Talk:George Washington/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

One step at a time

Concern was expressed that the lot of us have been hacking this out for quite some time now, to the tune of more than 30 pages of debate. Upon returning today another 7+ pages have been added, and it still seems we are collectively not making any progress. There is some support for the Compromise Proposal, which contains the contributions of Dormskirk, Anastrophe, myself and possibly others, so I am going to take the advice of Arbil44 i.e. "Can we find a way forward please", and boldly add the proposal to the section. However, I'm going to leave out the last part concerning the Asgill letter, as that seems to be where the major disagreement still remains. When that is finally settled, we can append coverage of the Asgill letter to the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am appalled. I thought consensus was the name of the game. I definitely do not agree with a section to be added which is so littered with historical inaccuracies. I walk away from this project because not only have I been abused because I am "English" but now one man has made a unilateral decision. I only pray that Dormskirk will come back to sort this out, but I doubt it, because he is furious that he too has been abused.Arbil44 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Would editors please forgive me for including capitalisation here, but my rubbish IT skills just cannot cope with other methods of showing inaccuracies. This is what is now on the GW page, and it is not even close to historically correct:

After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the new American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, Washington, on May 18, 1782, wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen[182] that CONDITIONAL [a] British CaptainS would be SELECTED, WITH ONE TO BE executed for the execution of a popular [I HAVE EMAILS BETWEEN ME AND A DESCENDANT OF HUDDY TELLING ME THAT HE WAS WELL KNOWN TO BE A THUG - HONEST HISTORIES RECORD THIS TOO. HE WAS NOT POPULAR AT ALL. I CAN SEARCH FOR HER EMAILS IF YOU WANT ME TO) patriot leader, Joshua Huddy, at the hands of British [I CANNOT BEAR HAVING TO STATE YET AGAIN, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, LIPPINCOT WAS A LOYALIST, NOT BRITISH, AND HE WAS ACTING ON THE ORDERS OF WILLIAM FRANKLIN, THE LOYALIST SON OF BENJAMIN FRSANKLIN) Captain Lippincott. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined BECAUSE HE WAS DEEMED INNOCENT AT THE BRITISH COURT MARTIAL, STATING HE WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING ORDERS.[183] Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead, by a drawing of lots from a hat. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation.[182][184] Later, Washington's feelings on matters changed and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, OH MY GOD, HERE WE GO AGAIN, GW WROTE TO ASGILL GIVING HIM A PASSPORT TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY - he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his desire not to see any harm come to him RATHER TOO LATE TO SAY HE WANTED HIM TREATED WELL AFTER SIX MONTHS OF ABUSE, BEATINGS AND TAUNTING, WHEN HE LEFT THE US THE DAY OF RECEIVING THE LETTER ON 17 NOVEMBER. THIS IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE MATTER IN HAND,.[185] After much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and appeals from the French Crown, NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE, AND CONGRESS, WOULD HAVE DELIBERATED IF THE FRENCH COURT HAD NOT - FIRST - FOREMOST - INITIALLY WRITTEN TO WASHINGTON TO DECLARE THEIR UTTER DISTASTE FOR GW'S PLANS - THE DEBATES FOLLOWED ON FROM THAT. IN FACT, AS VICTORIAEARL'S REVELATIONS OF TODAY REVEAL, THEY DEBATED SAVING ASGILL ON THE VERY DAY THEY WERE PLANNING TO AUTHORISE HIS EXECUTION Asgill was finally released,[186][187] where Washington issued Asgill a pass that allowed his passage to New York.[188][182] NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE REVELATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REVEALED IN THE JOURNAL, WHICH IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF THE NEW MATERIAL. NO SUGGESTION THAT HISTORY HAS BEEN CHANGED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS HIDDEN, DELIBERATELY , BY WASHINGTON. TO SAY I ASM DISGUSTED IS TO HARDLY TOUCH ON MY FEELINGS REGARDING THIS UNILATERAL DECISION. HAS THIS MAN EVEN READ THE ARTICLE VICTORIAEARL POSTED? IT TOTALLY BACKS UP THE JOURNAL. IS THERE ANY RECOURSE TO JUSTICE HERE OR CAN ONE MAN MAKE UP HIS MIND WITHOUT CONSENSUS? Arbil44 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The proposal, the product of several editors, was added with some consensus, and notices of thanks after the fact – it wasn't the decision of "one man", thank you. Proposals have been discussed ad nauseam and you seem to never be happy. You left with arms up in the air, and had nothing to say about the compromise proposal. I also stated that if there are any errors that need to be fixed we can do that, as I did when I substituted Loyalist for British. Frankly, I can not accept the premise that all of the history surrounding the Asgill affair has been "misrepresented" because of Asgill's singular letter. I'm sure there are new details that the letter can afford, but I hardly think it has much bearing on the overall and basic picture. At this late date it is common knowledge that Asgill was confined, mistreated, sentenced to hang, in violation of the Articles of Capitulation, where Congress, Hamilton and both American and British officers, along with the French crown considered Asgill's situation and final release The proposal was added with no reference to Asgill's letter, because as I said, this obviously needs further attention. Considering your exasperating and indignant tone, I'm not going to appease your view much longer. If Asgill's letter exhibits the same bias you seem to share it very well could be deemed an unreliable source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Attempt to give an example to Anne of how to more effectively comment

I have redacted Anne's comments and corrections on the present narrative about Asgill in the article, toning down the language and reformatting for ease of reading. The italicized sections are Gwillhickers' latest good-faith addition to the article; the bulleted points are my attempt to make Anne's comments readable.

After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the new American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, Washington, on May 18, 1782, wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen[182] that a British Captain would be executed for the execution of a popular patriot leader, Joshua Huddy, at the hands of British Captain Lippincott.

• I have emails between me and a descendant of Huddy telling me that he was well known to be a thug - honest histories record this too. He was not popular at all. I can search for her emails if you want me to.
• Lippincot was a loyalist, not British, and he was acting on the orders of William Franklin, the loyalist son of Benjamin Franklin.

Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined.[183]’’

• Please add, “because he was deemed innocent at the British court martial, stating he was simply following orders.

Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead, by a drawing of lots from a hat. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation.[182][184] Later, Washington's feelings on matters changed and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his desire not to see any harm come to him.

• GW wrote to Asgill giving him a passport to leave the country.
• In fact, Asgill had endured six months of abuse, beatings and taunting. [Note from YoPienso: I have been unable to independently verify this assertion.]

After much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and appeals from the French Crown, Asgill was finally released,[186][187] where Washington issued Asgill a pass that allowed his passage to New York.[188][182]

• I hope the case of GW’s missing letter is added to this narrative.

