Jump to content

Talk:George Washington/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Recurring referencing errors

199: Irving 1856, p. 475; Alden 1993, p. 236. Harv error: link from CITEREFIrving1856 doesn't point to any citation.

fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

255: Fishman Pederson, pp. 119–20; Rozell 2001, pp. 199–216; 1999. Harv error: link from CITEREFFishmanPederson doesn't point to any citation.

fixed. but if someone could check the page numbers on 255 that would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone doesn't know how to use the template. Graham Beards (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
312 - Fixed.
284 - Fixed.
287 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
332 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
324 ->312 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
352 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
345 - Fixed.
326 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Shearonink, thanks for helping to take on the really tedious and time consuming tasks. Much appreciated !! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome - as I said further up the page I'm not a fan of the harvard cite style and some of these have been incredibly complicated. I'm doing it for the article as it inches its way to another FAR but I'm really done with doing anymore ref-cleanup around here for a while. I'll look back in on the article in a couple days. Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. I find the conventional citation method easier to work with in terms of incorporating not only 'cite book' templates, but the 'cite web' and 'cite news' templates. I know the basics of the SFN/harv citation convention but am still puzzled about how to use e.g. the SFN cite in conjunction with a 'cite web' template when there is no first or last name involved, as is the case with the Mount Vernon web site source we just used. Have been looking for the article that nails this down specifically, but no luck yet. Since we still have a good number of web site sources to tend to this will certainly come in handy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

343 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Shearonink. All I know how to do is manually create Chicago-, MLA-, or APA-style citations. YoPienso (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Graham Beards changed the copyright of Wiencek's An Imperfect God from 2003 to 2013. I undid his edit, but discovered he was simply changing it to agree with the other citations. I thought changing one would change all. Unless I'm mistaken, the copyright throughout the article for refs to that book should be 2003. YoPienso (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Wiencek 2013->Wiencek 2003. Shearonink (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! How did you do that? YoPienso (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't give up and keep looking. I also look for examples and cut/paste. :) Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

...and now you have caused these:

184, Unger 2003, p. 33. Harv error: link from CITEREFUnger2003 doesn't point to any citation. 191, Jensen 1948, pp. 178–179; Unger 2003, pp. 61, 146. Harv error: link from CITEREFUnger2003 doesn't point to any citation. 205, Unger 2003, p. 79. Harv error: link from CITEREFUnger2003 doesn't point to any citation.

Think it is because the date of the Unger reference was changed. And this one below has been around for ages:

262, Lloyd 2006, p. 97. Harv error: link from CITEREFLloyd2006 doesn't point to any citation. Graham Beards (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

All Unger refs - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
LLOYD. Fixed. I already did it. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We still have a citation [297] that doesn't conform to the citation convention being used in this article. The source is the 'Mount Vernon Ladies' Association', a web site source recently introduced. If anyone knows how to use the respective 'cite web' template in conjunction with a SFN citation this would be a big help in dealing with all the other web site sources, which one of the reviewers, User Squeamish Ossifrage took much time and effort to outline for us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
You were the one who added that ref when you added slaves' days off, which, imo, is too detailed. We should just say "holidays" without listing them. YoPienso (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • These are Christians holidays, and are mentioned because Washington as a Christian was mindful of these things, so much so, that he also gave them Pentecost off. Also, Pentecost is not a holiday. Since enumerating these days provides context and only involves a few words this should not be an issue.
There doesn't seem to be a way to do "cite web" directly from sfn/harv when the source doesn't either have an author or a date, this is what I found how to do it at Template sfn. If someone else wants to change it be my guest. Shearonink (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, in edit history when I originally added the cite I mentioned the format discrepancy and that the cite was temporary. I was not the one to change that citation to this format:
    <ref name = "MVLA">[[#MVLA| Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, Slave Labor]]</ref>
    Actual help would be nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I did it. ME. Feel free to change it if you wish but not having a date/year will be a problem when the cite is pulling the harvard info. Shearonink (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The actual help I'm offering isn't about formatting, at which I'm a dummy, but at content and sourcing, at which I'm pretty good. I'll edit the article when I get a chance. YoPienso (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Shearonink, I wasn't pointing a finger, and appreciate your efforts.
  • Yopienso, citation formats can be troublesome. And yes, you're very good at what you do, and in spite of my tone, is greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Didn't mean to imply you were pointing a finger, as, frankly, I don't think I've done something wrong with that particular cite. I know the ref is constructed differently but I was trying to follow Template:Sfn#Citation has multiple authors and no date so the cite will pull the correct harv info - the operative phrase in this case being "no date". Look, all of us want to craft this article into the very best article it can possibly be. If someone thinks the ref/cite should be changed then have at it - it's ok with me. Shearonink (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As my attempts to fix the referencing errors are being reverted I will not edit the article from now on as it is a waste of my time. You guys seem to have forgotten that the main problem at the archived FAC was not raised by me but by Squeamish Ossifrage. Here a list of sources, which are not cited in the article but are in the Bibliography. They need to be deleted. This article is never going to be promoted to FA unless these citation issues, which are legion, are fixed. Bordewich, Fergus M. (2016). The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781451692136. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBordewich2016.

Bordewich - Deleted. Shearonink (talk)

Buchanan, John (2004). The Road to Valley Forge: How Washington Built the Army That Won the Revolution. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-44156-4. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBuchanan2004. Carp, E. Wayne (1990) [1984]. To Starve the Army at Pleasure: Continental Army Administration and American Political Culture, 1775–1783. University of North Carolina Press. p. 220. ISBN 978-0-8078-4269-0. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFCarp1990.

Buchanan. Carp. - Deleted. Shearonink (talk)

Haworth, Paul Leland (2004) [1915]. George Washington: Farmer. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 78–80. ISBN 1-4191-2162-6. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHaworth2004. Hindle, Brooke (2017) [1964]. David Rittenhouse. Princeton University Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-400-88678-4. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHindle2017.

Haworth - Deleted. Hindle - Fixed. Shearonink (talk)

Johnston, Elizabeth B. (1889). Visitor's Guide to Mount Vernon. Gibson Brothers Printers. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJohnston1889.

Johnston - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Kolchin, Peter (2003). American Slavery, 1619–1877. Hill and Wang. ISBN 9780809016303. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFKolchin2003.

Kolchin. -Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

O'Brien, Conor Cruise (2009). First in Peace: How George Washington Set the Course for America. Foreword by Christopher Hitchens. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81619-2. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFO'Brien2009.

O'Brien. - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Preble, George Henry (1880). History of the Flag of the United States of America. A. Williams. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPreble1880.

Preble. - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Stephenson, Orlando W (1925). "The Supply of Gunpowder in 1776". The American Historical Review. University of Chicago. 30 (2): 2712–81. doi:10.2307/1836657. JSTOR 1836657. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFStephenson1925.

Stephenson. -Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Vadakan, Vibul V., M.D. (Winter–Spring 2005). "A Physician Looks At The Death of Washington". The Early America Review. DEV Communications. 6 (1). ISSN 1090-4247. Archived from the original on December 16, 2005. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFVadakan2005.

Vadakan. - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Washington, Austin (2014). The Education of George Washington: How a forgotten book shaped the character of a hero. Regnery Publishing. ISBN 9781621572053. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFWashington2014.

Washington. - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Washington, George; Dinwiddie, Hon. Robert (1865). "The Journal of Major George Washington". Reprinted for J. Sabin. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFWashingtonDinwiddie1865.(Sent to the Commandment of the French Forces in Ohio)

Washington. - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Library of Congress (1905). "Acceptance of Appointment by General Washington, in 2 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 91–92". Continental Congress. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLibrary_of_Congress1905

Library of Congress 1905. Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Freneau, Philip (1903). Fred Lewis Pattee, ed. "The Poems of Philip Freneau, Volume II (of III)". Project Gutenberg. Retrieved September 6, 2014. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFreneau1903.

