Talk:George Washington/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Requested revised edit

I would have raised this back in May 2022, but was waiting for another editor who had promised to do this for me. Since this has not happened, it must unfortunately rest with me to bring it to your notice. I base this edit request on the uninvolved non-admin closure’s conclusions, which can be found here: Talk:Asgill Affair. On the basis of Discuss-Dubious’s recommendations, of May 19, 2022, I am hoping that editors will be amenable to uploading a revised version of what is currently within "The Asgill Affair" section. I have attempted to keep this as short as I possibly can, so have removed some unnecessary and somewhat misleading details. I have simply tried to keep this as accurate as I can within as short a space as possible. It is not possible for me to upload this edit myself, since there would be a COI given I am heavily involved in this (and my referencing abilities are less than ideal). I very much wish to keep this discussion civil, even though I acknowledge that it will not be something you will welcome. But sometimes even recorded history has to adjust when new information comes to light. Although long, my interview in March last year (regarded by Wikipedia as a published document) really does explain everything, so I would recommend listening to it before deciding. May I also mention that my book about all this is expected to be published by Lexington Books in the near future, so it would be good if this article could reflect what will be published, in advance of publication. I am currently involved in various deadlines with Lexington, so I may not be able to participate promptly. Indeed, I have said (and amended the relevant section) as much as I can, so would be happy if agreement was reached amongst interested editors, with the minimum of discussion with me required, so please talk amongst yourselves!

My proposed edit follows.

The Asgill Affair was an event that occurred towards the end of the American Revolution. [1] As a result of ongoing murders taking place between the Patriot and Loyalist factions, Washington wrote to Brigadier General Moses Hazen on May 18, 1782 ordering that lots were to be drawn amongst 13 British Captains, for one to go to the gallows in retribution for a Patriot Captain's murder, [2] which duly occurred on May 27, 1782. Captain Charles Asgill, was selected to be hanged, in direct contravention of the 14th Article of Capitulation. [3] As America's allies, the French monarchy became involved and let it be known that such measures would reflect badly on both the French and American nations. The French Foreign Minister, Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes, wrote to Washington on July 29, 1782 to express these views.[4] After a six-month ordeal, awaiting death daily, the Continental Congress eventually agreed that Asgill should be released to return to England on Parole.

This was not the end of the matter, since it had expanded beyond a great national concern [5] into an international cause célèbre. Michael Knox Beran writes: The American commander in chief seems to have recognized almost at once that he had made, what was worse than a mistake, a blunder that compromised his honor. [6] To make matters worse, four years later it was brought to Washington’s attention that false rumors were circulating in Europe, concerning ill-treatment of Asgill whilst in confinement in Chatham, New Jersey, awaiting his execution. [7]