YoPienso (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso. I too would love to see the letter come to the light of scrutiny. If the letter is 18 pages long I suspect it runs on at length about Asgill's mistreatment and the injustice he received, so I can only wonder how objective it is in reality. All other facts surrounding the affair have long since been established and mulled over by contemporaries and historians. As I said, I simply can not accept the idea that all these people have been running around with a bag over their heads for two and a half centuries. We can use the letter to relate Asgill's views, but given its author it doesn't seem like it will afford much objectivity and credibility in citing the overall picture. We'll have to wait and see. Still no letter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference

Gwillhickers - when, just when, and how long will it take for you to get round the idea that Asgill's letter has got nothing - nothing whatsoever - zilch, nada nothing - to do with this edit. It is a totally and completely separate matter. Nothing to do with this matter at all. I have explained it all in my reply earlier on to Anastrophe. Do you read anything - anything - anything'Italic text I write? Your submission makes no reference whatsoever to the Journal and it is the Journal which has totally re-written everything which was written before December 2019. What an insult to the Editor and his team. And they are Americans not the dastardly "English" you accused me of being. Nor has your blindingly clear adoration of GW's letter to Asgill got anything whatsoever to do with the matter in hand either. GW was a war criminal, and he tried to cover it up - and it was his countrymen who discovered this. I honestly see no point in me replying to anyone else now. Mike Abel is working on a response and he will be gobsmacked that he will be too late to make a difference. However, if he does, I will post it here. Arbil44 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please collect yourself. I have never accused you of being "dastardly "English"", or any other such thing. Thank you. Speaking of accusations, Huddy a "thug", Washington a "major" war criminal? Thanks for those insights. If the letter has nothing to do with this matter, then how do you explain this statement from one of your publications? : "Through 233 years only one side of the story has been told. Now Captain Charles Asgill's long-lost letter of rebuttal will tell the rest of the story."  At this point you have made it quite clear that you harbor an acute, even hostile, bias and have come to WP to vent that view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few editors here who are taking an intelligent interest in this and YoPienso is one of them. However, how many times do I need to say that Asgill's letter, missing for 233 years, has got absolutely nothing to do with Washington's missing letter. Asgill's letter will only be seen by anyone deciding to purchase a copy of the Journal. It is not online and nor, to my knowledge, has it been reprinted anywhere else since first published in Decembder 2019. Could everyone please get this straight? Gwillhickers has already decided it isn't worth reading anyway - and it has no place at all here. It is not known, but also not believed, to be Washington's fault it was hidden for so long. It was the Editors of the New Haven Gazette, Meigs and Dana, who decided not to publish it, and God alone knows where it has been since 2008, when it was purchased for $16,500.

I am not going to say it again. Asgill's missing letter has got nothing whatsoever to do with Washington's missing letter. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The fact that his missing letter has also skewed the history of The Asgill ASffair is simply coincidental. Asgill posted it to New Haven. He didn't hide it - he asked the Editor to publish it. Washington, on the other hand, hid his letter from the very same publisher. I'm going to bed now and tomorrow morning I am in hospital. Hopefully around if I am needed later in the day. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Now you're attempting to skew matters. No one said Asgill's letter had anything to do with Washington's missing letter. This issue started over the impact Asgill's letter was supposed to have on all the history surrounding the Asgill affair. Washington clearly acknowledged in one of his 'non-missing' letters that he had received Asgill's letter and was aware of his situation, and wished that no harm came to him, so what, exactly, has been covered up? It is well known that Washington at first went along with the prospect of hanging Asgill, and it is also well known that after considerations from Congress, the French crown, etc he was happy to release Asgill, and even went so far as to furnish him with a pass to New York. There's your "major" war criminal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Not only have I been to Huddy's grave, that is how biased I am, but I have tracked down one of his descendants. She spoke of him being a thug and that was putting it in its best perspective. Would all editors please note, I shall not be responding to anything else written by Gwillhickers. I'm done. He reads not one single word I write. It is pointless. I've said it all already and this whole thing is taking over my life. I am in hospital tomorrow and it is now 2am in England. I haven't even got my medication sorted out for tomorrow. This cannot go on like this. Arbil44 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Again with the false accusations: "He reads not one single word I write."?? I read, clearly, your other accusation that I accused you of being "dastardly English". You are seeing things that are simply not there, and have confounded this issue coming and going. Now you're telling us you visited the grave of someone you regard as a thug. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand clearly: Asgill wrote a letter that was never published but was eventually found and sold to a private collector who won't let anybody see it. Washington wrote a letter he did not permit to be printed, but neither did he destroy it. Where is it now? Can we see it?

Peter R. Henriques, a retired George Mason U. professor, has a piece recently out on the Asgill Affair. He says Asgill complained about abuse, but admitted there was no gibbet outside his prison window. It's long but worth the while of reading the whole thing. A word search for "gibbet" will take you quickly to the pertinent section. YoPienso (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's the same article that's quoted from above in the green boxes. YoPienso (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquisitive efforts and a link to an excellent account.(!) The idea that a gallows was constructed outside Asgill's prison window, in spite of his admission that this wasn't true, serves to demonstrate how some of the various historical accounts are driven by bias. Indeed, Washington, under pressure, and a sense of patriotic duty, outraged over Lipponcott's treachery and his execution of Huddy, went along with the idea of a retaliatory execution, but it seems obvious that, given the man, he was easily convinced that this was not the way to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter R. Henriques is professor emeritus of American History (not merely as Ph.D) at George Mason University. Here is a listing of the articles published. His is a reliable source. As I mentioned somewhere above, I have the pdf published in American History (without advertisements and cruft) if anyone is interested. Am happy to send it on. Victoria (tk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

My replies to queries posed to me by Anastrophe

A – “This rebuttal is clearly recorded in his letters, and indicates he had read Asgill's letter.”

Reply – indicates which letter of Asgill had been read? Asgill’s letter of Dec. 20, 1786 has been read by nobody until December 2019. If it has, history has not mentioned it ever before.

A - The absence of either letter did not dramatically alter history.

Reply – the letter of 18 May was not burnt. It eventually came to light and was chronicled as part of the Washington correspondence. The point is that all the letters published in the NHG purportedly claimed to be all the correspondence on the Asgill Affair. We have only just discovered that one of the letters was not included for publication.

A - A conditional prisoner was selected, thus implicit that the order was given

Reply – I have no idea what point you are trying to make. It is blatantly obvious and not even the point

A - W's reply to Asgill identifies his claims of mistreatment.

Reply – You are not seriously suggesting that GW’s comment “disagreeable circumstances” covers what actually happened to Asgill are you? GW meant that it had been disagreeable to be an innocent man destined for the gallows, and awaiting news of which day it would happen, for six months. Being generous to GW, let’s say he had absolutely no idea what had actually happened to Asgill on a daily basis (only Asgill’s letter of 1786 reveals that) and you have removed the one and only source which will enlighten everyone. I am unable to express my thoughts about that. However, I would not be too surprised if you find that the Lancaster History people will seek legal guidance of your deliberate removal of groundbreaking new facts.