Freneau. Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Twohig, Dorothy (October 1994). "'That Species of Property': Washington's Role in the Controversy Over Slavery". The Papers of George Washington. University of Virginia. Archived from the original on April 13, 2005. Retrieved November 14, 2011. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFTwohig1994

Twohig. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Jensen, Richard (2002). "Military History of the American Revolution". Jensen's Web Guides. University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved January 18, 2011. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJensen2002.

Jensen. Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

University of Virginia (2008). "Bible Record for Washington Family". The Papers of George Washington. University of Virginia. Archived from the original on October 5, 2013. Retrieved January 26, 2008. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFUniversity_of_Virginia2008.

University of Virginia 2008. - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wood, Gordon (December 16, 2004). "The Man Who Would Not Be King". The New Republic. Retrieved August 4, 2006 – via powells.com. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFWood2004.

Wood - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Pogue, Dennis J. (January 2004). Shad, Wheat, and Rye (Whiskey): George Washington, Entrepreneur (PDF). The Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Meeting. Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. pp. 2–10. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 24, 2011. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPogue2004.

Pogue. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Alberts, Robert C. (February 1973). "The Notorious Affair Of Mrs. Reynolds". American Heritage. Vol. 24 no. 2. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAlberts1973.

Alberts. Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Ten Facts About Washington & Slavery". mountvernon.org. Mount Vernon. 2018.

? What is the issue with "Ten Facts..."? Shearonink (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wood, Gordon (December 16, 2004). "The Man Who Would Not Be King". The New Republic. Retrieved August 4, 2006 – via powells.com. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

(Wood. Deleted.) Shearonink (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Finkelman, Paul (April 1994). "Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On" (PDF). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 102 no. 2. Virginia Historical Society. pp. 193–228. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFinkelman1994.

Finkelman. Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiencek, Henry (July 27, 2017). "George Washington (1732–1799)". Encyclopedia Virginia Virginia Humanities. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFWiencek2017. Graham Beards (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiencek. Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the useful list. I don't know why you're being petulant that I reverted an error you introduced, though. Your error was in good faith--you were making a copyright date match the date in numerous other like citations--what you didn't realize was that you "fixed" the one that was right! Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I fixed sfn errors because the date in the article was different to the date in the bibliography and the linking did not work because of this error. (Which was not my making). And what is going to be done wrt Lloyd? As I said, I am not prepared to waste my time fixing these problems and see my edits reverted without discussion. I think you guys are out of your depth in thinking you can write an FA. I suggest you take this to Peer Review as was suggested at the failed FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) — Everyone has edits reverted from time to time. The article has been subject to years of edits by many editors using all sorts of citation approaches. Before the nomination I spent a couple of weeks removing citation templates from the body of text, along with other citation issues, but obviously there was much more work to be done. One of the main problems here is the bickering and condemnations over petty issues, not to mention some of the flagrant opinions we've seen hit the fan. Some of the requirements of an FA reviewer should be subject knowledge, neutrality and an adult capacity to keep personal peeves and insults to one's self. Your help has certainly been an 'inspiration' among your fellow editors. Cherrio. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
LLOYD (actually "Lloyd & Mitchinson") Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there are a few retrieval dates missing in the Bibliography. Hoppyh (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Teeth

IMO, there is excessive detail about his teeth. I recommend a summary sentence, used in conjunction with a note for the detail. Hoppyh (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done   Reduced the narration here — not down to one sentence, but considerably. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Masonry and religion

There may be more sources that describe Washington had more ties to the Masonry "diestic" religion than just sporatic. One even suggested Washington was chosen to be Commander in Chief and President, because he was a mason. He had a Masonic funeral, not a Anglican or Episcopal service. And of course his Monument appears to be Masonic. It seems Washington was more of a Mason than Episcopal. Should there be more clarification in the article concerning Washington and Masonry ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Our coverage should be limited to his envolvement during life, so as to avoid the Masons’ (understandable) efforts to capitalize on his name. Hoppyh (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
IMO the present coverage is fine - "Masonry & Washington"/religion etc tends to devolve into an internet fringe & conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole to be avoided if possible. The rector of Christ Church in Alexandria (where Washington was a member) performed the religious portion of the funeral + a large number of military organizations plus the Alexandria Masonic Lodge Washington also participated. Shearonink (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the current information is misleading. It is not fringe or a rabbit hole. He stopped taking communion after the Revolutionary War. Yet that article says he is an Episcopalian. He was never a confirmed church member when he had opportunity too. Confirmation was offered in the 1780s by the Episcopalians. Stopped Communion and no confirmation. Washington was a confirmed Mason. He was buried in Masonic rituals. It is misleading to say Washington was an Episcopalian when he was not confirmed, nor did he take Communion. Cmguy777 (talk)
Well, some of the biggest edit-wars in this article's past have been around the issue of GW's religion. If you think the present coverage of Washington's religion & his being a Mason is incomplete/incorrect then change it. I disagree with your conclusions & think the article does now cover the issue well & am simply telling you what I think will happen if we go down the path of.... Did Washington believe in Jesus? Was he a Christian? Was he a Deist? He was a Mason and that's a cult! He was actually an atheist! Yes!! No!! revert/change/revert (etc). Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the current coverage is adequate. Hoppyh (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