To counter these rumors, Washington published his 1782 Asgill correspondence, which was passed to the New Haven Gazette for publication on November 16, 1786 by his former aide-de-camp, David Humphreys. [8] Since this account failed to include vital information, Asgill himself wrote to the New Haven Gazette to contest the published account. [9] His letter of December 20, 1786 was not published (until 2019), thereby adding to the body of unpublished correspondence. In an interview, in March 2022, Anne Ammundsen presented the case that four significant letters had been omitted from Washington's account of the Asgill Affair, thereby distorting the records, which have formed the basis of this account ever since. [10] Anne (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are too detailed for this article, and more apropos in the Asgill Affair article. That said, looking at the current information provided in this article about the affair, I do see room for refinement in light of what you have presented, and will make a few changes. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but isn't that negating the closer's advice (which I understand to be expected to be taken), which was to prepare the article for the link to the interview? The Asgill Affair article covers this situation already. I do understand, and appreciate, the sensitivity likely to be felt here, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and honest. Michael Knox Beran and Peter Henriques (whose book the former is reviewing) are highly respected authors, both of whom recognise that this was not Washington's finest hour. I do hope that others will comment, and give this edit a chance? Anne (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That closing noted an apparent For the second list, I think editor consensus says that it would be better to consider citing the body of work (including the interview) that talks about the long-withheld letter in the articles’ discussion on this affair, wherein these works (and the Asgill affair that they refer to) can be reasonably made relevant to the articles in question. There was no advice to prepare the article for the link to the interview. In looking at the current section, (developed by consensus through much discussion – Talk:George Washington/Archive 34#Can we find a way forward please, Talk:George Washington/Archive 35, Talk:George Washington/Archive 36, and Talk:George Washington/Archive 37#One step at a time) adding a couple sentences about the alleged ill-treatment of Asgill becoming an international cause célèbre and Washington's later response would be a positive addition. The details about the unpublished correspondences, on the other hand, belong in the Asgill article, not here, unless Washington himself suppressed them. Drdpw (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If you click on the link I gave, and scroll to the bottom, you will see the closer's remarks at the bottom of the page, in a sort of side-margin. The closer said that several articles could have a link to the interview, so long as the text of the articles, including this article, reflected what I say (the interview is sourced throughout). That is always the case, isn't it, that there must be inline text to support references. As you say, yourself, the current text is quite pullable-apart when looked at dispassionately. I honestly believe that editors, in deciding on my requested edit, owe me the courtesy to listen to my findings. I always knew that this (here) would be the hardest hill I have ever had to climb, to achieve justice for an innocent man who had his reputation besmirched, to save Washington's. Furthermore, I can only say that I have presented a true, impartial and neutral suggested edit. If you compare the length of the AA article, with this, you will see that I have shaved it down to bare essentials. We all know that Washington was very sensitive to criticism, but he also knew he had acted wrongfully in violating a solemn treaty. We know he was a man of conscience, too, and I think he found it difficult to live with his decision. After his "manicured" papers had been published, he wrote to thank Humphreys for all he had done to get the True Point of Light (which was anything but completely true) out into the public domain, commenting that it was the best that could be "devised". I find that word "devised" suggestive that Washington was fully aware that his account was lacking in the True Point of Light - with 4 missing pieces of correspondence - how could it be otherwise? What is absolutely not out there in the public domain (because it was held back from publication) is the fact that Washington knew (while Asgill was still in America) that his prisoner was suffering "Horrors" of mistreatment during his confinement. Because Asgill wrote to him from Chatham to tell him so. Towards the end of his 6-month confinement, he wrote again to tell Washington that he was close to death, and would die in captivity, if not at the gallows. In the enlightened age we live in now, and it being 2.5 centuries later, I am hoping editors here will look at their own consciences to see that it really is time that the buck stopped here - with the Commander in Chief. My edit only tells the truth, and is not judgemental of George Washington. As Katherine Mayo, who entitled her book about it all "General Washington's Dilemma", makes it clear for all to see that he was up a creek, and his only paddle was to send an innocent man to the gallows. As the interviewer says, "I feel sorry for Washington". If it matters at all, so do I (but only up to a point)! I would go so far as to say that, all this time later, George Washington himself would want the truth to finally be told. Anne (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The important and pertinent-to-this-article details you've brought up can be stated in a few sentences, and much is already in this article, as I've noted above. Regarding adding an external link from this page to your interview on this topic, quoting from the aforementioned discussion at Talk:Asgill Affair, For [this article, which was mentioned in] the second list, consensus currently goes against its placement as an external link in the following articles (because editors have not been convinced that it would currently satisfy policies such as WP:weight and WP:Linkfarm) in relation to them. I am of the opinion that adding the link would not be in keeping with those policies. External links in this article should be limited to those broadly about George Washington, thus external links related to a specific subject or event in his life should not be included. Drdpw (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The closer specifically says that the interview should not be an external link (except for the 3 Asgill articles mentioned). They say that the article should reflect the interview, which is then linked to the article. I really hoped that my last post, before this, would have shown all the reasons why my edit should be accepted. Do you not see merit in getting history recorded correctly, after so long being skewed? What do you think about getting another 'closer' (totally independent of both sides of this argument) to make the final decision? We are at stalemate already, unless other editors get involved. Anne (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the edit per WP:UNDUE. This article should be written in summary style only and extraneous information presented in subarticles. I'm also opposed to Anne Ammundsen requesting to insert an external link to an Anne Ammundsen interview. This was all discussed in detail some years ago. In my view, even what's currently in the article can be trimmed down and removed from its own subsection, again per WP:WEIGHT. Victoria (tk) 22:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The interview took place a couple of years after the events you speak of, so could not have been pertinent back then. As I mentioned, another editor was planning to deal with this, rather than me. I do not relish this experience, any more than I did 3 years ago. The fact is I know much more now, than I did then, and I think Washington's letter to Humphreys, speaking of events being "devised", shows that he was well aware that he was skewing history for posterity. Do you really not see any reason to correct history, when history needs to be corrected? Have you listened to the evidence, by the way? I recall you as being a very open-minded editor who actually came to my aid back in the days you speak of - you really helped me! Anne (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I provided you with the Henriques link. Good to hear that's been helpful. The issue, Anne, isn't what I feel, or want. The issue, as always, is what the preponderance of scholarly sources tell us. This is a very niche subject; you've managed to get a fully developed article about it on Wikipedia and that's exactly how we should be doing it. This is the overview article and then we link the smaller articles where more detail is added. Adding extraneous and undue material to the main article only serves to add bloat and increase size. Victoria (tk) 23:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I do see your point of view, naturally, and I also thank you again for brining Peter Henriques into my life. He is now a good friend, who supported me through a very difficult time when I broke my ankle, and was confined to bed for two months, speaking weekly to me during my confinement. The confined to bed, at home, was the worst of it, not the broken ankle. But (a) the closer, back in May last year, specifically recommends a link to my interview being in the AA subsection here, so long as the inline text supports it. And (b) it is clear to me that Washington knew he was skewing history - his use of the word "devised" tells me that. And so I believe it is time for the Commander in Chief to own the fact that he offloaded the bad reputation to another man, to save his own skin. I have come to know GW quite well, over the years, and I think he was a good and very decent man. I believe he would approve of "owning" it now. I believe that very sincerely. Anne (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the point people are trying to make isn't that it shouldn't be mentioned that Washington did something wrong, but that it shouldn't be done with undue weight. The whole thing is already explained at Asgill Affair, so per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE there only needs to be a brief explanation here and then a link to that page. Writing out three full paragraphs like this is too much in an article that's already well past the size that WP:SIZE recommends the article be split. OliveYouBean (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I should also have said that the whole "missing letters" thing is brought to life in the Lancaster Journal of December 2019. I had no idea about this until Martha Abel did all that research. It set me off on a whole new line of research, following that publication, and expanding on it. It has been stepping stones - from one stage - to the next - culminating in now being on the cusp of Lexington publishing my findings. And before I press "Reply" thank you for your comments OliveYouBean too. I would still contend that the current AA article here should be extended to the 3 paragraphs. It is a miniscule part of the whole story. The main AA article is also overlong - and that had been syphoned off from the CA article too.Anne (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Btw, Victoria, regarding "I'm also opposed to Anne Ammundsen requesting to insert an external link to an Anne Ammundsen interview". I don't have a long line of editors willing to do my dirty work for me, unfortunately! There is nothing I want to do less than be here discussing this, but, given the closer's recommendations, what other options do I have? I am aware that I am in a potentially "hostile" environment, and a lone voice at that. Bear in mind, I have been waiting for this to happen since 20 May 2022 - but I have been badly let down. Also, I wonder what is the point of having a "closer" if they are overruled? I am unclear about the rules regarding that, but logic tells me that they are there for a reason, and they should be listened to, shouldn't they? I do feel a bit hurt by your comment, especially since I am not enjoying this one little bit! Anne (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The editor who closed that discussion has not been overruled.. They did not make any recommendations, only observations about the conclusions / consensus reached in that discussion. Anne, you brought those observations to this talk page, and we have been considering "citing the body of work (including the interview) that talks about the long-withheld letter" in this article's section on the affair. And the consensus thus far in the discussion is that there only needs to be a brief thumbnail sketch explanation of the incident in this article (for reasons stated above). The paragraphs you wish to add are too much in an article of this size and scope. Drdpw (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Drdpw, I do believe there has been one particular misconception, from the outset of this discussion. People here seem to think the closer (and therefore me) have been requesting an external link to my interview. I hope by now all will understand what you have now stated - "citing the body of work (including the interview)" is what this is all about. Yes, you and I are now on the same page with that element. I have just done a word count of what is currently in this article (184 words), and my proposed edit (363 words), and I grant you I have almost doubled it, and I appreciate that is a problem. I have never been good at précis (being a wordy-sort-of-person). However, the main elements need to remain, so could you demonstrate, on this talk page, just what you have in mind?

• The first paragraph only sets the scene, which is Washington's solution to putting an end to the tit-for-tat murders; Asgill's selection for the gallows; and, just 2 months later (so quickly, for the era) the French distaste to be in any way associated with the violation of a solemn treaty. It was the French, and nobody else, who are therefore responsible for Asgill's life being saved.
• The second paragraph explains that Washington himself came to realise that he had made what Henriques describes as his greatest error of judgment. All this is made much more complicated by the fact that GW's "official account" was not created until 4 years after the event, and somehow that needs to be made plain.
• And the final paragraph explains that Washington tried to cover his tracks by not putting out a full account - which has meant that for 2.5 centuries every historian has repeated GW's bias, which was deliberately skewed in his favour. All this is covered in my interview, which is sourced all the way through, and should be linked to the article - please!