A - It's good that the letters were discovered, and is helpful to a fuller accounting of the affair.

Reply – Only the Journal reveals this though and you have removed the reference [8], which gives all the facts you know nothing about.

A - However, we have no way of knowing if other letters, yet undiscovered, may hold other information that is relevant.

Reply – Indeed. What has not yet been found is something I am unable to comment on.

A - The Asgill letter is implicitly related to this matter, because as you note in your proposal, there were rumors of mistreatment.

Reply – There were rumors long before Asgill got home. I tried to explain that Europe was in uproar about it all. Once he did get home he was seen about 10 days later, with his legs damaged from leg irons, and the rest, as they say, is history. The rumors spread like wild-fire in coffee houses and the press. Asgill never spoke a word. There are no accounts of his words anywhere at all. Asgill never spoke publicly about anything until he wrote a letter in 1786. That letter has never surfaced. Nobody knows what he says in that letter. It can only be found in the Journal of 2019. Yet you refer to it as though it is all boring and well known stuff.

A - You can't claim that all of Washington's letters were published

Reply – They are now and they are all part of the Washington Papers, that is why Lancaster could check them off against what was printed. One Letter at a time. On the one side the New Haven paper and on the other all the papers which are NOW available as GW’s legacy.

A - Do you have any comments or corrections pertaining specifically to the text I proposed?

Reply – Yes, the grammar needs tweaking following the change of wording.

A - Tell me, please, which letters did Washington choose to burn?

Reply = Washington did not burn any letters, to my knowledge. If he did burn letters nobody would know which letters they were. I am afraid you are still not understanding what I have tried to explain so often. Lancaster did a tally and the tally didn’t match up. They were left over with the letter of 18 May which wasn’t published, but nor was it burnt. It eventually became part of the GW archives.

A - You can't say that the 18 May letter is the only letter that wasn't published, because it is impossible to state that others were not published as well.

Reply – but I can, with regard to The Asgill Affair only (other matters I know nothing about). Lancaster did a letter by letter tally and the tally didn’t match up, but you have deleted the sole source material from the references. As for the article found by Victoriaearle, you have removed that too, which is a shame because it is very much based on the Journal. Victoria’s article is online and can be read easily – regrettably the Journal is not. Victoria’s article does not print Asgill’s letter, but the Journal does.

Summary - I cannot speak for Lancaster, naturally, but I am quite serious that I think they may well consider taking legal action that their publication is being obliterated here. If you are worried that this is a money making exercise for me personally – I got paid nothing for all my work and I never will be. This is all getting very nasty and potentially litigious now. Anne (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Arbil44: I have every reason to believe you have not read the policies and explanations about behavior that I have thrice recommended. Please do read this one, as it is urgently important for you at this juncture: Wikipedia:No legal threats YoPienso (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are the first short paragraphs of the policy:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding.

Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action.

Instead of posting a legal threat, you should try to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation.

YoPienso (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you YoPienso. I have no choice left to me now but to leave these negotiations. A unilateral decision has been made to delete the only two references which could bring readers up to speed with what has actually happened, in December 2019. I consider that to be very serious indeed. I think Lancaster will consider that very serious too. I rally am out of here now. Goodbye YoPienso, and thanks for your heads up. Anne (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please do read Righting great wrongs and Seeing editing as being about taking sides and about "battleground behaviour". The 5 Pillars are foundational. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Yopienso, you stole much of my thunder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• To whom it also may concern, editors are allowed to express opinions about any source, esp in terms of bias or any conclusions it may try to advance. No one has "obliterated" anything, and now we can add one more accusation to the list. The conflict of interest is based on Wikipedia policy, and involves any work written by family members, esp when a bias is being aired by the journal through its author. Not only has the author referred to Washington on this Talk page as a "war criminal", and accused him of a "cover up", but this individual has asserted that the journal article "...is the Journal which has totally re-written everything which was written before December 2019", as if all the historians, and our sources have it all wrong. The webpage that features this journal/article clearly says, "Now Captain Charles Asgill's long-lost letter of rebuttal will tell the rest of the story." At this late date, no "rest of the story" has been offered, and none of us have yet to see the letter in question. Now Wikipedia is receiving veiled threats of a lawsuit: with this remark: "This is all getting very nasty and potentially litigious now." -- and --"I think Lancaster will consider that very serious too." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to say that I have seen the letter, and Anne has at least once offered to e-mail it to other participants in this discussion (see above). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

She was advised not to email the letter to anyone by at least one editor for legal considerations. Having said that, my main concern is over what significant alleged facts the letter may offer, esp in terms of refuting other established facts. If you know of any it would be at least interesting to hear about it. Just as important, if we are going to refer to any such information it would have to be cited with the appropriate page number(s), and of course the date, issue and other information of the journal. She could have acted in this capacity long ago but unfortunately that never happened. I still feel there is an acute bias and conflict of interest issue to be addressed, concerning both the letter and the editing involved, but I am willing to extend good faith inasmuch as the journal and the letter may have some accurate information to offer regardless. We'll see. Hope to hear from you again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington letters

It seems a bit odd that there has been much to do over the allegation that Washington "withheld" any letters he wrote to Hazen, with apparently nothing more than claims of a coverup, and esp since these letters have been in the public domain for many years now. Washington scholar John C. Fitzpatrick published these letters in 1931, almost 90 years ago. If any of these letters were withheld, it begs the question, when did they surface, and by what means? What assumed revelations can be found in the Lancaster Journal, and Asgill's letter, that could undermine any of the information put forth in Washington's letters as published in Fitzpatrick's 1931 work? This has never been made clear. All we have is suppositions that they have.

See: The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources..., Fitzpatrick, Ed. The writings of George Washington, 1931, Vol. 24 :

• Washington letter to Brigadier General Moses Hazen, May 18, 1782, p. 263
• Washington letter to the Secretary of War, also written on May 18th, informing him that he will direct General Hazen to select an officer for execution. pp.262-263

Was Washington's letter to the Sec. of War "withheld"? It makes plain Washington's intentions of selecting a British officer for execution, which makes the idea of any withheld letter to Hazen moot.

• Another letter from Washington to Moses Hazen, June 4, 1782, pp. 305-306
• More letters to consider -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington's references to Asgill

In John C. Fitzpatrick's, The writings of George Washington, Vol. 25, there are so many references to Asgill and Hazen made by Washington it's difficult to fathom how one missing letter was supposed to amount to anything in terms of a "coverup". Below are links to Asgill and Hazen search results in vol.25. After you click on either of these links it will take a few seconds for the results to come through. There are at least two four dozen letters written by Washington to various people that involve Hazen and/or Asgill and his situation. These letters have been in the public domain for many years. The text is also available for download in searchable PDF form, as are the other volumes.