First, there is a false presumption that making changes to the section will automatically create an edit war. Second, there could be something positive to say concerning Washington. I don't have all the resources on his faith, but it is pretty well established he did not take communion after the Revolutionary War. His pastor chastized him for this. Washington stopped attending Church on communion Sundays. Washington was interdemominational. He attended many denominations. That would be the positive thing. The controversy with Washington is his Masonry. How much was he involved ? Did it give him connections ? I would possibly take out the view that his meetings with Masons was sporatic. Obviously, that my have been caused by his military life, when he could not attend every meeting. Sporatic, conveys that he did not take is very seriously. Sporatic could be POV. I started this discussion to prevent an edit war, not cause one. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead and change the section however you think the references will support. You've obviously read up about this issue, provide the text along with your references and go for it.
And sporadic isn't POV, all it means is "occurring at irregular intervals" (for whatever reason). I am certain that Washington's regular or irregular attendance at Masons' meetings has probably been written about in some reliable source somewhere. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Sporadic could allude that Washington really was not that interested in being a Mason. The sections on his religion and Masonry seem rather large when there are already dedicated articles. My source is pulitzer prize winning Chernow (2010) book. Chernow does not say much on Washington's episcopalianism or for that matter his Masonry. His Mount Vernon funeral was Masonic. Washington had two Masonic aprons, but I am not sure why these aprons were so valued among Masons. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As the biography mentions, Washington was reluctant to continue with communion because he was "admonished" by the pastor for not setting an example. He still attended services regularly.
  • Though Washington, a very busy man with numerous commitments, may not have attended Masonic meetings regularly, there is every indication he embraced this faith, right along side that of Christianity. The biography says that Washington ...eventually was the highest ranking Mason in the United States.
  • Let's remember that this is the Washington biography, the main article, the only WP article that appears in Google search results when one types in George Washington. As such coverage of his personal life, especially, should be covered here with more than outline proportions. Once again, we cover topics in good context, regardless of the presence of other articles, per FA criteria. It's not right that a reader has to hop to a dozen different articles to get a good picture of Washington's life, so we shouldn't force them to do so. The article should read as though it was a printout, not 'dependent' on links and other articles for its comprehension. Page length was authored as a 'guideline', not a rigid 'policy', for reasons that by now should be obvious to any experienced editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. In the FA review it was mentioned that information could be reduced because there are seperate articles. That one makes sense. Why fight FA ? Chernow 2010 does not devote a lot of time to Washington's religion. Not taking communion is a big thing. It is the hallmark of the Episcopalian Church (Catholic light) Communion had to do with acknowledging personal sin and dependence on Christ's forgiveness. It is quite possible Washington had taken Comminion when he was younger, as his mother said he did, but as an adult, he did not feel it was necessary. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No one is "fighting FA". Chernow is one author, whom you claim doesn't devote much on religion - then you turn around and start speculating about Washington's beliefs and carry on about "Christ's forgiveness" while wondering if he took communion when he was younger, etc. Not taking communion was explained for your twice, per a reliable source. That's all we really need to say here, esp since, as you claim, Chernow doesn't say much about religion. In any event, we can't speculate as to why Washington did what he did, if he did, without backing it up with a reliable source. Also, FA criteria says nothing about ignoring topic comprehensiveness because of other articles. I believe these things have been recited for you many times. Yet you seem to prefer to argue. Why don't you simply tell us what you feel the section is missing, or what needs correction, and back it up with at least one source -- more than, if you are seriously in doubt of these things. Please excuse the impatient tone, but it was asked that we address specific issues that were in obvious error, not speculation. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Two points intended to help you all; one, it might serve us well to let the next reviewer judge the comprehensiveness issue if they see one, and two, try to address the contribution not the contributor, to avoid getting irritated with each other. Hoppyh (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"That's all we really need to say here, esp since, as you claim, Chernow doesn't say much about religion." So what? We already have a detailed article on the religious views of George Washington, including his attendance record on religious services, his lack of interest in receiving communion, an unreliable story concerning Washington being baptized, the fact that no minister or priest attended to him in the days prior to his death (none was summoned), and his complex relationship to Deism. We do not need to reproduce everything in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No one has asserted that we "reproduce everything", only that the narrative is contextual and comprehensive, not overlooking (or ignoring) major details. One's religion is a major part of anyone's biography, so we've given it a section that is par with the subject. Why is the effort to delete items always greater than the effort to add them around here? This is the main George Washington article, the only one that comes up in Google search results when one types in George Washington. While being mindful of redundancy and tangential details, we need to assume a more constructive approach to the editing it seems. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
By comparison, most of the information on Adolf Hitler's ancestry, his family, his military career in World War I, his political views, the events of his rise to power, his religious views, his health status and problems, his psychopathography, and his sexuality are mostly covered in sub-articles, with few mentions in the main article. Why should not do the same about someone less important, like Washington? Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me that GW’s pain from dental issues may have had something to do with communion abstinence but I guess none of the sources have found the connection. Hoppyh (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Specific issues

Appreciate the advice, truly. Much of this, however, could be avoided if we just concentrate on specific issues that are clearly in error. Yes, it's a little irritating when specific issues are called for, and then, typically, we get more speculation, fuzzy opinion and endless talk. At this point it seems it's only a matter of (little) time before another reviewer/critic asserts that the "flow" isn't good or the prose is "unintelligible", as if we're a bunch of monkeys sitting at our key boards, and then fails to point at any specific item when this affair has been brought to our collective attention on numerous occasions. Still willing to push forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the section can be shorter. Communion is the central part of the Episcopalian Church. It was important enought call George Washington out by the cleric. The personal information can be incorporated into the article. We need to seperate Masonry and Espicopalianism, particularly on communion. Washington's religion is contoversial. The article is looking better. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit the section as you think appropriate and we’ll go from there. Hoppyh (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Your perspective about responding to specific issues is right, so let’s do that with the prospective FA nom, i.e. let’s wait and see what and who presents themselves when the time comes. Anything else is a waste of precious effort? Hoppyh (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Context

Hoppyh, thanks for your last series of edits and improvements to grammar, etc. However I restored a few points of context which shed light on Washington's public capacity, time frame involved, etc. At the same time the article is now down to 96k of readable prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Where do I go to find an article’s readable prose # ? Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Readable prose is easily ascertained by adding this script to your common.js file. Not counted as readable prose is caption text, sources, citations, footnotes and any data/text that occurs in an info box or chart. —— After you install the script you will see 'Page Size' listed under Tools in the left side bar on the article page. Click on it and all readable prose will be highlighted in yellow. We should all be reminded here that page length is a guideline, not a policy, and "'is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", esp for articles of very famous people extensively involved in history, etc. Also, content should not be removed just to satisfy page length concerns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That’s a bit more trouble than I want go to. It’s really not a priority for me like it had been. Hoppyh (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The brothers Albin Rawlins & George Rawlins....

are not the same person and are being conflated by sources and in the article. Gizzard, pag 266, Chernow|2010|p=807, etc. Albin Rawlins was Washington's personal clerk/copyist, George was estate overseer. Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

On-line books

Many times I have used books available on-line, esp Google books, but too often many pages are not included for viewing, and often enough page numbers are not included. This is what has largely prompted me to buy many of these books over the years. There are some great deals on eBay, Amazon, etc. Often times you can purchase a used book for a fraction of its original price. At this late date I have many books on the Civil War and the Revolution, etc. In any case, if anyone needs to inquire about a topic in a given book, and that book isn't available for viewing on-line (in its entirety or at all) you can check the  list of books I own  and I'll be happy to look into what a given historian has to say about a topic or particular issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Images

@Cmguy777: I uploaded an image you may want to check at commons - George Washington Equestrian Statue - Virginia State Capitol.jpg Hoppyh (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: Thanks Hoppyh. I will look at the statue. It might be good for the Post-presidency of George Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the stamps and currency items appear disproportiately large compared to some of the personal images. I also wonder if they should not be positioned below the portrait galleries. Hoppyh (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Looks better, pal. I know that was painful. Just remember, the full image is but a click away. If you would, sometime we could probably use some of your images at Harrison family of Virginia. Hoppyh (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

