willing to bend a little bit here. If the editors that wanted no footnote at all weren't willing to compromise, this debate would be twice as long and twice as compounded. I'll go ahead and add the above footnote posted immediately above. Many thanks to Cmguy777 for providing the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Why then was Alt II proposed ? I knew this was the purpose of the discussion, to have no note but just a link. There is already a link to Leutzes page so it would be a duplicate link. Why have two links to the same page ? Now I am suppose to bend to the POV of no criticism allowed in any artwork concerning George Washington. In that case it is just best to not have any note. Gwillhickers. You have never responded to the fact that the flag did not exist in the painting. How is the reader going to know it did not exist ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The flag is only an issue in regards to this one allegorical painting that almost no one is looking at closely. If you wish to inform the readers about which particular flag was used at any given point in Washington's life then feel free to discuss it. However, unless Washington had direct involvement in instituting a given flag, mentioning the different flags, or any flag, as we go along in the narrative doesn't seem to be quite appropriate for a biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Washington did not use the flag that is in the Leutze's painting at that particular time. It did not exist. It is obvious you don't want any criticism of Leutzes painting. Why not just say so ? The best solution is to have no note at all. I am against double linking in photo caption or a statement in a link without sourcing or any references. Let's just pull the note. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
If you can get a consensus to pull the note that links to the article that explains the flag discrepancy, which you're so concerned about, then do so. Most of us have reached a compromise. There was no double linking issue really. Links often occur in text and appear again in footnotes, but I went ahead and removed the 2nd link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Looks like you went with Alt II. I can accept that. I did some tweaking of photo (230px) and caption for presentation. Moved link to note. There is no need to removed the note. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Washington's second term

Washington's second term is woefully understated in this biography. The date of his second inauguration, March 4, 1793, was not even mentioned. (!!) The only link to this is in the Washington series infobox, below the main infobox. The word inauguration was not even present in the Presidency section. We have a separate main section for Election of 1788-1789, but not even a subsection for the Election, 1792. Not even a link! There should be a separate subsection for Washington's second term under the Presidency section, which I have added. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