• Washington's references to Asgill
• ...to Hazen

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"George Washington between the wars" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George Washington between the wars. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Slavery section verification tags

• Washington frequently cared for ill or injured slaves personally... Neither of the sources given support "frequently" or "personally". As best I can tell (I have the e-book version with different page numbers), Chernow states only that "The master made a point of dropping in to inquire after Cupid's health...". If I'm mistaken, perhaps the relevant supporting text can be posted here. Ferling states only that Washington "retained physicians and hired midwives". Further, neither source supports the statement about smallpox inoculations on the page numbers provided. Factotem (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• He was among the few large slave-holding Virginians during the Revolutionary Era who emancipated their slaves. I see no support for this in the source provided. Further, Philip Morgan states (pp. 427-428) that the emancipation of slaves in Virginia became popular for a while after the revolution, something for which Washington made no arrangements until much later and only after his death. Factotem (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dentures from slaves' teeth

@Drdpw: I see what you mean in the edit summary for this revert. My thinking was that these details were somewhat less than trivial because the notion that Washington wore dentures made from slaves' teeth is actually important to judging one of the most controversial aspects of Washington's character. -- Beland (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it though...? That sounds more like a personal opinion than anything else. Jersey John (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

This is FALSE. Our first United States president was in fact John Hanson, In November 1781 he became the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled, under the Articles of Confederation. It’s a constitution FACT! now fix this. 2600:1700:D550:1330:814C:28F3:41D9:AEFC (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – First, you are incorrect concerning this matter; beyond a similarity of title, the office of president of Congress bore no relationship to the office of president of the United States. Second, in the future, if you wish to suggest a change to this article, then please propose a specific change in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wealth

The estimate of Washington's wealth given in the article is much less than any of the other estimates I've seen. Has this issue come up before, and if so can someone direct me to the relavant archive? Konli17 (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

◆ If you have seen different wealth estimates then please propose a specific change in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. Drdpw (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen other tables that put him at first or third, but on List of presidents of the United States by net worth (which seems to be reliably sourced) he's second. Konli17 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

An estimate is an estimate. Are there records of taxes ? An estimate is not meant to convey the exact wealth of Washington, particularly the worth of his slaves, that would back then, be his property. I have been to Mount Vernon first hand. Let's just say he was a wealthy person. He lived in a mansion, maybe small by today's standards of estates, but he was very wealthy. He had water front property on top of a hill. That would make Mount Vernon worth alot even in today's market. Again. An estimate is just an estimate. Feel free to put in other estimates into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

The summary states that Washington was succeeded by Jefferson. That is incorrect. He was succeeded by John Adams. 2600:1700:6630:7D70:1C74:3894:6762:78C2 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – If you are referring to the Infobox at the top of the article, where it states that Jefferson succeeded Washington as Delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress, then you needn't be concerned as that detail is correct. If not, then you will need to be more specific in identifying the location within the article. Drdpw (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

JohnnyDennis63834t497768 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to edit that he had a son

• He did. John Parke Custis. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

It is relevant to add to the PERSONAL LIFE section in regards to Washington's teeth that he sourced teeth for transplantation from his slaves. Please add THIS:

There is evidence that Washington's dentures were, additionally, sourced from the teeth of slaves at Mount Vernon. The poor and enslaved had been selling teeth as a means of making money since the Middle Ages, which were sold as dentures or implants to those of financial means. During the Revolution, French dentist Jean Pierre Le Moyer provided services in tooth transplantation. In May of 1784, Washington paid several unnamed slaves 122 shillings for a total of nine teeth to be implanted by a French doctor, who became a frequent guest on the plantation over the next few years. While it is unconfirmed that these purchased teeth were for Washington himself, his payment for them suggests that were in fact for his use, as does a comment from a letter to his wartime clerk Richard Varick: "I confess I have been staggered in my belief in the efficacy of transplantion," he wrote. It is possible that Washington used teeth sourced from slaves to improve his appearance, a subject of frequent discomfort to him.

Additionally, the separate page George Washington's teeth should likely just be entirely wrapped into this section, with a sub-section for teeth, if it is important enough to warrant a side page. Caitidh (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – Adding anything to what is currently stated in this article about about G.W.'s teeth would be giving the subject undue weight.

Washington suffered frequently from severe tooth decay and ultimately lost all his teeth but one. He had several sets of false teeth made which he wore during his presidency—none of which were made of wood, contrary to common lore. These dental problems left him in constant pain, for which he took laudanum. As a public figure, he relied upon the strict confidence of his dentist.

The proper place for details about George Washington's teeth is in the article by that name; that's why it exists. Drdpw (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Listed children

The summary of facts lists only John Parke Custis under "Children," but the main body of the article under section "Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1775)" includes Martha Parke (Patsy) Custis. Because the page is protected, this is not something I can change myself. Ab2125 (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a link with this, I did not mean to attach one. Ab2125 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

Please change "without loss of life or materiel" to "without loss of life or material" Risenna (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The correct term is 'materiel' as used, meaning supplies, weapons and other materials used by a fighting force. See Materiel. General Ization ^Talk 03:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 29 July 2020

1. Note [o] is redundant and should be deleted. This information was already included in note [e].

2. Note [e] says "16th century" when referring to 18th-century events. This should probably be changed. 216.255.171.122 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Request to change the Commander-in-Chief commission date to June 19, 1775. Verified by https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/commission.html#:~:text=The%20Continental%20Congress%20commissioned%20George,Army%20on%20June%2019%2C%201775. JoshuaGGamer (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

George Washington was born in the Colony of Virginia, not Virginia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In 1774 Thomas Jefferson wrote the following: "Resolved that it be an instruction to the said deputies when assembled in General Congress with the deputies from the other states of British America to propose to the said Congress [ . . . ] colony of Virginia [ . . . ] colony of Virginia [ . . . ] to quiet the minds of your subjects in British America against any apprehensions of future incroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony thro' the whole empire, and that that may continue to the latest ages of time, is the fervent prayer of all British America." A Summary View of the Rights of British America, July 1774, Papers 1:121--35 [1]

The Colony's name was not Virginia, the Colony's name was the "Colony of Virginia". Thomas Jefferson used "colony of Virginia" in his papers. It should not be necessary to click on a link to find out George Washington was not born in "Virginia", but that he was born in the "Colony of Virginia".Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Washington was born in the land that was known at the time, and thereafter, as Virginia. It was obviously not the "State of Virginia," or more correctly the "Commonwealth of Virginia," as such had not yet been created by its ratification of the Constitution in 1788, but it was, nevertheless, known as Virginia. While Jefferson, like his contemporaries, was not necessarily consistent in his use of capitalization, he was certainly educated, and it is instructive that he referred to it as the "colony of Virginia" (i.e., Virginia, a colony) rather than by the proper name "the Colony of Virginia," which might support your argument. Since he did not, we will not either. General Ization ^Talk 01:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The common name of the colony was Virginia, and rendering the link to the "Colony of Virginia" article as "Virginia" in the infobox is perfectly accurate and apropos. Drdpw (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

See further at Talk:Thomas Jefferson#Thomas Jefferson was born in the Colony of Virginia. General Ization ^Talk 03:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

missing links

Protected page so I couldn't fix it. Numerous references to John Adams lack links to his page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams Sarafinadh (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That's because generally only the first mention of a linked article is linked, per Manual of Style - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. This particular article links the John Adams article six separate times, most probably, I would think, because the article itself is so long (its readable prose size is almost 100kb) so some repeated linking is allowable to help readers' comprehension. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

British subject?