  • There are still many issues to resolve involving citations and sources. Among the most glaring are references (citations) pointing to Washington's writings, per Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick's publication and editing of Washington's writing is a 39 volume work, yet almost all the Fitzpatrick citations don't indicate any volume number, where a simple page number becomes almost useless. This presents us with a major hurdle on the road to FA nomination and needs to be resolved.
@Cmguy777: Back in the Spring you began adding Fitzpatrick citations (e.g. on 29 March 2018 and 4 April 2018 and 31 May 2018), but the volume number for the particular work is not cited. Do you remember which volume was used? In particular, there are numerous Fitzpatrick cites that use p.510 and p.514. (Fitzpatrick, p.514 was added on May 31st, if that helps) If we could get the volume number for these cites, we could fix about ten cites in one fell swoop. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. This is Wikipedia. Why can't we use reliable websources, especially concerning Washington ? MVLA fills in the gaps at times and gives specific details. Once a book is written it can't be immediately updated. Chernow (2010) was eight years ago. Fitzpatrick is in Volume 19 of Dictonary of American Biography. Here is the link: Washington, George Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Chernow was eight years ago. While we're at it, Ferling was nine years ago, Wiencek was fifteen years ago, Randall was twenty-one years ago, etc, etc. Washington's writings were well over two-hundred years ago. The Fitzpatrick source, you chose to use multiple times, is over seventy years ago. I don't believe there is some amazing revelation that has come to light that renders these works, in their entirety, obsolete. This is what you seem to be suggesting. Also, I didn't say we 'can't use' web–site sources, only that it would be best to replace them with published sources. In any case, I'll add the volume number and remove the tags to the cites in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Let's say we just use published sources. To Chernow and Ferling George Washington was just a subject for one of their books. Is that what Wikipedia is all about? Plug in book sources. In my opinion we need access to reliable websources. MVLA their whole purpose is George Washington. In my opinion American Heritage, MVLA, and Dictionary of American Biography are reliable sources found on the web. There is one advantage of having a book while editing. You get the page numbers and it is more precise. Not all books on the web have page numbers. So in that I agree that books are better because or the page numbers. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Generally agree. Most published sources will remain 99.99% accurate, per established facts, 100, 200, 1000 years from now. Facts don't change, only the opinions. As I mentioned, there have been no revelations that render the published sources less than reliable. It would be nice if we can substitute published sources for internet dependent sources. Let's bear in mind, however, that the average reader reads WP articles in good faith, and doesn't question, or even look at, the sources. So all in all, the issue here, I suppose, is no big deal to anyone than us fussy editors, and any scholar that happens on to the articles. I suppose I'm being fussy. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not against using published sources such as books. Chernow (2010) addresses Washington's Masonry on pages 27-28. Not much is said. What did the Masons believe at that time ? Did Washington believe them ? It is difficult to get any answers from Chernow, other than Washington joined the Masons to hobnob and improve his social standing. In the index Washington is not even listed as a Mason. Are alternative sources then required ? Washington is not listed as an Episcopalian either by Chernow in the index. That is why I went to the MVLA source for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Chernow covers Washington and the Masons on pp.27-28, 451, 500, 568, 632, 653, 704, 720–721, 807 and 810. Chernow also has the Episcopal church listed in the index i.e.pp 470, 611. In Washington's day the Episcopal church was analogous with the Anglican church and the Church of England. Our own biography has much more to say on this and the Masons. Chernow, p.500 should give you some clues about Washington's regard for and the capacity of his involvement with the Masons. After you read Chernow's and other accounts you'll hopefully come up with a better estimation of Washington's regard for and involvement with the Masons, and hopefully, of Washington himself. Apparently you've overlooked much and seem to be suggesting he was nothing more than a shallow minded and rank opportunist. — Not interested in any more of these speculations. If there are specific contributions you'd like to add to the biography, please present them, per reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, please address the contributions, not the contributor. Hoppyh (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was told by the contributor that Chernow doesn't say much on the Masons and that Washington was simply hob-nobbing around. There were no contributions offered here, but okay, I'll try to curb my disappointment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks only contribute to editors fleeing this article. And yes Chernow uses the words "convivial place to hobnob" on page 28. Please don't take me out of context. In my opinion Gwillhickers, it is your defensiveness of Washington, at times, that is keeping this article from getting to FA. Washington needs no defenders. In Chernow's index under Washington, George there is no mention of Episcolpalianism, Anglicanism, Masonry, or Diesm. What is listed is religious observances by and religious toleration by. Washington was baptized in the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church (founded 1789) came after the Revolutionary War. From the information provided on page 500, one can assume that Washington was much more an active Mason than an Anglican and Episcopalian. There is also no record, apparently, of Washington being a confirmed member of the Episcopalian Church. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Claiming, "Apparently you've overlooked much and seem to be suggesting he was nothing more than a shallow minded and rank opportunist", is not a 'personal' attack — and making false accusations, once again, will only hold up the article. "Defensiveness" of Washington only comes in response to cherry picking items to support reaching condemnations, veiled, or flagrant, as we once recently witnessed. Don't know what else to tell you when you cherry pick one item from Chernow, overlook the dozens of other pages where Chernow covers Washington and the Masons, while at the same time you claim the Episcopal church was not listed in the index, when it is. Chernow indeed says that Washington, "hob-nobbed" and expanded his social contacts, but he goes on to say much more than that, but you wouldn't know that from your above statement. What do you expect in response in such instances? Once again, if you have a specific contribution please offer it, per reliable sources, and please try not to confuse constructive criticism of oversights here with "personal" attacks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hopphy said "please address the contributions, not the contributor." Personal attacks can hide behind veiled criticisms of editors. Chernow did not say Washington was a "rank opportunist" and neither did I. You put words in my editing I never said. That is the personal attack. Chernow used the word hobnobbed and then you attacked me. I am not sure what exactly hobnobbed means or what Chernow's intention was for using that word. Editors and readers are entitled to have their own opinions on Washington, but not let these opinions escape into the article. A spirit of cooperation among editors, a truce against personal attacks, or "contructive criticism" of editors, would go a long way for this article. and get George Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe my criticism was fair, direct, and not at all personal. If you chose to take this criticism personally that is your choice. Yes, let's get back to work. If you truly feel the section and topic of Washington's Masonic involvement is lacking, or in need of other context, please let us know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I never said or suggested Washington was a "rank opportunist" as you claimed. Appropriate edits can be made at anytime. Editors do not have to let anyone know anything to make edits freely on Wikipedia. No one editor is suppose to own this article and dictate what other editors are to edit either. Editors are not suppose to edit under hostile criticism either. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hostile? Own the article? Dictate? Anything else? This sort of thing occurs all the time, and you're no exception. Back to work? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Back to work. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Am I right that sources with on-line links need to include a retrieval date? Hoppyh (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and Cmguy777: The Bibliography subsection “Book sources” includes a number of cites to journals, news, encyclopedia. I thought I’d create a “Articles” subsection, similar to FA John Tyler. Thoughts please. Hoppyh (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: — I have minor reservations about this. Though the sources you mention are not 'books' per se, they are not primary or web-site sources either. Adding yet another subsection (even in text form like the others) will make the bibliography more divided up than it is all ready. I've no strong opinion on this however, so if other editors think it's appropriate I'll go along here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Huge bibliography, which might benefit, but I’m not the best on this; let’s see if it is raised later. Hoppyh (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Content/context

The subject of taxing the colonies obviously was tossed around in Parliament, but there was no bonafide representative speaking on their behalf, expressing their sentiments and opinions. Most of the loyalists were people of wealth and/or with family ties to or near royalty, and those who had official business with the crown. Most of the rebels were farmers, peddlers and similar types of common folk. Some were wealthy, but overall it was this lot that was effected the most adversely. Feelings of revolution didn't materialize appreciably in one year — it was an ongoing process of more taxes, more laws, no representation, with no end in sight. Being asked to fund a past war, esp when you fought in it, or had sons and fathers who died fighting it, didn't sit very well with the colonists either. It would seem we've covered this perspective well in the opening section of the Revolution. Surrounding circumstances and added context are always welcomed in a Good or Featured article, at least by me, so long as we don't get away from Washington's involvements too much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I had thought there were wealthy Patriots that included Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, Samuel and John Adams. Aside from that, was the Revolution just over taxes ? Maybe their were other reasons. Why would British subjects, protected by the British Army and Navy, rebel against Pariliment ? It is as if Americans did not consider themselves British anymore, but Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Virtual representation Apparently the Second Continental Congress did ask for British representation in Parliment, but this was not accepted by Parliment. Maybe it would help to mention this in the Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the colonists were protected by the British Army and Navy, but they failed to prevent the constant Indian attacks in the back country. Neither did their "protection" amount to much in terms of new taxes and laws foisted onto the colonies without their consent or representation in Parliament. As I mentioned, some of the Rebels were wealthy, but in cases like Washington, Jefferson, etc, their ties to the Colonies were much stronger, obviously. In any case, the Revolution was not just about taxes, but the ongoing lack of representation, along with new laws, fear of going into debt because of those taxes (and debtor's prison), and again, having to pay for a war that many colonists fought and died in. I remember reading that the population in debtor's prisons increased dramatically in the wake of all the new laws and taxes. We can speculate from both the American and British perspectives whether all the new taxes and laws were justified or not, but all we can do is present the facts, per sources. Yes, without representation, which materialized into new laws and taxes, it was difficult to give allegiance to the crown over one's own homeland where they were born and raised. If there are other reasons that prompted the rebellion I would be interested, but only if it ties in with Washington inasmuch as it permits us to mention it in the article, per improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We can mention Virtual representation and how the colonists were not satisfied with that arrangement, as it apparently didn't serve to air their sentiments and opinions, as expressed in the Fairfax Resolves, headed by Washington, concerning the British claim of "supreme authority over the American colonies", and all the new laws and taxes they imposed. I'm sure we can find stand alone sources for V.R., but it would be best to find a source that ties it in with Washington. Perhaps he had words about this in his heated correspondence with Brian Fairfax, spokesman for the crown, which would work well in the biography. If not, I would only mention V.R. in passing, with a link, along with the other issues that prompted the revolution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

