Talk:George Washington

Templates

As of 01 AUG 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was featured on The Colbert Report, a popular television show. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

An event in this article is an April 30 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Archives

• Talk:George Washington/Archive 1 includes the following sections: Disconnect of GW's Wealth, Repairs undone>, First President and "under the Constitution" issues, Religious beliefs, Odd stories, Father of his/the/our Country, Honored Americans, Birth date, Washington's poet friend?, Birthplace, Final Rank, Wig/powdering, Military Rank, Category Scottish-American, Cut 'n paste editing, Sources in this article, Federalist?, Reentering the military?, Can we add some Washington trivia?, I changed part of the introduction to religious views., His Bible, George Washington Farewell address..., Recent shortenings of article, Farewell Address, Unanimous?, Innoculation.

• Talk:George Washington/Archive 2 includes: Opening Lines, "Personal Information" section, Presidency section, Personal qualities, Major presidential acts, Section inaccuracies, Trivia, French and Indian War, "Humane" to slaves, Two Technical Questions, extended semi-protection, Personal Wealth, Farewell address, A Christian or not a Christian?, Lead portrait, Factoid vault, Washington and Slavery, Washington's Swearing, Indian views of Washington, Changing the Revolutionary Army

• • Talk:George Washington/Archive 3

If any discussion from these topics has not been finished, feel free to bring the thread back to this page.

Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, 1790

Later in 1790, he published a letter written to Jewish leaders in which he envisioned a country "which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance . . . May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." <r e f>Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, 1790 [1]. This letter may have been ghostwritten by Thomas Jefferson, Ellis, p. 195.</ r e f>

Regarding the removal of the above - we can surely say he signed it - and there is an easy way to tell if he wrote it - was it his handwriting? No evidence has ever been provided that TJ wrote it - and a quick Internet search also turned up no such evidence. Perhaps that is what needs to go. --JimWae 07:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Ellis in the footnote now - a footnote to a footnote seems to be needed - do we have a quote? --JimWae 07:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ellis says "there is considerable evidence that Jefferson wrote it." (BTW, this highlights the problem with Wikipedians selecting original quotes without having seen them analyzed in scholarly secondary works — as amateur historians, we haven't done the huge amount of reading necessary to properly evaluate published primary sources. When a footnote needs a footnote, it's a sign that there's more to the story than the original maker of the footnote realized.)

Nevertheless, Washington published the Newport Letter under his name, and so it reflects his sentiments. (Ellis calls it "the most uncompromising endorsement" of religious freedom Washington ever made.) It doesn't matter who actually wrote it, since many presidents have used writers. Technically, the Farewell Address was ghostwritten by Madison and Hamilton, but we wouldn't delete it from this article for that reason. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, has Ellis seen the hand-written original? Is it GW's writing? What evidence (other than it being somewhat outspoken [like TJ] rather than reticent [like GW]) does he have? Is someone suggesting that TJ dictated the words for GW to write? http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=200&parent=60 --JimWae 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say what the "considerable evidence" is, although his footnote is the Washington Papers series, which perhaps has some editorial notes which go into more detail. For our purposes, it doesn't matter. We don't evaluate the work of published, credible historians here; we just report what they say. Unless we can cite other published, credible historians who have doubted Ellis or have expressed a different opinion, as far as we are concerned Ellis is the infallible voice of God. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a source that contradicts Ellis. The considerable evidence is NOT that TJ wrote it, rather ... http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/hebrew/reply.html --JimWae 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Truth be told, I wasn't really interested in this -- but now I am. Now I do wonder what Ellis's so-called "considerable evidence" is. The link you give cites as support the work historians from half a century ago (Freeman and Boyd), so I wonder if Ellis has more recent sholarship in mind. Maybe somebody here knows more. Regardless, mention of the letter clearly belongs in the article (it shouldn't have been removed in the first place), with probably a brief statement in the footnote about the disputed authorship. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unconstitutional laws during Washington's presidency?

Were any laws made under the presidenticy (sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of George Washington ruled unconstitutional?

Hi. No such thing was possible during Washington's presidency because the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) did not have that power at the time. The SCOTUS's power of review of constitutionality over the law was essentially assumed after Marbury_v._Madison, 1803, which was during the Thomas Jefferson presidency. Marbury is the essential case upon which the SCOTUS's review power was based. So, the answer is, no, there were no laws ruled unconstitutional during the Washington and Adams presidencies (at least; there are likely many other presidencies where no such thing happened). Hope this helps! Kasreyn 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no Judicial Review at that time. Well, put and thoughtful answer Kas. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gbdill and 70.249.155.89's edits

The above discussion was becoming rather hard to follow, so I'm starting this section.