By English common law Washington was a naturalized subject of the king, as were all others born in the British colonies.

What is the point of stating this as it applies to everyone?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: The statement, while indeed accurate, is rather pointless, and I would not object to its removal. Drdpw (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not say Washington was a British or Royal subject ? Washington was British subject until 1776. He wanted to wear British Red during the French Indian War. His own mother may have had Loyalist sympathies. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bloodletting before death

The article for Bloodletting mentions

>> Within a ten-hour period, a total of 124–126 ounces (3.75 liters) of blood was withdrawn prior to his death from a throat infection in 1799.

This article only mentions the first pint. Since 3.75 liters are quite a significant amount (while a pint or two are easily survivable), that total amount should be included in this article. --2001:8003:4E40:8400:8002:91C4:407F:DFB0 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The exact amount of blood taken from Washington is in some dispute but this article does mention at least 6 pints being taken, which works out to being at least 2.84 liters. Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Altercation with William Payne

I noticed under GOCE requests a new (orphaned) WP page was added this week for Virginia gentleman William Payne (sheriff). Payne is noted to have had an altercation with Washington in a public square in 1755 leading to life-long friendship. I am tying these two threads together. Improvements are solicited. Zatsugaku (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

I found it quiet shocking the fact that it never mentions anything in the "Early life" section about George Washington Albanian roots. This is an important fact as Washington is in fact 50% Albanian inherited by his mother Mary Ball Washington. 81.102.158.112 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Not done because the claim that Mary Ball Washington was partly Albanian is an internet myth unsupported by any verifiable facts and has been addressed before on that article's talk page, see Talk:Mary Ball Washington/Archive 1#Not an Albanian. Shearonink (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This is fake news that apparently originated as an April Fools joke, [2] Should be reverted on sight. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning historians by name

Sometimes it's appropriate to emphasize a point by referring to a supporting historian by name, esp when a given statement may be otherwise questionable. However, this can be over done. e.g. Currently this narrative mentions Ron Chernow by name seven times, and for statements covering facts well established by numerous historians. We should speak with Wikipedia's voice whenever possible. A narrative that repeatedly indicates 'Simon Sez' doesn't make for the best writing, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think that Wikipedia should have a narrative style. This is not a thesis paper. There is no need to mention repeatedly the author of a book. The only exceptions would be in the legacy/reputation sections, but even there, one historian should have not precedence over another historian. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Same Quote Used in Contradictory Ways

Now, I'm no historian so bear with me if I'm missing something, but in the Abolition and emancipation subsection of the Slavery section, Washington is quoted as saying: "...to liberate a certain species of property which I possess, very repugnantly to my own feelings..." Now, in the first part of the slavery section, it appears that the same quote is clipped short and used to mean the exact opposite of the full quote's plain inference: "He demonstrated no moral qualms about the institution and referred to his slaves as "a Species of Property"." Now, I understand that both uses of this quotation come from different sources, which used the quote in different ways. Still, it seems like the usage in Ellis is disingenuous, not in relation to what Ellis is saying, but merely to the quote that he uses to serve his point. He takes a quote, reduces it to the point where it appears to mean the opposite of what it originally meant, and uses the result to characterize Washington's views at a time that is long before the quote was made. It seems a very tortured usage of the quote by Ellis. Possibly more important, our inclusion of both sentences using the quote in such opposing ways and so closely together really does strike a dissonant note. When I read the first, I thought "what a d***". Then, soon after, I read the second and I thought "Well, there was some measure of growth, at least, but that quote sounds familiar. Wait a minute..." Both caused by the same words used with varying degrees of context. I'd prefer to leave it to you folks to determine what, if anything, to do to reconcile the two passages. If no-one has any comments in response after a while, however, I may take a stab at it. AaronMP84 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

i want to edit that george washington could of had kids with a slave, i read this on NYC times. 107.72.178.65 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That Land Surveying appointment...

Recently another editor add info about Washington's land surveying appointment to the lead section. I adjusted that information and my edit was removed. Let's discuss GW's County Land Surveyor appointment by Fairfax here. Is it important enough, is it notable enough to be included in the lead section? I think so and here is why:

The second paragraph goes immediately into Washington's Colonial military experience with no mention of his initial foray into politics...that coveted County surveyor slot. Usually men of substance were awarded those jobs, men who had served full multi-year apprenticeships but Washington got the gig with basically no experience, and had just received his license from William & Mary. How in the world did he manage to do that?! The Land Surveyorship really is a minor miracle that set him up for success, that put him on a path for what he achieved in his life...he traveled the frontier, he saw life beyond the confines of the comfortable Virginia gentry, he met and made acquaintance with men of power beyond Tidewater Virginia, he started accumulating his extensive frontier land-holdings... Being the "Official Land Surveyor of Culpeper County" might have been somewhat overlooked in the article and therefore could be characterized as a detail but that doesn't mean we have to leave it as such. Before he went into the military, before he was a Burgess, before he went to the Continental Congress, before he was a Lieutenant General and Commanding General of the Armies, before he was President of the United States... George Washington was a Land Surveyor. His first political office deserves a mention in the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That was definitely my thinking when I added the statement. I do like that the intro is short and concise, but it does seem to skip ahead by starting with his military life in his mid to late 20s. Hard to say. Good input all around, that's how this site is supposed to work. --JLavigne508 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shearonink: You've made a good case for expanding the two-sentence mention of GW's early-life land surveyor career in the Early Life section. If indeed his being a land surveyor at ages 17–18 is as significant as you say, then perhaps adding a sentence at the start of the second paragraph of the lead (something like: Washington served as surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia from 1749–1750.) might be in order. Drdpw (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Illness

Vasilko. George Washington passed away to an illness to a throat infection. There is no medical evidence or reason to support this old wives' tale. It's rather ironic that this section goes on to describe the bloodletting process that was undertaken; there is as much evidence (none) that bloodletting cured infections as there is that cold weather causes them. Gcjnst (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The article lays out the timeline of his last days. I see no implication that he somehow "caught" his sore throat from being out in the cold weather. But let's discuss etc. Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious some kind of infection killed Washington. It was sudden onset. He wore dentures. That could have been a possible source of infection, not the cold weather. Cold weather does not cause infection. That is true. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The immune system may be compromised by cold weather, but there really is no way of verifying this in the article. What's the link between cold weather and the common cold? "Medically reviewed by Alana Biggers, M.D., MPH — Written by Jamie Eske on October 23, 2018" Viewed 4-8-2021 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