While several causes and events leading up to the American Revolution are covered in the main article, the pieces of legislation which caused the massive reaction were the so-called Intolerable Acts (1774). The Parliament of Great Britain reacted to the Boston Tea Party (1773) by passing a series of punitive laws against the Province of Massachusetts Bay. The self-governance of the colony was removed, along with a number of the rights previously acknowledged by the Parliament. The intention of the MPs was to make an example of Massachusetts, and thus "reverse the trend of colonial resistance to parliamentary authority". Instead it encouraged the colonial population to take political and military action against the Parliament.

"Great Britain hoped that the Coercive Acts would isolate radicals in Massachusetts and cause American colonists to concede the authority of Parliament over their elected assemblies. It was a calculated risk that backfired, however, because the harshness of some of the acts made it difficult for moderates in the colonies to speak in favor of Parliament.[1] The acts promoted sympathy for Massachusetts and encouraged colonists from the otherwise diverse colonies to form committees of correspondence which sent delegates to the First Continental Congress. The Continental Congress created the Continental Association, an agreement to boycott British goods. Additionally, it was decided that if the Coercive Acts were not reversed after a year, goods were to stop being exported to Great Britain as well. The Congress also pledged to support Massachusetts in case of attack, which meant that all of the colonies would become involved when the American Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord."[2] Dimadick (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Peter Knight (2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 184–85. ISBN 9781576078129.
  2. ^ Harlow G. Unger (2011). American Tempest: How the Boston Tea Party Sparked a Revolution. Da Capo Press. pp. 188–93. ISBN 0306819767.

Due weight and images

I added photos of two British commanding generals for neutrality, Howe and Clinton. Yes. Washington and the French were the ultimate victors, but I think it will help in a potential FA review, depending whether there are British or Canadian reviewers. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything we add to the biography should be based on due weight, not for purposes of appeasing potential British or Canadian reviewers. We should not appeal to potential bias. — Instead of Howe we should have a picture of General John Sullivan, a delegate in the Continental Congress and one of Washington's top generals, or Horatio Gates, made general of the continental army at Washington's recommendation in 1775. — Instead of Clinton, we should have a picture of General Anthony Wayne who prevented Clinton from proceeding on to West Point and worked closely with Washington throughout the war. These generals have much more association with Washington than Howe or Clinton. IMO, the pictures of Howe and Clinton should be replaced with American generals closely associated with Washington throughout the war. As a compromise, I am willing to forego including images of any of these generals, American or British, as this is the Washington biography. There is no picture of Washington in the Howe or Clinton articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
There should be a pictures of Washington in the Clinton and Howe articles. That I am in agreement with. The photos are not undo weight. Clinton and Howe are both in the Chernow (2010) and Taylor (2017) books. They were the Commanding Generals of the British Army. This article is shared by British, Canadian, and American readers and potential editors. It is not done out of appeasement. There is no quid pro quo. It was done just to add a more European take on the article. I personally don't like being told to remove my own edits. My only interest is to get the article to FA. I would like to do a few more things such as reducing information in the sections. That was a specific concern mentioned in the FA review. My only suggestion is let other editors comment on the photos. I believe the photos are good for the article. There is the take down of George III statue. No objections there. I was just trying to balance the photos within the article. The other reason I put these photos in was to give a face to the enemy. The photos are a good representation of what these British Commanders would look like during the Revolutionary War. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I added photos of George Washington to both the Howe and Clinton articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, you said right off you added images of Howe and Clinton because "it will help in a potential FA review, depending whether there are British or Canadian reviewers." This is appeasement. Also, you are assuming that Canadians automatically harbor a British bias. All I said was that this was the wrong reason to be adding the images. And I didn't 'tell' you not to add them. I didn't revert the edit, and only came to the talk page to discuss it. This is the second time in days you've accused me of this sort of thing. If you would like to achieve neutrality, then I would suggest that we use a double image format. One for Generals Sullivan and Howe Burgoyne and another double image for Generals Wayne and Clinton. As it is, there was not one portrait of any American general (other than Washington) in this biography. Also, instead of Howe, who only by-passed Washington at Brandywine, and wasn't present at Germantown or at the famous battle of Saratoga, we should use John Burgoyne, who was defeated in this battle. Double images were added to this effect.
Btw, in the Howe article you stuck the image of Washington in the Bunker Hill section. Washington was not present at that battle. In Clinton's article you put Washington's image in the Commander in Chief section. Clinton replaced Howe as C.I.C. so putting an image of Washington, the American Commanding General, in this section is not the best place either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Help is not appeasement. Reducing narration would help get to FA. That is not appeasement and neither is putting in a British officer photo. By the way you your self put in a British officer photo. Does that make you an appeaser? Accusing me of implying I said "appeasement" when I said "help" is a false statement. Help means make the article better. You know good and well Graham Beards opinion of Washington. The term help is defined as an improvement or benefit to the article. Wikipedia English is international. By the way no one mentioned putting in British officers in the Wikipedia FA review. It was all my idea. No appeasement for Graham Beards. What this boils down to is you are acting as a controlling editor. That is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. It is easy to put words in peoples mouths and then accuse them. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You said you added the images for the sake of British and Canadian viewers. Not me. I added the images of American generals for neutrality, and because, as I explained, there were none in place when you decided to add images of British generals. As for your habitual accusations, I did not 'tell' you to do anything, and I do not control the article. You often pulled the same thing on the Ulysses S. Grant article and accused editors of "editor control" when you failed at debate. You even accused two other editors of collaborating outside of Wikipedia so they could "control" the article when you didn't get your way. You really need to stop resorting to this sort of behavior every time you fail at your attempts at discussion. You only make a spectacle of yourself, drive others away and make a mockery of the Talk page process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. You added a picture of British officer John Burgoyne. I have no problem with that. My motivations for any edits are only to get George Washington to FA. I put a face to the enemy in the article and then get accused of undo weight and appeasement. From what I understand, and could be wrong, is that neither the British nor Canadians have a high opinion of Washington. As far as Canada goes there is a French population and the English and French might not get along with each other at times. Taking that aspect into the article, is not unreasonable, and it is not appeasement. No editors have pressured to put British officers in the article. It was my idea. I was being bold. I like what you did in matching the British officers to an American officer. Why can't we work together instead of against each other ? Where then is the best placement of the Washington photos in the Howe and Clinton articles ? Can we have a truce ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
My criticism about adding material with British and Canadians in mind was originally made in passing, and your edits were not reverted. Discussion and compromise was even extended to you, and later, a compromise was made by adding double images. As for the compound accusations, these are really unneeded. Don't understand why you need to resort to them so often. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