If I knew how to shorten my proposed edit, I would, but perhaps you can show me how to do this, yet still retain the main points? Thank you. Anne (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have just received my edited manuscript back, so I am heavily involved with what now follows. I hope I am no longer needed here - surely I've said it all now? If Drdpw felt able to produce a new revised draft, here, I would welcome the chance to see where this is now heading, before the article is changed, please. Anne (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have tweaked / fine-tuned the wording in the Asgill subsection. I did not add the additional details requested by Anne Ammundsen, as objections have been raised on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Drdpw (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed. So far as the truth and neutrality is concerned, there is little to commend it. Furthermore, the Closer, on 19 May 2022, has been totally overruled. What is the point of the Closing system if this happens? Washington was not happy about Asgill's release and had heated correspondence with Guy Carlton, in 1783, explaining that he had been cheated of retaliation (specifically outlawed in the Articles of Capitulation). This edit is absolutely no better than the previous one and has been written by someone who knows little of the events surrounding this case, in an attempt to create a hagiography. Huddy was most definitely not popular. He was a bully and treated his wife and her children appallingly. I tracked down a Huddy descendant who was ashamed of him - she had studied him and learnt about how he treated people. The Quakers threw him out of their church. So this edit is a blatant lie. I did an edit, not mentioning Huddy by name, to avoid telling the truth about him. His name is best left out of this. This edit is a strong case of POV to protect George Washington, who reneged on his responsibilities, leaving the matter to the Continental Congress who decided (after a week of debating the matter) to release Asgill as a gift to the king of France. To have the French mentioned in the final sentence is to deny their pivotal role in Asgill's release, in July, just two months after the drawing of lots. What is the text step? Does an impartial editor come here as a Closer - to judge the merit of arguments as opposed to consensus, since there is bias on display here. Am I allowed to bring in Discuss Dubious to defend their Closing decision? Anne (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Anastrophe, as an editor on this page, who went to the trouble of getting a copy of Asgill's 1786 letter, would you pass an opinion here, please? And Doug Weller, as a senior and very well respected Admin on WP, would you too see what is going on here? I hope your health situation is up to doing so? Anne (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne, this really isn't how Wikipedia works. We follow what the sources tell us rather than adding what we - as editors - wish to add. As I previously explained, we shouldn't be adding more to the Asgill section because it goes against WP:WEIGHT. In other words, Wikpedia would be giving the incident more weight than the preponderance of the sources. This page is the biography page and has to cover everything in Washington's life, plus his legacy and so on, in about 9000 words. At 16,000 plus words the article is due for a serious trimming. Given that the Asgill Affair exists as a well developed subarticle, all that's needed here is to link to that article. I understand that you are, of course, quite happy to have a book published soon about the Asgill affair and I congratulate you for your effort, but it really has no bearing on how this page is written - not until that incident shows up in the majority of the sources. As it stands now, the recent edits are fine. Regarding the "closer" - a discussion was closed on another page (article) which has no bearing on the consensus achieved here. Calling in the troops, so to speak, is not good form. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Victoria, my disappointment is that I was led to believe that my interview would be linked to the text of this article. Given GW skewed this part of history, in my view, it is extremely important to correct that. The Commander in Chief's actions nearly derailed the Peace Talks (had Asgill been executed, so would de Grasse have been, since he was a prisoner of war in England). It was GW's greatest error of judgement. If that is not something important enough for this article, I really don't know what is. The two editors are relevant - they are both American - one being a regular editor here, who happened to choose to find out more - and has a copy of Asgill's letter. The letter which points out all the ways in which the AA has been misreported and misrecorded. The other is a senior (and hugely respected) Admin - and I thought one of their jobs was to sort out disputes? I didn't want to come here, ever again, and it has taken a huge toll on me to do so, being, once again, a lone voice with everyone else out to defeat me. But I am passionate about my cause, which I have outlined extensively throughout this discussion. All that is needed is someone with first class precis skills and my suggested edit could be much shorter. Anne (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your last two sentences? I am a woman, and I am also elderly - perhaps that is why I am finding all this an incredible strain. It is 2am here, and that is another factor which is affecting me - the time difference between our two countries. Disputes do need to be sorted out. If there is someone better than an American Admin - point me to them please. As I keep saying - if a précis-writer came along, they could knock my edit into a much smaller bundle. That job is beyond me, unfortunately. Anne (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Anne, far to much here for me to deal with considering all the other Wikipedia issues I'm dealing with and my large watchlist. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am no longer 'invested' in the matters of the Asgill Affair; my interests have moved on. I'm of no strong opinion on the content in this article regarding Asgill. The Asgill Affair article is where the vast majority of detail belongs, and there it can be found in detail; the material in this article is not kind to Washington on his handling of the matter, nor is it particularly damning; as I said, I don't have the "bandwidth" to litigate the specific wording. My one caution would be interpreting Washington's use of the word 'devise' as implying something nefarious or untoward. I think you are reading a contemporary derogatory flair into a word was used far more mundanely then, and not suggestive of 'scheming'. But - as before - my interests lie elsewhere, so I'm not inclined to engage further. My apologies, Anne. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There is this, if you prefer? Judge Thomas Jones states: "Colonel David Humphreys [Washington's former aide-de-camp] arranged and published them himself, not referring, of course, to Washington's agency in the matter...". Even just my first paragraph would be more accurate than the current wording. And, by the way, Lippincott was exonerated at his court-martial because he was only obeying the orders of William Franklin, so his name should replace Lippincott's (since the latter was obeying WF's orders).Anne (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that all went well for me! I shall try to do a précis myself, and, when I have done so, will present it here. If anyone else, who enjoys précis would like to do so too, please have a go since it will probably be better than mine. Anne (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My revised proposed edit follows, but until I see it printed, I will not know how many words it has been reduced by. So this is simply experiment one:

My proposed edit follows.

The Asgill Affair was an event that occurred towards the end of the American Revolution. [11] As a result of ongoing murders taking place between the Patriot and Loyalist factions, Washington wrote to Brigadier General Moses Hazen on May 18, 1782 ordering that lots were to be drawn amongst 13 British Captains. Captain Charles Asgill, was selected to be hanged, in direct contravention of the 14th Article of Capitulation. [12] The French Foreign Minister, the comte de Vergennes, wrote to Washington on July 29, 1782 to express the concern of the French monarchs.[13] After a six-month ordeal, the Continental Congress eventually agreed that Asgill should be released to return to England on Parole. This was not the end of the matter, since it had expanded beyond a great national concern [14] into an international cause célèbre. Michael Knox Beran says that the commander in chief realised his error in violating a treaty : [15] Four years later it was brought to Washington’s attention that false rumors were circulating in Europe, concerning ill-treatment of Asgill whilst in confinement in Chatham, New Jersey, awaiting his execution. [16] So, to counter these rumors, Washington published his 1782 Asgill correspondence, which was passed to the New Haven Gazette for publication on November 16, 1786 by his former aide-de-camp, David Humphreys. [17] Since this account failed to include vital information, Asgill himself wrote to the New Haven Gazette to contest the published account. [18] In an interview, in March 2022, Anne Ammundsen presented the case that four significant letters had been omitted from Washington's account of the Asgill Affair, thereby distorting the records, which have formed the basis of this account ever since.[19]