Allow me to explain precisely why I support ElKevbo's take on this issue, and why I will be reverting as needed. I will note all WP policies violated, which so far is most of them.

1. Failure to use edit summaries. Gbdill and 70.249.155.89 (assuming they are different people) do not explain significant changes with an edit summary, and fail to engage in real substantive debate on the talk page. This shows a lack of faith in their fellow editors or any desire to behave in a collegial manner; see WP:CIVIL.
2. Constant name-calling and accusations of bias. Such comments serve no purpose and disrupt the project. Ad hominem attacks do not prove anything about the substantive issues under discussion here. See WP:AGF, WP:NPA. It's especially ridiculous to accuse ElKevbo of "liberal" bias, given the great amount of work I've seen him do keeping the article on George W. Bush NPOV and properly sourced.
3. Blanking a large section of the article without consensus merely because it is under dispute. A {{disputed}} tag is a more appropriate solution. Removing content in this way is likely a violation of WP:POINT as well as WP:VANDalism.
4. Extensive revert-warring by Gbdill on 7/4/06 constitutes violation of WP:3RR. Complete refusal to moderate his edits, synthesize them with others' work, or in any other way show the slightest willingness to compromise only worsen the severity of this. It is rapidly becoming apparent that Gbdill will not be satisfied with anything except WP:OWNership of the religious beliefs section of this article.

If these editors can bring themselves to discuss their changes with others, they would see that their additions, if properly sourced, would be gladly added. Their refusal to admit that their reversions also remove sourced content does not change the reality that their edits have not helped the project. Kasreyn 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Featured Article?

According to the box on the side of this article, the pages in German and Bulgarian are both Featured Articles. How is it that those two nations, which didn't even participate in the Revolution (with the exception of some mercenaries), can achieve FA status, while the English page can’t get it? We really need to get to work on this page. --YankeeDoodle14 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

schooling

John Fitzpatrick, in Dictionary of American Biography, Volume 10 (1936) says "During this period George Washington received the major part of his school training, which totaled seven or eight years. His father and his elder half-brother Lawrence seem to have been his principal, if not his only teachers."

Can someone with the appropriate bibliographic information please add this source as a footnote as noted in the To-do list? That would prevent this confusion from happening in the future. --ElKevbo 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of George Washington

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of George Washington's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of George Washington. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to George Washington's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of George Washington. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh! Thank you! I'm sure this will prove useful. —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious beliefs / Letter to Mason

The reference supporting the quote from the letter to George Mason was erroneously tagged as Failed verification; the cited html page on the Library of Congress's web site directly supports the materiel the citation asserts it supports. However, the cited page purports to have a link to a scan of the original letter, when in fact the linked image is of other material. Since Wikipedia need not rely on primary sources, the LOC website is reasonably authoritive in the absence of a contradiction (although a better source would be nice), and since the cited page does in fact support the material, I removed the Failed verification tag. --studerby 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The LOC website has the Washington letterbooks and other papers scanned and online, in the manuscript collection section. Here is the scan of the letter to George Mason at issue. And this is the main web page for the LOC George Washington material. I also added an additional ref link in the main article to the online scan of the letter --studerby 05:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That particular article is an argument for religion in gov't & once AGAIN it is NOT a reliable interpreter of GW's thoughts. His letter does NOT support taxing to support religion - he merely says he is not among those so alarmed by the bill that would do so - AND he does say it would be better (less political) to have the bill die unpassed. --JimWae 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Nothing from that article can be taken at face value - it is a source of opinions about GW & a polemic for a POV - it cannot be taken as a reliable source of factual statements. Anything that comes from there should be prefaced with "according to the author(s) of this article" --JimWae 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. After finding the scan of the letter, I didn't read it (had to download it and manipulate the image to make it legible to my tired eyes). Reading it, I find the LOC text around the quote on their website to be subtly but significantly distortive of the plain meaning of the text of the letter. --studerby 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Wae you are right, however I dont think you are applying the same standard to the links that you provide. You want a disclaimer listed "According to the authors of this article" yet the opinions of authors from diesm.com is ok? I removed the header in religious views for a variety of reasons:

1- Diesm.com is not the best encyclopedic source. 2- Its definitely POV. 3- Its takes away from the content quality of the article. Do not tell the reader "There was information indicating that Washington was a deist" SHOW THE READER THE INFORMATION IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE.

Please do not reinstate that POV header. But if you want to add the information in the body of the article with sources please do so and I will not touch it. Otherwise I commend you for your quality work.