A passage covering Washington and Thanksgiving was added to the Domestic issues section. As this section is rather small it appears that coverage of Thanksgiving takes up undue space. I'm hoping it doesn't. Given the small amount of material in this section one has to wonder if we're overlooking anything relating to domestic issues. It would seem so. Thoughts? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, my edit history remarks called your last edit a "revert", but it wasn't quite that. Still, you've truncated the passage down almost to the point of obscurity, and without any discussion as I had hoped for. This episode says much about Washington, reflecting on his beliefs and character, and should be presented in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Washington gave beer and food to those in debtors prison. His first proclamation as President was one of thanksgiving. Why do we have to "prove" Washington was of good character ? Would the modern reader understand the signifigance of beer and food to people in debt. Also the Holiday was not federal until another General President Grant. We have to keep information to minimum. Was there a federal program for people in debt ? That would be more signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The 1780s, the so-called Confederation Period, were a period of financial distress for the United States. Debt was a major problem, in part because taxes were higher than they were under British administration:

  • "The states continued to carry the burden of heavy debt loads acquired during the Revolutionary War. With the partial exceptions of New York and Pennsylvania, which received revenue from import duties, most states relied on individual and property taxes for revenue. To cope with this debt, several states were forced to raise taxes to a level several times higher than it had been prior to the war. These taxes sparked anger among the populace, particularly in rural areas, and in Massachusetts led to an armed uprising known as Shays' Rebellion. As both Congress and the government of Massachusetts proved unable to suppress the rebellion, former Secretary of War Benjamin Lincoln raised a private army which put an end to the insurgency.[1]
  • "Under the Articles, only the states could levy taxes or regulate commerce. The United States acquired huge debts during the Revolutionary War, in part due to Congress's lack of taxation powers.[2] In 1779, Congress had relinquished most of it economic power to the states, as it stopped printing currency and requested that the states directly pay the soldiers, but the states also suffered from fiscal instability.[3] Robert Morris, the Superintendent of Finance, sought major centralizing reforms, including the partial assumption of state debt, the suspension of payments to military personnel, and the creation of the Bank of North America. As Congress approved of these measures, Morris emerged as perhaps the most powerful individual in the national government, with some referring to him as "The Financier," or even "The Dictator."[4] In 1783, Morris, with the support of Congressmen such as Madison and Alexander Hamilton, finally won Congressional approval of a 5% levy on imports, which would grant the national government a consistent and independent source of revenue. However, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the states became more resistant to granting power to Congress. Though all but two states approved the levy, it never won the unanimous backing of the states and thus Congress struggled to find revenue throughout the 1780s.[5]"
  • "A brief recession followed the war, but prosperity returned by 1786. Those who remained benefited from the exodus of many Loyalists who left behind their land and businesses.[6] Almost twenty percent of Americans had remained loyal to the Britain, and as many as 80,000 of these Loyalists left the United States during and after the war.[7] Economically mid-Atlantic states recovered particularly quickly and began manufacturing and processing goods, while New England and the South experienced more uneven recoveries.[8] Trade with Britain resumed, and the volume of British imports after the war matched the volume from before the war, though exports fell precipitously.[9] Adams, serving as the ambassador to Britain, called for a retaliatory tariff in order to force the British to negotiate a commercial treaty, particularly regarding access to Caribbean markets. However, Congress lacked the power to regulate foreign commerce or compel the states to follow a unified trade policy, and Britain proved unwilling to negotiate.[10] While trade with the British did not fully recover, the U.S. expanded trade with France, China, the Netherlands, Portugal, and other European countries. Despite these good economic conditions, many traders complained of the high duties imposed by each state, which served to restrain interstate trade. Many creditors also suffered from the failure of domestic governments to repay debts incurred during the war.[11] Though the 1780s saw moderate economic growth, many experienced economic anxiety, and Congress received much of the blame for failing to foster a stronger economy.[12] Dimadick (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Maier, pp. 15–17
  2. ^ Ferling (2003), pp. 220–221
  3. ^ Ferling (2003), pp. 224–225
  4. ^ Ferling (2003), pp. 235–242
  5. ^ Middlekauff, pp. 606–607
  6. ^ Ferling (2003), pp. 257–258
  7. ^ Middlekauff, pp. 563–564
  8. ^ Middlekauff, p. 612
  9. ^ Ferling (2003), pp. 257–258
  10. ^ Ferling (2003), p. 263
  11. ^ Ferling (2003), pp. 257–258
  12. ^ Middlekauff, pp. 613–614
Dimadick. What does any of this have to do with Thanksgiving ? Where is the discussion ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Does Washington need to be presented as a "good person" ? Washington needs no defense or protection. Washington gave beer and food to those in debtors prison. How much ? To whom ? Does the modern reader understand what a debtors prison is ? All I did was reduce the information. Giving the beer and food to people was seperate from his presidency. A good reflection of his personal character. It was not a federal law. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
We present Washington with the established facts supported by reliable sources, which at this late date there are many. If this happens to shed a good light on Washington I'm hoping this doesn't pose any disappointment for any particular individual. Washington is famous because he was fundamental at bringing about the revolution, which opened the door for common folks to go out there start at the bottom and ultimately become well off or even rich, which, for the longest time throughout history, was a privilidge only afforded to royalty and a small section of the gentry closely associated with them. It wasn't a perfect government, but far better than most at this time. In war Washington led from the front lines along side of his men, time and again. Scoundrels, cowards and men with little conviction don't do this sort of thing. This alone puts Washington in the 'good guy' neighborhood. Washington become an icon and leader which stuck in the craw of Kings, Lords and the super rich, so the only way to attack him was, and is, to inflate the slavery issue, often by ignoring all the human context that surrounded it. We already cover slavery with a rather large section. His Thanksgiving proclamation and the manner in which he observed this day reflects deeply on Washington's character and is something that is covered by notable sources. Three were provided. If anyone is still inclined to dig up any dirt on Washington, per sources, they are free to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Dimadick. What does any of this have to do with Thanksgiving" Who the heck is talking about Thanksgiving? We are talking about prisoners of debtor's prisons, and we have the question: "Was there a federal program for people in debt ?" I am trying to explain how widespread debt and poverty was at the time. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"In war Washington led from the front lines along side of his men, time and again. Scoundrels, cowards and men with little conviction don't do this sort of thing. This alone puts Washington in the 'good guy' neighborhood."