This is 285 words long. The current edit is 199, so we are talking an increase of just 86 words. A vast improvement from previously doubling it. I am trying to find a way through this impasse. Please meet me half way. Anne (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne, you have apparently misunderstood the closing remarks from the discussion on the Asgill Affair talk page. Please stop insisting that the your interview be inserted into the text of this article. There is not a consensus to add any of the details you wish to add (paragraphs 2&3 of your initial proposal) to this article beyond his confinement and release. This article is not the place to right the wrong you have become quite invested in righting. Drdpw (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Except the wrong was perpetrated by GW, and then he went on to try to cover it up. On any petty-criminal's page, that would be the most important element of their biography. Why is this edit not pertinent to George Washington's page? First he violates a solemn international treaty; and then he goes on to publish only half the story, for posterity to believe for the following 2.5 centuries. Anne (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious, please will you confirm that I have misunderstood your Closing Remarks here: [Discuss-Dubious ] - ( Discuss- Contributions ) 17:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC) = “For the second list [which includes George Washington], I think editor consensus says that it would be better to consider citing the body of work (including the interview) that talks about the long-withheld letter in the articles’ discussion on this affair, wherein these works (and the Asgill affair that they refer to) can be reasonably made relevant to the articles in question”. Please see my most recent suggested edit at 13:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC) and let me know if it complies with your comments on 19 May 2022? Your clarification would be much appreciated, thank you. Anne (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have requested that an uninvolved administrative closer takes this discussion over. (Wikipedia:Closure requests). Anne (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is only a few days old and is ongoing, too soon to request that it be closed. Drdpw (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In my view, we are at an impasse. I appear to have been overruled, along with the closer of May 2022. Given so, I can only believe that an uninvolved viewpoint is required, even if it is necessary to pause awhile, but I have nothing further to say, and nor do you, I think. Anne (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne, I saw this listed at Closure requests. I'm going to try and be as nice as possible and say you have lost all sense of perspective, and need to back off. You are not being harassed; you are being disruptive with an inability to listen. The uninvolved close at Talk:Asgill_Affair specifically says no consensus was reached to add an external link to this page, and did not discuss the use of an interview as a source. Likewise, Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines on summary style and undue weight that editors above have patiently explained to you, without you seeming to grok their words. You clearly feel the Asgill Affair is a hugely important part of George Washington's history; the editors above (and frankly, the vast preponderance of scholarship) disagree. Frankly I agree with some editors above after reading the discussions that the subsection in the article as is violates UNDUE. You are continually refusing to understand that if everyone is disagreeing with you, you might consider how your behavior is at issue, not everyone else's. If scholarly appraisal shifts to suggesting the Asgill affair was singularly important in Washington's life, considering expanding its prominence in his biography might make sense. That time has not come. You have basically started operating as a single purpose account trying to add information onto Wikipedia in opposition to its importance and creating coatracks for your point of view, which is a form of tendentious editing, especially as you keep going from page to page to keep the fight up. If you keep this up, I would really consider topic banning or blocking you from editing these articles at all. Drop the stick. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

au contraire! I think you are the one who should read Peter Henriques's "First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington" and "A Portrait of Washington's Greatness—and His Limitations" in the National Review by Michael Knox Beran. Both very respected American authors. And The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019 not only published Asgill's hidden letter, but also highlights the other missing letters. Research done by Americans, 233 years after the event, and very excited they were to do so too. It sounds to me as though you are blinkered. Something about Washington's behaviour over the Asgill Affair belongs here. It is a serious matter to skew history and hide/fail to publish, correspondence. Clearly, Lexington Books (a leading US academic publisher) also thinks this needs to be aired, so they are publishing my book. If you are not prepared to investigate the evidence, including listening to my findings in the interview, how can you reasonably balance the situation? The editor who had promised to help me, and save me coming here at all, was simply going to do the edit - they weren't planning on checking here first - so convinced were they that the closer on 19.5.22 had given the authority, and that the edit was needed. Whether or not there will ever be an unbiased point of view expressed here, at any time, remains to be seen. Anyway, I have no appetite to argue the point here any longer. Anne (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne, I've tried to make this point before, but you really can't expect the sentence "In an interview, in March 2022, Anne Ammundsen presented the case that four significant letters had been omitted from Washington's account of the Asgill Affair, thereby distorting the records, which have formed the basis of this account ever since" to be added to an article supported only by a reference to the interview itself. The sentence is about your interview as much as it's about Washington, and would need very strong secondary sourcing (i.e. sources about the interview, not the interview itself) to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have checked that very point with another editor who is adamant that you are wrong!! What absolutely nobody has done is listen to the interview - it is sourced throughout - every single statement made is given a source. It was my very clear understanding that the closer (on 19.5.22) gave permission for it to be linked to the GW article, and the very clear understanding too of the editor who promised they would spare me this ordeal and do the edit themselves. But, as I have mentioned elsewhere, frankly my dear I no longer give a damn!! Anne (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC

This isn't about whether the material in the interview is sourced. It's about the fact that the claim about the interview you want to be added to the article isn't supported by a secondary source. As explained at WP:PSTS, "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". What source tells us about the significance of your interview? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The closer's exact words were:

consensus currently goes against its placement as an external link in the following articles (because editors have not been convinced that it would currently satisfy policies such as WP:weight and WP:Linkfarm) in relation to them:

• George Washington (emphasis mine)

and then

I think editor consensus says that it would be better to consider citing the body of work (including the interview) that talks about the long-withheld letter in the articles’ discussion on this affair, wherein these works (and the Asgill affair that they refer to) can be reasonably made relevant to the articles in question. (emphasis mine)

The only context where the closer says the interview should be included is as a part of a group of citations, and even then only that it should be considered. Editors have considered it, and decided that it doesn't really fit here in the context you're proposing. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, at no time, anywhere, have I requested that my interview be an External Link. I have been (deliberately?) misrepresented throughout this discussion, and then revenge taken on me on other WP articles to delete my work. Anne (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the second part of my comment where I pointed out that the close didn't say that it should be included here, but that there should be consideration about it? Because that was the main point of my comment. I don't want to assume it's deliberate, but you seem to be ignoring the main point of just about everyone who's trying to explain why it shouldn't be included here. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Olive, I deeply resent the fact that I am being accused of requesting an External Link, when I did no such thing. Revenge is being rained down on me; my work on several articles, is either being deleted, greatly revised (with errors now included) or publicly challenged. I have paid a huge emotional price for daring to come to this page. My mental health is now suffering and, since it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that Goliath has won this battle, please will everyone now leave me in peace, never to darken your doorstep ever again? Anne (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Did I accuse you of requesting an external link? I can't see where I did. I'm trying pretty hard to show you that this is nothing personal and that you're just misunderstanding the close. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Olive, you wrote "consensus currently goes against its placement as an external link" when you were quoting the Closer. My point being that I never requested an external link. Will you, and everyone else, please leave me alone now? Anne (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, when will I be released from this barrage on my integrity? I am now becoming seriously mentally affected by it all. I wish to be released. Good luck to Wikipedia, because already errors are creeping in with the revisions taking place to my work. This will increase exponentially over the coming days, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do anything about it. So far as I am concerned, this is "all over", and I will leave others to "bar the shouting". Anne (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone here will be aware that a proposal has been put forward to ban me from editing the only articles of interest to me. So, for the record, I am copying a cropped version of a post I made on that thread:

Back in May 2022 I was under the very very clear understanding (after a lengthy discussion) that a Closer had given me permission to go ahead. I was not the only editor who believed that to be the case. Another editor realised, as I did, that I really could not do this myself. That editor gave me an undertaking, on 20.5.22, that they would do this for me. Months went by - promises were renewed - and, in a conversation on 21.12.22 I was told that it would be done by "the end of the year". I am afraid my patience snapped, after 8 months of waiting. I did not have a backup editor to do this for me, so I could see no alternative but to go ahead myself, on the GW Talk Page. Yes, I have a mental block that it is disallowed to point out GW's failings on his page. It has also transpired that it is disallowed to give Moses Hazen the praise offered to him by all the British officers on 27.5.1782 - he was extremely unhappy about the orders he had been given by GW, and he showed remarkable compassion. I also find WP policy mysterious, and I apologise to editors for not understanding what was being said. If I may repeat myself, I was acting, as I believed, on the authority of a Closer and I could not really see beyond that. It may not be comprehensible how nerve-wracking it is to come to a place which is inevitably going to be hostile towards my aims - as a lone-voice, with no backup support. I said it felt like I was being bullied. I never wanted to repeat an earlier experience some years ago. That may have clouded my thinking too. That, coupled with my appalling IT 'skills', which always puts me in a cold-sweat every time I go anywhere near WP. Never mind, you guys have had your revenge. My work is being deleted and challenged all over the place. I really am done now and seriously have no interest in whether or not I am banned, or anything else now. It is not worth it for what it is doing to my mental health. I am happy to retire and do the things which interest me, and see no reason on earth to perpetuate my experiences here, or elsewhere on WP. Anne (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Why has anonymous user 141.193.116.120 changed my signature to a surname which is not mine? Should I revert, or what? Anne (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why it was done, though I've already reverted the edit. —ADavidB 20:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Anne (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the longish proposed addition but Support a short sentence on the page or a listing on See also. I haven't read this wall of text, nor know if the topic is mentioned on the page, although it should be but only in a very short summary (or a See also listing including a short descriptor). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, a brief summary paragraph along with an article link are currently in place within this article. Drdpw (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Drdpw, then it seems this is much ado about something which has already been accomplished. Anne Ammundsen, please understand the good faith of the editors who point out the already large size of the page. As long as your topic is given some weight it should do, and reaches the Wikipedia-level informational link. A few days ago I added it to the navbox, which is another point of contact for the relationship between Washington and the Asgill Affair. Maybe ease off a bit, and respect the judgement and experience of fellow Wikipedians on this one. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Randy Kryn. Unfortunately, my point has not gone anywhere near the edit on this article. To see what I mean, you would need to read the OP (which I accept is too long). Please understand I have no wish whatsoever to engage further here, but you addressed me personally. Anne (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Debate to delete a Category

There is a debate over whether to keep Category: Homes of United States Founding Fathers as a category. More opinions are needed. The discussion is located Here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

He owned slaves. Under occupation Slave Owner should be included. People should know the entire truth about him, not just the polite parts. 108.52.111.32 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done – "Slave owner" is not an occupation. (This issue has been discussed several times over the years on this talk page.) On that subject, the fact that George Washington owned enslaved persons is noted at several relevant points in the article, including in the lead section and in a dedicated section on slavery. Drdpw (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about the short description

There is an ongoing discussion about the short descriptors of the first four U.S. presidents at Talk:John Adams#Short description, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Estimated value of estate

There are two conflicting pieces of information in the article in reference to the estimated value of his estate at the time of his death.

*Historians estimate that the estate was worth about $1 million in 1799 dollars

*Washington's estate at the time of his death was worth an estimated $780,000 in 1799

Both claims have an SFN cited, but give no information within it other than author and year, so I don't even know where to verify the source. Lindsey40186 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"First President of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect First President of the United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29 § First President of the United States until a consensus is reached. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Deified American people

@Drdpw He is worshipped by Shintoists in Hawaii at the Daijingū Temple of Hawaii alongside Abraham Lincoln so I think he is rightfully put in Category:Deified American people. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Until such time as this or related reliably sourced content is included in the article (and not just the talk page), I don't believe the 'deified' category should be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidb (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool 67.241.147.144 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Length

At over 17k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. See WP:TOOBIG. Detailed content should be condensed or moved to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you putting verylong tags on multiple articles on my watchlist lately, as you have with this one. Just wondering: have you seen anyone do anything positive to articles in response? I'm unclear what value there is in this, apparently, systematic tagging. It may be more productive to work on the article if you feel strongly about it. These sorts of tags tend to just sit there for years. DeCausa (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with DeCausa. These tags are spamming articles of major U.S. Founding figures and presidents (for Jefferson and Washington, over the national holiday of July 4th) and ask that even more material be removed, although there are already several split topics for Washington and Jefferson and the rest. Extra readable prose for Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, etc. makes sense because of the importance of the topics, and the policy ignore all rules fits this situation. If anything, because of these examples, the "allowed" text number should be expanded from 15,000 to accommodate them. Please remove the tags from these encyclopedic-important pages, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear - the tags are not limited to US Founding Fathers. I'm seeing Nikkimaria putting them on a huge range of articles: e.g. African humid period, Byzantine Empire and Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Randy Kryn. It is very hard to cut down the number of words on such pages. I, along with others, tried to reduce them but it is quite hard to do so without removing necessary/important information. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion might be better in the talk page of WP:TOOBIG, which is actually WT:Article size. I see that similar discussions happen there all the time. If there is "consensus" around the limits stated in WP:TOOBIG, it's not obvious.

Although I sympathize with the chafing at the limit of 15K words, I think there would be chafing at almost any limit. My own experience has been with Ulysses S. Grant. This article became FA in March of 2015 (long before I was involved). I don't know what the word count was back then, but the source size was about 134K bytes, whereas now, 8 years and more than 8K edits later, it is closer to 228K bytes, and the word count is 19K. How much better is the article for all that labor and additional text? Well, in Wikipedia, you can't officially get any better than FA.

Of course, a similar assessment would apply to this article (George Washington) and most of the other articles to which User:Nikkimaria has been adding templates. Where does all the additional text come from? For every sentence, even for every phrase, there was/is some editor who felt/feels that it was "necessary/important information", and there was no strong consensus that it should be removed. But if something wasn't there when the article became FA, then perhaps it isn't really necessary. The ever growing bloat is not the result of necessity, but the result of an imbalance between the forces that add material to an article and the forces that prevent material from being added or remove material. This is not any editor's fault, but the result of, generally speaking, a lack of well-developed specifications for criteria to use in judging whether material should be added to, and perhaps removed from, an article. The Wikipedia policies have fairly clear criteria for deciding whether or not a topic merits an article; but for deciding whether any particular subtopic should go into the article, the policies are nearly silent, and I suspect it was a deliberate choice. But regarding article size, it doesn't help to just have a numerical limit; there have to be criteria by which editors might judge the suitability of material that someone wishes to add. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have indeed seen articles be improved considerably after the addition of such a tag. The scope of the article justifies going over 10k words - not 15. I agree that keeping such articles concise is difficult, but it is also worthwhile for the benefit of readers. I'm happy to contribute to that effort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we take these templates off the U.S. presidential pages now? They themselves are disruptive by adding excess unneeded content (marking the top of the pages with large templates), and literally ask editors to incorrectly subsect the article content (even feature articles and those which have been sub-articled already). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The tags are minimal compared to the length of the article as a whole, and encourage editors to correctly condense or migrate content to help make this one more concise, per WP:DETAIL (and also the FA/GA criteria). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The tags ask editors to removed content, some on feature articles. They are both intrusive and inaccurate (sub-articles on the major topics for each have already been created, these are important and major key topics in any encyclopedia). The tags should be removed and not replaced. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you don't like the look of tags generally, but aesthetics are never a valid reason to remove tags. Articles that are overlong do not meet the FA/GA criteria, and removing the tag doesn't address that underlying problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2023

Please remove this paragraph.