Born 1736 died 1799 died of pneumonia 47.138.36.205 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinked "General of the Armies" in opening sentence, preceding the subject's name

It's been added, reverted once, reverted twice... Let's discuss the issue and come to a consensus. Shearonink (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No consensus may be reachable on this issue, as General Washington does officially hold this rank, as does General John Pershing, whose holding of the rank appears before his name on his article, so why should our nation's first president, who made incomparable contributions to our country by leading it to victory for independence so that we(referring to myself and all Americans) could HAVE our own country be considered undeserving of having the rank appear before his name too? Doesn't make any sense, especially considering the fact that Washington's seniority in the rank is senior to Pershing's. STCooper1 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the John J. Pershing article notes his rank as General of the Armies in the opening sentence, the George Washington article has never, to my knowledge, has. It's not that he is considered undeserving by wikipedians of having the rank appear before his name, it's that, in practice, biographical articles of U.S. presidents who also served as senior United States Army officers do not have their rank noted in the opening sentence. Additionally, I do not recall anyone broaching the subject or seeking to build consensus for adding it. "Pershing's article does it" and "Washington led US to victory and independence" are not, IMO, compelling reasons for doing so. Drdpw (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) STCooper1 - Consensus doesn't mean we all must agree. On Wikipedia, "reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So. Let's take a look at what the first paragraph in the lead section is supposed to do:

In generally accepted Wikipedia editing practices on WP:BIOs the name stands alone without a title preceding it, see MOS:BIRTHNAME (& Elizabeth II, Winfield Scott, Henry Clay, Ulysses S. Grant, Francisco Franco for examples). Pershing's article is the single one I could find that has his military rank preceding his name. It was changed from the generally-accepted name + (military) title format on August 24, 2016 in this edit. The concept that simply because General of the Armies is used in the Pershing article, that the same title + name formatting-order of the first sentence must be used in the George Washington article has an air of WP:WHATABOUT. A single editor on a single article decided that title + name is correct but this practice is not followed in any other article I consulted. So, it would seem that having the first sentence read:

General of the Armies John Joseph Pershing GCB (September 13, 1860 – July 15, 1948), nicknamed "Black Jack", was a senior United States Army officer.

does not follow the WP:MOS and the first-mention/first-sentence should be adjusted to something similar to the following:

John Joseph Pershing GCB (September 13, 1860 – July 15, 1948), nicknamed "Black Jack", was a senior United States Army officer.

Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pershing is not the only example of an article of a soldier whose rank appears before their name. Douglas MacArthur's article has his rank of General of the Army before his name too. So does it not being accepted general practice not to have the title or rank anyone held on here before their name, even though there would appear to be nothing wrong with the practice of dong the opposite, mean that we should remove these mentions from John Pershing and Douglas MacArthur's articles then? That would be fair. STCooper1 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

According to my reading of the various MOS guidelines/policies/good practices? Yes. Doesn't seem to me that military titles should precede the WP:BIO's first-mention name in the first sentence of an article. To do so in a very few American biographical articles seems to be in contravention of generally accepted good editing practices almost everywhere else in Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pershing was born in the United States. When Washington was born there was no United States. He was born a British subject. Washington served as a British colonial auxiliary during the French and Indian War. Part of Washington's history prior to 1776 is one of a British subject. He is primarily known for being the first President under the U.S. Constitution serving two years. Pershing never was President, and I think, he never ran for office. Washington should be titled the United States first President in the first sentence of the introduction. The military title should be during the Revolutionary War information in the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok... So should the first sentence of this article start as it stands now or should it read as the version that was reverted:

General of the Armies George Washington

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As stands now. Washington's appointment was on March 13, 1978. Now possibly with a good source that information could be added to the last paragraph of the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Information put in the article and introduction (last paragraph). Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

1yh info added 16 times.Ns9q (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

George Washington, slave owner

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing early per WP:SNOW. There is a clear consensus that the proposed wording should not be included in the first sentence of the lead. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

---

He was born into slave ownership, owned slaves from the age of 11, and exploited slaves his entire life. Should this be mentioned in the first sentence of the article? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 21:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I now wonder how important his slave ownership was. Perhaps it is the first thing that defines him? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 22:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Washington was a slave owner is certainly important and should definitely be addressed in this article. Upon what do you base your opinion that save ownership is the first thing that defines him? Drdpw (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Drdpw - his entire wealth came from land ownership and slave labour, he personally exploited the labour of slaves from the age of 11 until his death. That is a rare and unpleasant situation that distinguishes him from most men of that or any other time. Why do you think this should not be referenced in the first sentence? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 23:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mentioned in article and lead, but not lead sentence. It's certainly a fact about Washington, but it is not the primary thing for which he is notable. It should absolutely be mentioned, but it is not lead sentence material. I think the article does a good job of addressing the topic as it stands now, and that insertion to the lead sentence would be undue weight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, this should not be in the first sentence of the lead; it isn't even close to being the main thing that defines his notability as an encyclopedic subject. It's a part of his life and his impact on the world, and it is certainly worth mentioning, but it's not the reason we have an article about him (that is to say, "he owned slaves" wouldn't serve to establish notability for an article on some random guy from the 1700s who did nothing else of note). jp×g 23:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There are currently 4 primary things for which he is notable, and he was a slave owner before, during, and after all those things, and the work of his slaves deserves recognition. How would adding a description of his primary means of existence be undue weight, when that is how he earned his bread? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 23:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In my comment, I explained my reasoning. The fact that someone was a thing for a long time, or that it's a notable part of their life, does not mean it needs to feature in the first sentence of their article. Consider the following:

Alan Mathison Turing OBE FRS (/ˈtjʊərɪŋ/; 23 June 1912 – 7 June 1954) was a homosexual English mathematician, homosexual computer scientist, homosexual logician, homosexual cryptanalyst, homosexual philosopher, and homosexual theoretical biologist. Turing was highly homosexual, and influential in the development of theoretical homosexual computer science, providing a homosexual formalisation of the concepts of algorithm and computation with the Turing machine, which can be considered a homosexual model of a general-purpose computer. Turing is widely considered to be the homosexual father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence. Turing was homosexual, and pursued romantic relationships with men, in contrast to the more common practice at the time (heterosexuality) in which men pursued romantic relationships with women.