Are you out of your mind? Critias, the worst tyrant in Athenian history, the one who , was still a brave soldier. He met his end fighting in battle, with his soldiers. We have an entire category of Category:Monarchs killed in action (killed in battle), including the likes of Vlad the Impaler, Möngke Khan, and Harald Hardrada. Do you think they were all good guys because they were brave and fought alongside their men? Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The comment in great part is true, but okay, there are exceptions and that alone doesn't make someone a good guy, but it does denote conviction in Washington's case. I suppose history is filled with examples of blood thirsty maniacs, like "Vlad the Impaler", who were on the front lines, driven by blind hatred, unforgiving scorn, etc. In any case, we're not asserting that Washington was a good guy in the biography here, and are only presenting the facts as we find them in reliable sources, so you can put your shirt back on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
As a historical curiosity, the last British monarch to lead his troops in battle was George II of Great Britain (reign 1727–1760) at the Battle of Dettingen (1743). "An allied force of Austrian, British, Dutch, Hanoverian and Hessian troops engaged the French at the Battle of Dettingen on 16/27 June 1743. George personally accompanied them, leading them to victory, thus becoming the last British monarch to lead troops into battle." By contrast George II's grandson George III of the United Kingdom never took part in a battle, and does not seem to have had military training. Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no denying that the British in many cases fought bravely, marching across open field into a hail of gunfire. Two waves of soldiers were cut down before they were able to take Bunker Hill. Can you image what was going through the minds of the soldiers in the third wave, stepping over dead and wounded as they approached the redoubt and trenches at the top of the hill? Yet they marched forward regardless. I'd like to think these were good souls. Silly me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
No one is questioning Washington's bravery under battle. "Scoundrels, cowards and men with little conviction don't do this sort of thing." That is a bit of a harsh statement. We are talking about Washington's personal characteristics and this could get into theological concerns. Is one good because of faith or is one good because of works ? What I am talking about is a need to prove Washington was a good person. Washington does not need our help in making him a better person. We just put in the facts in the article. Remember there is picture of Washington ascending to the heavens. Are we to treat Washington a a Christ like figure ? What does giving food and beer to poor people, yes, a good work, have to do with Washington's presidency ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Re: The claim that Washington's charitable acts of giving beer and food to debtors in prison has nothing to do with presidency. — Washington did this on Thanksgiving, while fasting, while he was president. This advent gives the reader insight into his regard for Thanksgiving and the Thanksgiving proclamation, while also tying in with Washington's religious convictions. What does tending to sick slaves have to do with slavery? Context. — Because this is the Washington biography, we touch on Washington's character, foremost, at any given time. The dedicated article for presidency is the place to delineate Washington's presidency in the cut and dry fashion you seem to want to have occur here. Because this is a GA, soon to be FA, article, we add context to the narrative where Washington's character is concerned. Most history buffs and students welcome good and comprehensive reading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Cm', thanks for clarifying the Thanksgiving proclamation episode, and expanding the quote a bit. Yes, Grant was the one who made Thanksgivingt a 'national' holiday. It would be interesting to find out if Grant was inspired by Washington on this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Grant made Thanksgiving a federal holiday. That meant workers did not go to work and I believe got paid. The federal work force probably was not a lot during Washington's presidency. I don't know if those workers got the day off. It was on a Thursday. From what I gathered about the FA review is that the article needs to be stream lined, and judgeing by was Graham Beards said, needs to be more "critical" of Washington. There is not a lot to critisize Washington on personal character. Washington was a land investor too, a business man. Was everything Washington did altruistic ? And no. Criticism does not mean attacking Washington's character. The British, possibly Canadians, may view Washington as a traitor or rebel to King George III. I am just mentioning that for critical perspective. That is why it is important to list Washington reason for becoming a Patriot. The Loyalists lands were confiscated and were refugees. I believe 20% of the colonists remained loyal to King George III. Any war will bring suffering even ones for great causes. To get to FA, in my opinion the article needs to be streamlined and a little more critical. These are just my opinions. The Jefferson-Hamilton feud is done well. Washington's early life is good too. The Last days section could be streamlined. Did Washington's neutrality policy fail ? I apologize for any harsh words said. As long as editors can work together, George Washington will get will get to FA. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said, if there is anything less than congenial to say about Washington, per sources, it is most welcomed. As for G.B.'s concerns, I really could care less. He swung his broad brush against Washington, and the U.S., but somehow failed to mention anything specific, except slavery, in the generic sense, of course. His flagrant bias has disqualified him as an objective reviewer. This will be at least a half dozen times you've have mentioned this one particular editor. I am always willing to work together towards FA, but too often it has been a trial. Still willing to go forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"Yes, Grant was the one who made Thanksgivingt a 'national' holiday. It would be interesting to find out if Grant was inspired by Washington on this." Unclear. The article Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant specifies that Grant was responsible for a law concerning holidays:

  • "On June 28, 1870, Grant approved and signed legislation that made Christmas, or December 25, a legal public Holiday within Washington D.C.[1][2][3] Historian Ron White said this was done by Grant because of his passion to unify the nation.[4] During the early 19th Century in the United States, Christmas became more of a Church family centered activity.[4] Other Holidays, included in the law within Washington D.C., were New Year, Fourth of July, and Thanksgiving.[1][2] The law affected 5,300 federal employees working in the District of Columbia, the nation's capital.[2] The legislation was meant to adapt to similar laws in states surrounding Washington D.C. and "in every State of the Union." [2]"

The primary text concerning this is reproduced in this external link:

  • "An Act making the first Day of January, the twenty-fifth Day of December, the fourth Day of July, and Thanksgiving Day, Holidays, within the District of Columbia"
    • "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following days, to wit: The first day of January, commonly called the New Year's Day, the fourth day of July, the twenty-fifth day of December, commonly called Christmas day, and any day appointed or recommended by the President of the United States as a day of public fast or thanksgiving, shall be holidays within the District of Columbia, and shall, for all purposes of presenting for payment or acceptance for the maturity and protest, and giving notice of the dishonor of bills of exchange, bank checks and promissory notes or other negotiable or commercial paper, be treated and considered as is the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, and all notes, drafts, checks, or other commercial or negotiable paper falling due or maturing on either of said holidays shall be deemed as having matured on the day previous."
    • "APPROVED, June 28, 1870".

According to Thanksgiving (United States), Abraham Lincoln had already "proclaimed a national Thanksgiving Day, to be celebrated on the 26th, the final Thursday of November 1863", but does not seem to have specified it as a payed holiday. Lincoln is indirectly responsible for turning Thanksgiving into an annual event, as his successors followed his precedent. A few of his predecessors declared Thanksgiving days in specific years: 1795, 1798, 1799, 1814, and twice in 1815. The three Presidents who declared these rare Thanksgivings were George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison. Thomas Jefferson was the first President never to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Statutes at Large 1871.
  2. ^ a b c d Stathis 1999.
  3. ^ Belz 2017.
  4. ^ a b Ron White 2017.

Please fix typos:

Under "Hamilton-Jefferson Feud" search for "but he feud continued after his reelection". Please change "he" to "the" Under "Indian Affairs" search for "Washing was prompted to re-augment". Please change "Washing" to "Washington"

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Section title

We should keep the original and simple section title Personal life as this includes personal traits, religion, beliefs, etc, etc and serves well as a general and main section title, which has been with us for years. No reason to change it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The section covers Washington's personal physical traits and his beliefs. Shouldn't the section be specific ? I think the section Personal life distrupts the narration of the article, along with the Slavery section. There should be no disruption between the Presidency section and the Retirement sections. Right now the reader has to read through two sections, plus two sub sections. That is ackward. Washington's involvement in the Cincinnati society can also be addressed. That would make twe sections plus three subsections. The article should look like this Presidency --- Retirement --- Final Days --- Historical reputation and legacy --- Slavery --- Personal traits --- Religion --- Cincinnati society --- Enlightenment and Masonry Cmguy777 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I would recommend the rep and legacy section after enlighte and mason. Hoppyh (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hoppyh : — Legacy, and Reputation isn't something that involved Washington's personal life, the advents of which occurs after death, and would be sort of out of place under Personal life section.
I wasn’t clear; I was recommending it stay where it is. Hoppyh (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777 : — The simple title of Personal life is inclusive of personal characteristics, religion, beliefs, etc. No need to spell all of these things out in the title itself, esp when the subtitles cover it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. I believe what ever the section(s) or subsection(s) are called, the section(s) and subsection(s) need to be moved. The narration is interrupted. Also there are dedicated articles on slavery and religion. That was a specific concern listed in the FA review. I moved them before. I would like to again. I suspect my edits would be overturned. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Dedicated articles have nothing to do with the order of sections here, nor do they give us an excuse to be less than comprehensive here, per FA criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Proposed new order:


But, Slavery was relevant to both the war of independence and to his presidency. During the war, about 7 of George Washington's slaves escaped fo fight for the british [1] . Eshaparvathi (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Also during his presidency he passed the Fugitive slave act.
IMO, Slavery should follow retirement;reputation and legacy should be last. Hoppyh (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Cmguy777, we've had this discussion before. Final days and Historical reputation and legacy should in that order be last, as it is now. Most of the biographers close their accounts with Washington's retirement and final days. No viable reason has ever been given to change the order here. I don't appreciate having to repeat past discussions. If there is a clear consensus to change the existing order we can go from there. We should be tending to things that actually need tending to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree, though IMO, Retirement should follow Presidency. Hoppyh (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there some compromise ? The Personal life section can even be expanded a bit. That is a lot of information between Presidency and Retirement sections when Slavery is added. This article did not pass the FA review. I don't need to remind anyone of that. I am only thinking of making this article to pass the FA. I don't want to make any edits only to have them reverted. Part of the problem with this article is its organization, not content. I was hoping Comegenus could jumb on board. I just don't think the chronology of narration should be interrupted. There is too much information between the Presidency and Retirement sections. The chronology is broken. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
My proposal keeps the Retirement and Final days sections together. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: @Gwillhickers: Maybe if you let Final days drop below slavery we might have something?...—————>
  • Presidency
  • Retirement (1797–1799)
  • Slavery
  • Personal life
  • Final days
  • Historical reputation and legacy

Hoppyh (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hoppyh and Cmguy777: The Final Days section is already below the slavery section. Personal life shouldn't be covered after Retirement, as the bulk of the personal life material occurs before retirement. With all due respect, it seems we're trying to fix something that isn't broke. Am not understanding the proposed need to rearrange the TOC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and Cmguy777: Enough said. I’m good to move on. Hoppyh (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The chronology of the article is affected by both the placement of the Slavery and Personal life sections. Why should the reader have to read through these sections. What biographers follow this pattern ? The pattern followed by biographers is Washington's presidency, his retirement, and his final days. Should not the article format be changed to get FA ? Looks like I am out numbered. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777 — Both slavery and personal life involve Washington's entire life, so we summarize these things before retirement and final days, as was explained. Retirement and final days are almost always covered at the end of the biographies out there, as you should know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hoppyh — I'm ready to move on too. With all the improvements to grammar, minor narration tweaks, etc. it would seem the only thing left now is to make sure all the cites and sources are good to go. Improvements to the narrative is never ending, so it would seem we should level off and concentrate on getting any remaining cites and sources nailed down finally. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
What biographers have a chapter on slavery and personal life before retirement and last days of George Washington ? In my opinion the article would look the best in a biography format. I am not saying the current format is bad or against Wikipedia policy. I just find it ackward, particularly when editing on the article. The reader has to read through special sections information before getting to retirement and last days. The special sections are outside the chronology of the article. I think the religion and slavery sections are done well, as far as content. I would personally make some changes to the format and let things evolve on their own to get to FA. Rutherford B. Hayes is in a presidential biography format and was a featured article. I don't want to rock the boat, but I think a change in format would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it will come up in an FA review, and we can deal with it then? Hoppyh (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
We can't wait until another FA review. The article needs to be fixed now, in my opinion. Other reviewers, possibly Coemgenus or Rjensen, would be able to offer better insight on article content and format. I believe FA reviewers will say the article is bloated and has too many sections. The article is good, in my opinion, up until the latter sections. It looks like a confusing literary traffic jam of sections. I don't think FA reviewers will think highly of it. That needs to be fixed before another FA review. We need to seperate the special sections into their own area. From there pick and choose what should be left in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

editbreak2

  • Chernow, 2010, covers retirement and final days at the end of his biography.
  • Randall, 1997, covers Washington's last days as president, retirement and final days last, in that order. He closes his biography with Washington's final words, "Tis well".
  • Ferling, 2009, covers retirement, final days, and comments of legacy, last, in that order.
  • Washington Irving, 1869, in volume 5 of his five volume biography, covers Washington's retirement days and final days last.
That you seem to find this commonplace standard amazing only suggests that you are not familiar with the sources out there. Can you show us just one biography were personal life and slavery come last? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

All this professed urgency is really ridiculous. All that was said is that Retirement and Final days are treated last, per most biographies. You actually need examples recited for you? As was explained, personal life and slavery involve Washington's entire life. Because we're writing an encyclopedia article we summarize these things in their own sections, and we don't simply stick them at the end of the article, as has been repeatedly explained for you, i.e.they are topics that mostly involve Washington's entire life before his retirement and final days. There is nothing to "fix". Again, can you show us just one biography were personal life and slavery come last? You have yet to explain why you think personal life and slavery should be stuck at the end of the biography and how this will somehow fix this "confusing literary traffic jam of sections." You can call in others, conduct a survey, talk for another month, while the rest of us get back to work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The Presidency and Retirement sections are being interupted. What biographers interupt that ? Nothing to fix ? Is that why George Washington failed FA ? Why such resistance to change ? The chronicological narration of the Rutherford B. Hayes article is not interupted. Had we gone by the FA recommendation Religion section would be removed, since there is an existing article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Insert : There are dedicated articles for virtually every topic about Washington. Which sections shall we remove entirely?? FA criteria requires we cover all major details, in context. Given that suggestion, it's rather obvious, unfortunately, that some reviewers have no business reviewing articles — and they are not WP gods, so please stand up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I ask again that you all increase your efforts to better focus on content, and take the contributor out of it. It can only help. You owe it to the article, you owe it to your own hard work here and you owe it to the rest of us at work here as well. Hoppyh (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The only "professed urgency" I have is to get George Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Right on, Pal, right on. Hoppyh (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Cm', the Nomination failed, primarily, because of multiple cites and sources that needed tending to. Another editor mentioned "unintelligible" prose, which, imo, was poppy-cock, given the flagrant negative bias towards Washington and even America. In any case, several editors have made improvements to the grammar since then. During the nomination no one even suggested an "interrupted" narrative because of the section order for the 'reasons' you mentioned. I gave you four notable sources that cover retirement, final days and legacy last. Do you really require more examples? Don't know what else to tell you. Let's move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. You are ignoring or not addressing my concern of the chronology being interrupted. I don't take failure lightly on the FA Review. The FA review suggested reducing the information because there were main articles on slavery and religion. You act as if this is your article. You have never addressed the subject of chronology. The information of the article has not been reduced. All I wanted to do was move sections and you put up this stone wall of resistance. You will not remove the special sections nor even consider moving them. There was a neutrality tag put on the article too. Why is it everyone elses fault but your own. This article is shared by British, Canadians, and Americans. It is useless to continue this conversation. It is useless to edit on this article because every edit needs your permission. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think FA prospects are reduced by the conflict(s). I’m beginning to think I should take a break and let you all continue. I do believe you all can better redirect your passions here to the constructive. Hoppyh (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Cmguy777, your concerns have been addressed repeatedly, and at length. Compounding matters with multiple false accusations isn't helping matters either. Please lighten up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
On a positive note, the American Revolution section looks better. It lists the reasons why Washington eventually broke with England. That is signifigant detail for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. The main reasons why Washington and the colonists were opposed to the Townsend Acts, the Stamp Act, etc was of course the Acts were levied without representation, but moreover, these taxes (and various laws) were directly cutting into the livelihood of merchants and farmers everywhere, including Washington. It wasn't at all difficult for Washington and others to rally behind that common cause. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This raises some questions. Did the colonists have zero representation in Parliament ? Was the American Revolution no different than the Whiskey Rebellion, over a whiskey tax, that took place on the Washington's presidency ? Was the American Revolution just about the livelhood of wealthy merchants and farmers ? This goes beyond the scope of this conversation, but it is interesting. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ "George Washingon's Runaway Slave". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington/Archive_21&oldid=1255840503"