His legacy is marred, however, due to his ownership of slaves and his complicated relationship with slavery, as well as his policy to assimilate Native Americans into the Anglo-American culture and waging war against Native American nations during the Revolutionary Wars and the Northwest Indian War.

And replace it with below

George Washington, along with Thomas Jefferson and many other forefathers of the United States, laid the groundwork to create a free nation and ultimately bring true the phrase, "All men are created equal". Their diligence to create a free country ultimately led to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 after yet another long, bloody war. Ianpaterson20 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:NPOV. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

African American subsection

This starts 'On the anti-slavery side of the ledger' What this ledger is isn't explained or link. Would someone with editing access include an explanation or Wikilink. Thanks. 2003:EB:B71A:5200:89AB:6DD5:D06E:EC8A (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That was an unnecessary and potentially confusing figure of speech. I've reworded it to 'Regarding anti-slavery activity'. —ADavidB 20:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

Under the "Abolition and manumission" subsection of the "Slavery" subsection, the second to last sentence of the last paragraph is missing a space after the word "estate".

"... held as dower slaves by the Custis estateand also stayed with or near Martha"

should be

"... held as dower slaves by the Custis estate and also stayed with or near Martha" Clintrovert (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 08:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

FAC and peer review

Posting this here so that other page watchers can weigh in. Omnis Scientia I see that the article was submitted to FAC this week and quickly archived, per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington/archive5. As the archives number says, that's the fifth time it's gone to FAC. Now it's at peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/George Washington/archive5, also for the fifth time! I'll comment here instead of at the peer review page, because the page has substantial problems that need addressing, most of which are meta issues, rather than issues of checking prose or citation formatting or MoS.

First I stand by the comments I made at the last FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington/archive4. These all need to be resolved. Page size continues to be an issue. All the web sources need to be swapped out for scholarly biographies. All the text needs to be checked against the sources for text/source integrity - this because since the sources were introduced a lot of editing has occurred so at this point the integrity needs checking if it's not been done. Also I believe there's too much reliance on Chernow when there are many other GW biographers. Then the prose needs to be addressed.

Once all that's been done, go through the peer review process and then finally to FAC. What you don't want to have happen is a reviewer at peer review without knowledge of the page history (which has been somewhat troubled) mention only a few prose fixes and perhaps some formatting fixes, and then have another run at FAC. Needs quite a bit of heavy lifting before taking another run at FAC.

There is also the issue of authorship; see the page stats. It seems that the others should be notified and probably get a crew together to work through the issues. Those who've authored what's here and have been tending will have a good sense in regards to text/source integrity, if nothing else. Victoria (tk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I can see that this page still needs a lot of work done on it. I needed other insight, however, to improve this page which is why I began the peer review, at the advise of another user. Sorry if this caused a fuss or something; it's my first attempt at trying to elevate an article to FAC status so I may have been a little too overeager while doing so. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I see that Ian mentioned when closing the FAC, which is the standard advice and it should go through peer review before going to FAC. There's no reason to worry about causing a fuss - on second thought I think a PR now and then another later might be helpful. Getting as many eyes on it as possible will help. Hacking the article down to about 10,000 words and checking the sourcing, and removing the websources are the biggest tasks and they do need to be done. Btw, there's a script to check wordcount that shows up on the right-side toolbar (using the Vector22 skin) which is very handy. If you don't have it, I might be able to help in that regard.

Basically as far as peer review is concerned, if most of the comments only address phrasing, prose, manual of style issues, and so on, which is about what can be expected, understand that the big underlying issues - page size, integrity of sourcing, checking for close paraphrasing etc. - need to be addressed first. If that makes sense?

I don't have access to any of the bios for this page, I've not been editing on a regular basis, but I'm more than willing to help and answer questions. I did a peer review for this page many years ago (under another name), and have been active on the talk page on and off over the years. It would be great to see someone finally get it through FAC, but it will take some lifting. That said, I chose a difficult page for my first attempt too, so don't be put off. And I'm sorry if I came off as bitey - I realized after posting it might have come across that way. Victoria (tk) 02:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nah, it didn't come off as bitey at all.

I would like help with that script for the wordcount though. As for sources, I think there can be improvement there. First we need to cut down on the page size though. We managed to cut it down to c. 15,900 but it can be further shortened.

At least the situation isn't as bad as Ulysess S. Grant's page which has 18,000+ words. It was 21,000+ a month ago. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding page size, the larger pages end up as WP:FAR eventually, i.e Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1. That article has been trimmed down to about 11,000 words. There are reviewers who want to see an article not much above 10,000 words, so it might be helpful to ask at FAC talk regarding who wants to see what for page size. Generally this page should be written in WP:Summary style, and extraneous detail/factoids, etc either trimmed out or moved to subpages.

See Wikipedia:Prosesize for the script. Looks like it's in preferences now, under the gadgets tab.Victoria (tk) 20:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the script and guide! And I will see how to trim down this page even further. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about the phrase “too much reliance on Chernow.” Of course one should always look for the best source for each statement; but why wouldn’t this lead to heavy use of the most recent full-dress biography? And at least WP readers won’t have a hard time finding it. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO, I think all biographers are used quite equally in the citations. Chernow's book is the easiest to go to though since may be the one-volume book on Washington's life. My main concern is any source which is incorrectly used or a source which may be unreliable. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In a raw count it's not bad, about 160 out of 500+ refs. I as thinking more in terms of the FA criteria, specifically 1. c. that states the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" ... Given the vast number of sources available for GW, overreliance on one might be problematic, but again it depends on the reviewers. Certainly if I were reviewing, I'd want the low quality sources replaced. Victoria (tk) 20:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Mayamayahshsjb (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I need it to show my students.