Does this seem appropriate? Why or why not? jp×g 00:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

would you prefer "land and slave-owner"? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 23:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I already said what I would prefer and why. My answer to that will not change if you repeat the question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating! Apologies for my enthusiasm, my point was that he did not simply "own slaves", but that the accumulation and exploitation of slaves was his main profession, hence a defining aspect, especially today.. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• No, not in the first sentence per the arguments already presented above, but certainly somewhere in the lead. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• No (brought here by the bot) In the first sentence!?!? Definitely not. The first sentence of the lead in a biography is almost always the nationality of the person and a few words describing the one or two things the person was best known for; George Washington was not best known as the son of a slave owner. I'm trying to find examples of other slaveholding heads of state in which we mention that fact in the first sentence of the lead (e.g. Julius Caesar, Simón Bolívar, Napoleon, Qin Shi Huang, etc.) and can't find a single example thus far, so to push this into the first sentence of the lead of this specific article would be an extreme case of systemic bias forcing the WP:WORLDVIEW of articles into an Americentric frame. Frankly, I'm not even 100% convinced this warrants making it into the lead considering it comprises five paragraphs in a 72 paragraph article and MOS:LEADREL requires us to "harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article". Certainly it should be included in the body of the article, however. Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Slave owning was his profession, what he lived from before, during and after he was president. If you look at Ronald Reagan, his previous career as an actor is mentioned more prominently. I have not checked the entries for the other 11 slave owning US presidents. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 01:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, slave owning was not Washington's profession. Drdpw (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You'll need a RS that says Washington was a professional slave owner. The RS I've seen list him as a professional tobacco farmer. And even that wouldn't be appropriate for the first sentence of the lead since he's not best known for his tobacco growing (i.e. I think it's reasonable to assume that the average person, asked who was George Washington, would probably not respond "he was a tobacco farmer who, later in life, diversified into wheat" as opposed to responding "he was a former president of the United States and signatory to the U.S. Constitution"). Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• No - Not first line nor in LEAD. Not first line per MOS:FIRST, the first line is to identify the article subject. Not in lead per WP:LEAD, as little of the article body is about this. This is only noted because he is famous, it is not something that caused him to be famous. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• No and I would also like to point out that the phrase He was born into slave ownership is ambiguous, it could be read that Washington himself was a slave from birth, owned by somebody else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, Placing this in the first sentence would seem to place undue weight and represent a bias for the article WP:NPOV. Was this the defining point of Washington's life, No. This is not lead material as it is not one of the most important parts of the article WP:MOSLEAD.Tepkunset (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, clearly not, as it is not what Washington is mainly known for. It should be covered in the article, of course. Whether it should be in the lead at all is unclear to me, but it should not be in the first sentence. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• No Already in the lead, nowhere near important enough to warrant placement in first sentence. BSMRD (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• No It shouldn't be in the first line but rather in the article. Sea Ane (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• No Are we going to do this to every historic person that owned slaves? This was common for someone of his place in society for this time, so it isn't particularly remarkable, or a specific feature of his character, or something he is noted for. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Typo: ordnance 2600:8801:3404:E900:E903:68E2:1BCB:3135 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a typo. "Ordnance" is an actual word and is used correctly in this context. Living Concrete (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Title: Father of The Father, His Excellency

Should there be an honorary prefix for the title "Father of the Nation" and/or possibly "His Excellency" considering that he has been called such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The short answer is – no. Drdpw (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

" A plot to assassinate or capture him was discovered but thwarted," This might or might not be sourced in the article. The closest following footnote is to a late 19th century newspaper (to which I do not have access), which could be about the blued individual it is attached to or could be about the plot. In any case, there is now a book (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-first-conspiracy-brad-meltzer/1128976135?ean=9781250257673) about the plot. Should it be used as reference? Kdammers (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to apply the standards of Washington's time to modern research. I think calling him "Washington" is all that is needed for the narration. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Heraldry

How can his coat of arms be incorporated into the article? It was important to him. Coat of arms of the Washington family♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps an image of it could be put below/above the Edward Savage painting in the Personal life section, or a link to the article you note could be added to the See also section. Drdpw (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I followed your advice, although I am not sure it fits the layout.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 01:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RfCs of interest

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. RfCs are underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents concerning the removal or retention of US president series boxes at associated articles and the removal or retention of US vice-president series boxes at associated articles.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 1 - president series boxes) with Discussion of president series boxes,
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 2 - vice-president series boxes) with Discussion of vice-president series boxes. Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Visibility of slavery

It is all very well to have a separate section for slavery, but the man exploited black slaves all his life, and they should not only be represented there. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 21:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I made a few edits attempting to incorporate slavery into the article, but they were reverted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&type=revision&diff=1027246943&oldid=1027246780). Do they look reasonable? How could they be improved? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 22:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The two statements you added duplicate statements already contained in the opening 2 sentences in the 3rd paragraph of the lead. Drdpw (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Drdpw you reverted more than two statements of mine, and other important statements are duplicated. Why do you think it appropriate to repeatedly describe him as a landowner, but not mention his slave ownership at the same time? While describing him as a "Planter" may suggest that he was a slave owner, why not spell it out, rather than hide it? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 23:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Do they look reasonable? Um, no. It appears you've just sprinkled "slave owner" into every sentence of the article like you're spreading paprika on a roast without checking to see if the extant source on which each specific sentence is referenced actually mentions that or not. "the man exploited black slaves all his life, and they should not only be represented there" Though perhaps a noble sentiment, WP is not the correct venue to achieve justice for enslaved peoples. Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS "we can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave". Chetsford (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is mostly about sourcing and there are definitely enough sources backing the claims discussed in this RfC. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's also about "giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion" which inserting "slave-owner" into every sentence of this article on the basis of original analysis of its relative importance fails to do. Chetsford (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The introduction does mention Washington as a slave owner. The marriage and slavery section discusses slavery. More information could be added as to why a slaveowner such as Washington was fighting for liberty but enslaving blacks and using forced labor? The British were freeing blacks during the Revolution and promising them their freedom. Maybe Washington's slavery-Revolution contradiction could use more input. Does the article address this issue adequately? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggested addition: " British author Samuel Johnson, responded over the tyranny of taxation by asking how "is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” Slavery was protected in all of the 13 colonies prior to the Revolutionary War." This adds context and criticism. Source: The Founding Fathers Views of Slavery Mark Maloy Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Founding Fathers Views of Slavery Mark Maloy (April 6, 2021) Archived source with a date. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I added the British view that criticized colonial slave owners like Washington for owning slaves, but who demanded liberty from Parliament. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What year was this statement made? What was it in response to? Was this a criticism of Washington or a blanket criticism of rebel leaders in the 13 colonies? Why shoehorn the statement, "Slavery was protected in all of the 13 colonies prior to the Revolutionary War." In here? Why not state that slavery was protected throughout the British empire at the time of the Revolutionary War? Drdpw (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnson made the statement in 1775. My source was Mark Maloy. Did you read the article? There was a direct link to the article: Founding Fathers Views on Slavery. That article mentions Washington. Adding a British view makes the article neutral, especially when there were loyalists to Britain during the Revolutionary War. That section mentioned slaves using Washington's own words. There was no intention of shoehorning the edit. Why did the founders like Washington complain of liberty when they enslaved blacks? That is a legitimate question that Americans ask. Are we supposed to ignore the issue? Mentioning slavery was legally protected up until 1776 in all of the thirteen colonies is appropriate. But all of this begs the question why is Washington complaining of liberty when he was one of the wealthiest slave owners in Virginia? It questions the true motivation(s) for the Revolutionary War. Certainly, it was not to end slavery or give liberty to the slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