FA nomination

The Washington biography seems about ready to nominate for FA. If there are any pressing issues, they should be aired and resolved before we move forward with the nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think more on Washington and slavery should be incorporated more into the main part of the article rather than a segment on his personal life. The arrangement of the article could be a bit confusing. Maybe some changes there. I have mentioned this before, does this article say why there was an American Revolution ? It might be good to mention Washington speculated in land. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Actual proposals and sources would be helpful, remembering we give as much weight to these issues as do Washington biographers. Perhaps too much weight is given already. The Slavery section is already quite large, bigger than even the Valley Forge and Constitutional Convention sections, among others. Since there is a dedicated article for GW and slavery, perhaps we should start trimming it down, as Washington's personal slaves had almost no impact on the fate of the nation and millions of people. While many thousands of people were dying, or displaced by war, slaves were generally well kept, fed and looked after. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Response: Gwillhickers, we can't sweep slavery under the rug. Slaves were protected ? You are entitled to your opinions Gwillhickers, but I would call slavery a "pressing issue" for FA. As far as I know there were no laws that protected blacks or slaves in any fashion in Virginia. What is missing is that Washington had opportunity to free his slaves under a liberal Virginia law, and he did not. Possibly information from the slavery section can be moved up. Many slaves were displaced during the American Revolution. Black people, as a class, were made slaves for life and their children were born slaves, perpetually. They were forbidden to marry or travel outside the plantation. Their Christian faith meant nothing to their masters. Their Christianity could not free them. They were subject to whippings. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, you sound like you had a conversation with someone else and came here to respond. Your rather narrow estimation and condemnation of Washington has been noted. No one has swept anything under the rug, and your estimation of Christians appears rather disturbed and anti-social, as many of them (esp those who actually owned slaves, most did not) had strong reservations about slavery, but were faced with the reality that if set free, they would have no where to go and no means to support themselves. Many truly believed they were better off as slaves, in America, than if simply set free or left in Africa where tribal wars, capturing of prisoners and slave trading was common place. i.e.Wolf by the ears. It was the 1700's. People were hung for stealing horses, sent to prison for being in debt, young boys were marched off to war and shot and slaves were whipped for fighting stealing or running away when they did. By most accounts when slaves were "whipped" they weren't tied to a wagon wheel, shirt stripped off and whipped to a bloody pulp -- almost always they were 'switched' on the legs and hind quarters, a practice still employed in China and elsewhere. Apparently you're obsessed by the exceptions that have been spoon fed to you over the years by activists, race baiters and the 'friends of America' crowd. If you would like to elaborate about Washington not freeing his slaves before his final years, please do so according to what the sources say. All that is asked is that you don't cherry pick only one source that leaves out important context. We're not trying to sell newspapers to an ignorant and naive readership here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Subsequent diagnoses" section....I think it would be a better fit for "Final days" rather than "Personal life"(not sure it belongs with "Religion" & "Cherry tree", etc.) Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Made some edits to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The Slavery section could use a rewrite or tightening up. It seems to be a hodgepodge of information. All Wikipedia needs to do is give information enough so readers can make their own assessments of Washington and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be no actual major issues brought to the table, here. One of our major contributing editors has made some good clarifications in the slavery section, and though the section is perhaps a bit large, it seems to be something we can all live with. This script business, introduced at the last minute at the brink of nominating this article, at long last, shouldn't be anything we have to sit around and wait and see about before we move forward with the nomination. Not that we must rush things at this particular time, this "major organizatioanl changes" business, though well intended, seems like a prospect that will involve much discussion, and debate. I move that we go forward, unless, once again, there is any pressing and specific issues that need the attention of editors here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is against ownership of articles. Editors are not obligated to put their editing on hold and can edit at any time. The slavery section needs tightening up. The problem it is difficult to find any articles just on Washington and slavery. The Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1895 has an article on Washington and slavery, but I can't get access to the full article or who wrote the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the long URL but some of that particular article in the Encyclopedia is available at Google Books here. There's also Hirschfeld's "George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal", most of which appears to be available here. Shearonink (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems all the pertinent facts about Washington and slavery are summarized nicely in the biography, and there are a good number of existing sources in the article's bibliography to refer to if need be. As I said, I can live with the present size of the slavery section, but since it is larger than many of the other sections I've no objection to tightening up the prose a bit if someone is of mind to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia book on Google does not list who authored the Washington article, so it can't be used as a source, unless the author(s) is/are found. Finkelman edited the Encyclopedia book. He and/or someone else could have authored the Washington article. I did a rewrite using Ferling (2000) as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not confirmed, but can someone fix the typo under Washington's first expedition: 'When Wasshington's older brother, Lawrence, died' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandorin (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I’m glad to reduce the lede to four paragraphs unless an exception is to be sought. Hoppyh (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: In 1753 did GW write to Dinwiddie? I’ll touch up.Hoppyh (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: Yes, there are more details involved, but GW was not satisfied with his first appointment in the less prominent district. When Fitzhugh retired and move to Maryland he left vacant the position in the northern district, for which GW wrote and appealed ("lobbied") to Dinwiddie who granted him the position. <Chernow, 2010, p.27, 2nd paragraph>-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: c/e done—please review. Hoppyh (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hoppyh: — looks good. Do you have Chernow's 2010 bio of Washington? At 900+ pages it's one of the most thorough biographies published in a long time. You can pick up a used copy on eBay or Amazon for cheap. If you don't own a copy I'd recommend getting one for the upcoming nomination -- he's one of the top authorities on Washington. Nice to have by your side if an issue hits the fan. :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Completed further upgrade of lede narrative. Hoppyh (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington/Archive_17&oldid=1255840483"