 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. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 01:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

George Washington's Fishery

If I may draw page editor's attention to a really interesting new article about a topic which seems to have been a big part of Washington's life. Sad about the fish, but where was this topic hiding in all the documentaries? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

wow that's really interesting! 185.130.156.202 (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

boring to read...

this article needs a lot of work...good content but not easy to read and difficult to find the information...needs work. can someone please re-write it in a more easy to read format but still keeping the essential information. 185.130.156.203 (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree- was doing this for a school project and I normally love reading facts. This however was stale and difficult to read. I need this info but found it easier to get the info through a encyclopedia. 185.130.156.203 (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Can you point out a couple examples to make it easier to visualize your concerns. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't expect the same IP editor to reply to their own posting – a shared laptop in a school setting, maybe. —ADavidB 23:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

Change "and blamed" in "The French later found their countrymen dead and scalped and blamed Washington, who had retreated to Fort Necessity" to ", blaming." Otherwise, it reads as though they "scalped and blamed Washington." Oliver Samuel Carter (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit re: Weems & the cherry tree story

Recently an article was added as a reference on the George Washington/cherry tree story. I am uncomfortable using this article as a reference for a couple of reasons:

• The website the article appears in - liberty1(dot)org - is an unknown "vendor" owned/run by unknown people. I am unable to find out anything about its emblazoned owner the Institute for American Liberty...who owns it, who runs it, board of directors, etc.
• The book that is quoted extensively in the reference's article - James Bish's I Can't Tell A Lie: Parson Weems and the Truth about George Washington's Cherry Tree, Prayer at Valley Forge, and Other Anecdotes - is self-published. Was there an editor? is there any kind of internal review?...well, since it was self-published there doesn't seem to have been a declared editor, not sure an internal review.
• One thing that truly bothers me is that nowhere do Bish & Gardiner, in the Institute article, actually quote Weems's complete statements in his 1806/The Life of Washington the Great or in his 1808/The Life of George Washington: With Curious Anecdotes, Equally Honourable to Himself and Exemplary to His Young Countrymen Depending on the edition the Cherry Tree story does not appear until the 1806 & then in the subsequent editions. The 1808 edition does have the following on its Page 14:

George, said his father, do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry-tree yonder in the garden? and

I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet.

• Bish & Gardiner's bone to pick with most historians/with the generally-known consensus is that the story has been characterized as a "myth" and that most historians declare that Washington chopped down the cherry tree in question. Why didn't the ref-article just include Weems's actual words?...

Maybe I'm wrong or the editorial consensus will want to keep the BISH/Gardiner article as a ref? - so anyway, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Bish/Gardiner does in fact quote Weems, on page 8. But the article isn't really about Washington; the authors soon leave off talking about Washington, and talk only about all the previous writing about Washington. Although it has interesting nuggets, it is not much use as a reference for our article about Washington.

I don't think our article needs to contribute to the discussion of whether Weems's stories were proven or disproven. The sentence saying that they have neither been proven nor disproven, along with the citation of Levy and of Bish/Gardiner, can be removed. The previous sentence is already citing the same page of Levy. Wikipedia also has an article about Parson Weems, and it give at least adequate emphasis to Gardiner and Bish, citing both the self-published article and Bish's self-published book. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Bish/Gardiner does in fact quote Weems, on page 8." I can't find a quote (of the complete story would be helpful) - as written by Weems - from any of Weems's various editions in the Bish/Gardiner article.

I agree with your assessment re the B/G source here. I am going to remove it as a ref for this article. Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

December 2, 2023 edit

In Azpol edit of 01:06, 2 December 2023, I don't agree that "has become increasingly controversial over time" is preferable to "is marred". I don't see how the latter seeks to "fit the historical figure into a particular political narrative", but I think I've identified the source of the differing perspective. Sometimes "mar" is interpreted to mean that the quality of something is seriously damaged, but it can also refer to causing a mere "blemish". OTOH, "controversial" puts the emphasis on the fact that that people take sides, thus focusing on the controversy and amplifying the seriousness of the issue. Using "controversial" draws more attention to the fact of the controversy, while "mar" admits that the situation is less than ideal, but without having to focus undue consideration on this fact. We can consider for ourselves how serious we feel this matter actually is. Fabrickator (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's actually the opposite. Founding Fathers such as Thomas Paine attacked Washington; many anti-federalist accused him of favoring too strong of a central government.

Of course the statement's not sourced. Polling continues to rank Washington 90% in popular opinion and within the top three presidents ever in scholarly polls. "Marred" is horrendously WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit re-introduced the phrasing of "American Indians" instead of "Native Americans" back into the lead section.

His reputation has also been controversial due to his policy of [[Cultural assimilation of Native Americans|assimilating American Indians]] into [[Anglo-Americans|Anglo-American]] culture and by waging war against indigenous Tribes during the [[American Revolutionary War]] and the [[Northwest Indian War]].

• American Indians isn't a Wikipedia article. Native Americans is. On this word-choice the article should stick with the consensus of what these indigenous people are called within Wikipedia.
• Should the word tribes be capitalized? I don't think so.

Anyway, let's discuss. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The "Historical reputation and legacy" section does not mention Washington's Native American policies. Therefore, we cannot (yet) mention their effect on his historical reputation and legacy in the lead paragraphs. We would need to add something in that section, which of course would have to be supported by citations of sources, etc. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

? I don't quite understand your post. George Washington#Native American affairs extensively discusses Washington and his dealings with Native Americans... Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The last of the lead paragraphs is a summary of the George Washington#Historical reputation and legacy section. That section mentions slavery, but doesn't mention Native American affairs. So, at least for now, Native American affairs have to be left out of that paragraph.

On the other hand, the lead paragraphs aren't mentioning Native American affairs at all, which is wrong. There should be one or more sentences, I don't know exactly where (but somewhere in the lead), that summarize George Washington#Native American affairs. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that is parsing the technical aspects of this article a little too fine. Washington's ownership of other human beings coupled with his treatment of Native Americans and how history *has* regarded those aspects of his life and how history now regards his various actions towards these peoples is part of his legacy, whether it is or is not technically within the article's reputation & legacy section. Shearonink (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources, which in this case might mean reputable historians, who discuss Washington's treatment of Native Americans in the context of his legacy, then you can cite them, and the place to do so is in George Washington#Historical reputation and legacy. Having done so, you can, if appropriate, summarize that discussion in the lead section. Like everybody else who edits Wikipedia, we are utterly dependent on reliable sources. Once you have them in hand, you can cite them; and if you don't have them yet, you should be looking for them. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are suggesting that I should be the one to tear apart the lead section etc.?...Oh, I dunno, how about you do it yourself within the parameters you've set out above. You obviously feel strongly about the present set-up and I just don't have the mental bandwidth right now to slice & dice the lead according to your satisfaction. I just was mentioning a recent edit in my original post and wanted to maybe adjust what had been written. I disagree with you on what should or should not be done and just don't feel like arguing about it. Have at it and good luck. Shearonink (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

After much hemming and hawing, I realized that the problem was that the quotation from Calloway, which is what we are using to illustrate the questions about Washington's handling of Native American affairs, was in the "Native Americans" section rather than the "Legacy" section. I had more or less missed it. Sorry for the confusion. I have moved it. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this seems horrendously WP: UNDUE. The proposed wording implies that there has been a significant change in popular or historical opinion of Washington. Yet he continues to consistently rank above 90% in popular opinion polls (including 80% among African-Americans) and ranks in the top three presidents by historical surveys. There's no evidence that there's been a "sea change" or "marring" of his reputation.