[3] This website mentions that acquiring land was a primary motivation for the Revolutionary War. Source:Lehrman Institute. [4] Loyalist lands were confiscated. The American Revolution was a civil war, not just fought for "liberty" from Great Britain. Source: New York Public Library. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this a strawman argument? Who claimed that the rebels were fighting for liberty? Our article on the American Revolution cites among its causes, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which temporarily barred colonial settlement west of Allegheny Mountains. In 1765, the colonists were protesting, because "They objected to their lack of representation in the Parliament, which gave them no voice concerning legislation that affected them." The Declaration of Rights and Grievances (1765) claimed that the colonists were entitled to the Rights of Englishmen. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The Revolutionary War to Washington was a land grab. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Washington said he was a slave. How could that be? He was one of the wealthiest slave-owning landowners in Virginia. Did the colonies ever petition to be represented in Parliament? No. At least I have been providing sources. No strawman. The British were not allowing settlers to move west. The land would give Americans prosperity, regardless if Indians discovered the land first. Washington knew this. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty". The section reads like the Americans had pure values and the British were the bad guys. The British were in fact freeing slaves during the Revolutionary War. The whole war seemed to be about land confiscation. Each of the colonies had representation in their colonial governments. Washington himself was part of the House of Burgesses. The colonists did have representation. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is beyond the scope of this article. yes, the section Opposition to British Parliament section reads "like the Americans had pure values and the British were the bad guys." I would expect it to, as this is an article about George Washington, who was a rebel/patriot. This is the basic biographical article, and the section presents what Washington supported and what he said/did in response to events. That is why there's the list of articles for further information. That's where the other side of the story, along with the nuances and even the hypocrisies can be to be presented. Drdpw (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to go by what the sources say. Articles are supposed to present a neutral point of view, not a pro or con article on Washington. The sentence is appropriate because Washington mentioned slaves in his quote. Maloy mentiond that slavery was legal in all 13 colonies in Maloy's article. Maloy also discusses George Washington. It is a statement of neutral fact that has been reverted from the article. I expect the article to be neutral. I just put in what Maloy mentioned in his article. Sweeping information to other articles is not what Wikipedia is about. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

How does Washington's assertion that submission by [white] colonists to what they regarded as British tyranny result in their becoming "as tame and abject slaves as the blacks we rule over with. such arbitrary sway" make the statement "Slavery was protected in all of the 13 colonies prior to the Revolutionary War" appropriate? That statement of fact is out of place here; it should certainly be stated somewhere in the article, sure, but this isn't the place. How does it make the the Johnson quote, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" germane? It does not fit. Now, his suggestion from that same speech, that, Americans had no more right to govern themselves than the Cornish, is an interesting and perhaps pertinent point. If Washington's hyperbolic statement needs to be counter-balanced, a few sentences from Final works section of the Samuel Johnson article could, I think, be imported along with the citations, something like this:

In response to the Declaration of Rights, British author Samuel Johnson argued that in emigrating to America, colonists had "voluntarily resigned the power of voting", but they still retained "virtual representation" in Parliament. If the Americans wanted to participate in Parliament, said Johnson, they could move to England and purchase an estate. Drdpw (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The central question for the reader and Americans is why Washington went to war for lack of representation, but enslaved hundreds of blacks on his plantation. The article should address this in some manner. Washington had no problem with blacks having no rights. Also, the Americans never petitioned Parliament for representation. They wanted the land for themselves. They needed a separate government from England to take over the American continent. I have provided three sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Information added to the slavery sections in main bio article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Information added that land speculation spurred on the American Revolution and Washington encouraged such speculation. Washington was a prosperous land speculator and/or investor. Lehrman sourced. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I made the following edit which has been reverted [[5]]. I do not think "he owned slaves" is an accurate description.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Drdpw reading your contributions, particularily "yes, the section Opposition to British Parliament section reads "like the Americans had pure values and the British were the bad guys." I would expect it to, as this is an article about George Washington, who was a rebel/patriot. This is the basic biographical article, and the section presents what Washington supported and what he said/did in response to events. That is why there's the list of articles for further information. That's where the other side of the story, along with the nuances and even the hypocrisies can be to be presented. " WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can ignore the T-Rex in the room, slavery. The slaves had no rights, no representation, no legal protection, forced to work, were not allowed to marry or be educated, whipped, beaten, raped, and were perpetual slaves passed down to their offspring. Why should Washington be revered as a son of liberty when he enslaved people? Roman emperors owned slaves. Should we honor them for their democratic values? In fact, Roman emperors are viewed as tyrants by historians. Why are American slaveowners exempt from criticism? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

YouTube Video Source: Harsh Life of Washington's Slaves Revisited November 30, 2010 VOA News Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Are we ignoring it? "Why should Washington be revered as a son of liberty when he enslaved people? Roman emperors owned slaves. Should we honor them for their democratic values?" Wikipedia isn't really the place to honor or indict people. We're not here to "spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community". We simply chronicle what RS say in WP:DUE proportion to how they say it. If you're concerned about Washington being unduly "honored" in this article, just demonstrate the direction of scholarship does the opposite and we can update the article. If it doesn't, then go on a lecture circuit, write a book, publish some scholarly journal articles, etc. This seems to be a second go User:L'Origine du monde is having at a failed RfC they tried to push last month. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A neutrality tag should added for this article for deleting reliable information and for editor control of the article. There is a onesided view of slavery in the article. A reliable source said Washington's slaves had no rights. This information was purposely deleted to make Washington look better in the article. The slavery section is being white washed. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said Washington was unduly honored. I just asked a rhetorical question. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The reliable source is anthropologist Dennis Pogue. He said Washington's slaves were "owned by other people, they had no rights of their own, and they were doing hard work." Source: [] Here is a bio on Denise Pogue: [6]. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"A reliable source said Washington's slaves had no rights." ... I see. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Honorific prefix

Consistent with John J. Pershing, should Washington have a prefix of General of the Armies? considering they're the only two to hold this rank. Spf121188 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I presume you are asking about adding "GotA" to the top of the infobox, is that correct? Drdpw (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If that is what Spf is asking about, in my opinion? no. President of the United States outranks General of the Armies, GotA is simply Pershing's highest achieved rank/highest honor. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

And if we're going to start talking about the term "General of the Armies" - again...it does come up from time to time here on Wikipedia re: Pershing v Washington - there's always US Grant, Sherman and Sheridan to consider (see this US GAO publication ). Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I was just wondering, I’m a little new to WP, so that all makes sense, thanks for answering! Spf121188 (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ask away & learn - cheers! Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)