See here, here, and so on and so forth. KlayCax (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits surrounding Washington's reputation

A lot of this seems horrendously WP: UNDUE. Much of the newly proposed wording implies that there has been a significant change in popular or historical opinion of Washington. Yet he continues to consistently rank above 90% in popular opinion polls (including 80%+ among African-Americans) and ranks in the top three presidents by historical surveys. There's no evidence that there's been a "sea change" or "marring" of his reputation. See here, here, and so on and so forth.

There certainly has been more criticism of Washington in the past decade or so. Yet he still remains far more popular now than when he was alive. (Along with Jefferson, Hamilton, and many other Founding Fathers.) KlayCax (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be reflective of the article content, and both of the issues you've removed - slavery and treatment of Native Americans - are discussed there. These can and should be mentioned alongside the ranking, as was done prior to your revert. What you've removed seems entirely consistent with your argument here; what you've replaced it with seems hagiographic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, I just don't believe that it's the best way to summarize it, since it excludes some of the nuances he had on the subject in the later part of his life.

It's also important to note that the criticism Washington has received by historians and political scientists is (at least generally) substantially less than either Jefferson or Madison. KlayCax (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed alternative that includes this information summarized in a different way? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are we conflating popular polling with academic analysis? Remsense留 09:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Town Destroyer

@User:Drdpw George Washington has been known as "Town Destroyer" due to orchestrating the Sullivan Expedition, which Wikipedia acknowledges as a genocide. Why shouldn't Washington be categorized as a genocide perpetrator? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"... which Wikipedia acknowledges as a genocide." What I see in Sullivan Expedition is:

Some scholars argue that it was an attempt to annihilate the Iroquois and describe the expedition as a genocide, although this term is disputed, and it is not commonly used when discussing the expedition.

Bruce leverett (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

a small fringe group of writers call this a genocide. Sullivan engaged in very little fighting--it was designed to force the British allies to move to Canada and stop their killing residents of NY and Pennsylvania. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Washington as the 'Father of the Nation'

Heya, I recently made an edit to the article "Washington as the 'Father of the Nation'" where I changed the phrase "Washington has thus been called the 'Father of the Nation'" to "Washington has thus been referred to as the 'Father of the Nation'." My intention behind this edit was to maintain a formal and precise tone in the article. Thanks to @Drdpw, I acknowledge my first approach to this sentence wasn't the best, so that's why I came up with this, which Drdpw later thanked me (no, thank YOU, dude). However, @Remsense reverted my edit, and although they said it was out of good faith, I still believe my edit was reasonable and that it was a major example of enforcing the encyclopedic tone, which can be quoted as the following:

Tone

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Impartial tone

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

And is "called" businesslike? No, I say. I believe "referred to as" would be more fitting for the sake of the tone! Additionally, "referred to as" would emphasize that people don't just speak about how Washington is the "Father of the Nation", but rather that people address and recognize that he is the 'Father of the Nation'. TLDR: called < referred to as. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 01:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleter, besides the apparent conflation of "businesslike" with "formal" or "encyclopedic" in the policy as written (if we're a business, I'm out!)—this sense of the verb "called" is totally ordinary: there's nothing colloquial or informal about it. I also don't think the semantic distinction exists the way you describe, I see "referred to as" as synonymous with "called" here.
For reference, Britannica has "Also called" as the label in the infobox of its corresponding page. — Remsense诉 02:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I was going to do the revert, but Remsense got there first. More stilted is not necessarily better. More verbose is not necessarily better. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, frankly the reverse is often true. I can't speak for other editors, but when doing copyedits like this one I often take a step back to ask "is this actually ambiguous at all?", with the answer ending up being "no". — Remsense诉 03:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, @Remsesnse, that's just it. It's ordinary. There's little to no part of this which could possibly belong in the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article of George Washington. You're right, there's nothing colloquial or informal. However, "referred to as" would be a more adequate alternative as opposed to "called". There is a huge difference between the two: would you rather say "The Eiffel Tower is called a symbol of Paris" or "The Eiffel Tower is referred to as a symbol of Paris"? About the comparison, the context of the article differs from Britannica. While "Also called" works in an infobox, where clarity is key, the article allows for details of Washington's significance. In this context, "referred to as" would be a rich portrayal of how Washington is regarded, aligning with the encyclopedic standard of comprehensive information. TLDR: Wikipedia is more a business than it is Britannica.Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 04:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

that's just it. It's ordinary

Good. Ordinary language is correct for an encyclopedia intended to be useful for everyone on Earth.

Eiffel Tower [...] symbol of Paris

I wouldn't write either of those. That phrasing is awkward either way when it's about buildings, as opposed to people. I would say the Eiffel Tower is a symbol of Paris. Because it is, in the straightforward sense. George Washington isn't literally my dad: to say so would be poetic, hence the attributive "called" (or "referred to").

"referred to as" would be a [richer] portrayal

As I said before, I disagree. In this context I find them to be perfectly synonymous. They mean exactly the same thing here. — Remsense诉 04:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ordinary language such as "called" belongs in Simple English Wikipedia.

Yeah I pulled the Eiffel Tower example out of thick air, my bad. You see, referring to something would be to acknowledge its existence or to mention it in a particular context. In this case, the article already covers how and why Washington is a prominent figure in American history, so using "referred to as" would make sense as it is backed up by the article. On the other hand, using "called" would provide a sense of bland coverage on his portrayal, stating that he earned that nickname because he just did. In fact, the Britannica article of Washington states the following:

Known as the “father of his country,” he is universally regarded as one of the greatest figures in U.S. history.

He is universally regarded and not just "called". Yeah, I can roll with regarded too, anything to remove vague words about Washington. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 04:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Comparing the Britannica passage with ours, they use "known as" where we use "called". Hypothetically, if someone changed our "called" to "known as", who knows if it would fly, but at least I wouldn't complain that it was stilted or verbose. As for the part about "universally regarded as one of the greatest figures in U.S. History", I don't see that in the Britannica article that I just found, but whatever. In Wikipedia this would be MOS:PUFFERY, but Britannica articles sometimes have listed authors, not just anonymous editors like our articles have, so perhaps they can get away with puffery that we can't get away with. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What I was trying to convey with the example was that Britannica has a very strong use of "known" and not just called. It states: people recognize that Washington is the Father of the Nation, rather than he was labeled as the Father of the Nation. There's more emphasis on significance and recognition as opposed to just naming or labeling someone as an important American figure. I also agree that Britannica doesn't align with Wikipedia's MOS: PUFFERY, but that's besides the point. Hey, consensus to change the sentence to: Washington has thus been known as the "Father of the Nation".? After all, Abraham Lincoln's article has pretty much a very similar thing:

He had long been known as the Great Emancipator,

TLDR: What if we use "known as"?

Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 15:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't speak for other editors, but that would be OK with me. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

People confusing the two Fairfax's?

It's noted here [20] and here [21] that Thomas Fairfax was the one that appointed him as surveyor and acted as a mentor. However, this article states that it was William Fairfax which isn't true. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The article now states that Thomas Fairfax appointed Washington as surveyor. If other details in that section regarding Thomas and William Fairfax need to be corrected/clarified, please do so. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)