71.131.234.230 05:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I did not put that link in the article and am glad someone else also thought it should go. That lead was not mine either - though I do think a summary might be achievable along the lines of: "Raised a Christian, there is evidence that in later life GW's beliefs were closer to deism. Washington chose his words carefully regarding religion, and never publicly espoused either Christianity nor Deism"
• The word principle is not in the letter & he never says he does not oppose it - in fact he expresses the wish the assessment bill had never been "agitated" --JimWae 06:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you do not think that I am being rude with my capitalized words. I have just found that if you are not clear with people on wikipedia they don’t listen which gets very annoying. I understand your reasoning and on most articles I would agree but I do not feel that for Washington's religious views a summary is good given that it is an important topic and should be explained in detail. I don’t think it would adequately address the questions readers have and they should know specifically why he had certain views and we should do our best to provide the necessary information. Historians are not immune to POV so I think its best just to present the important information and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Washington is just too important to have a biographer summarize his views with one or two sentences. I certainly don’t think it will hurt the article to add more info. But I do agree with you that we should try to keep it short if we can. Also I will have to request a manuscript of the letter to George Mason so we can all accurately review it.

71.131.234.230 06:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The link to the manuscript image is in the article. He does not express support for the bill, not even in principle. He writes that he is "not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thought of making people pay to support that which they profess". He then expresses the wish that the assessment bill had never been "agitated". To say he supported the bill is a bad misreading of the letter. He is telling Mason not to expect him (GW) to be amongst those fighting the bill, but also makes it clear he will not support it. In truth, what the Library of Congress site now says is a misreading that appears to be slanted propaganda. Why are tax dollars going to pay for this propaganda? --JimWae 06:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph he says he does not recollect ever reading Patrick Henry's bill & is certain he never read it with attention--JimWae 07:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The steepness of the slant makes the entire LOC article a very poor choice for use as a reference - In keeping with more primary source material & less commentary by "historian"s, we need to reference his Farewell Address rather than that piece of ... --JimWae 07:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Washington's religious views are a matter of some controversy. Raised a Christian, there is considerable evidence indicating that in his later years his views became more deistic - believing (like numerous men of his era) in God but not believing in revelation or miracles.

FYI, User:71.131.234.230 is a sockpuppet of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. -Will Beback 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deism is now restored to the infobox. BCorr|Брайен 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion, Morality, and Virtue in Farewell Address

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

The idea that Washington was a major thinker on questions of religion, morality and society will not hold water. He held the conventional belief that religion and morality were good for a society--nothing very profound there. So there's not much reason to pay close attention to these beliefs--which are much closer to secularism in 2006 than to evangelicalism. He did not seem to believe in a personal God who answers prayers and the like. Rjensen 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it that people have such a problem with the Founding Fathers showing any hint of a belief in God? Rjensen, you obviously acknowledge that Washington did state that religion and morality are important to republican government. But you fail to see all that his statements ecompasses. Why would Washington have made such a statement in the first place? Think about it. He stated that one cannot expect that national morality can prevail without religion. From everything the founders wrote, you can see that they worried about a tyrannical government taking over in America in some future period; this was one of their greatest fear. The treated all religions equally in that they did not one to take a strangle hold of all other religions and then use their power to form another tyrannical government the founders were so keenly aware of. In order to prevent this, national morality would be necessary, meaning, a general moral behavior among the people of America as well as its elected leaders. Morality would be essential in electing honest leaders and only honest, moral, educated, and upright citizens can elect the moral leaders necessary in preserving an American republic. This is why the Founding Fathers always mentioned religion and education in their writing yet carefully and purposefully excluded an endorsment of any one religion. This exclusion did not mean that they were Atheists are anagonistic towards religion in general! Again, recall they were trying to setup the most effective government for prevent any tyranny to take over, including a religious theocracy or tyranny. So how could this morality prevail, or otherwise be significant enough to prevent a tyranny from arising in America's future? Only by and through religion, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect" otherwise. This is what he was saying (and this is what all the Founders were trying to accomplish when they framed the new government). Yet so many Atheistic humanists, and other secularists, care more about whether or not Washington and Jefferson fathered the child of a slave!!! (Just look at the related section on this Talk Page) Or whether Benjamin Franklin was a playboy!! Why don't you get involved in that discussion to prevent such undocumented rumors from being posted on this article, Rjensen. Even the would-be-writers of such VILE TRASH are unsure if this can be proven. Yet Washington's view of religion as beneficial and necessary to government is clearly proven and completely documented. Why do you people get off on degrading such important historical figures?! Why is the American public, and the Western culture in general, so enticed by social deviancy?! Why is everyone attacking morality and religious principle? That is the aim of Socialism; with religion out of the way, the government is then the only thing left to take the place of the Omnipotent and tyrannical government is inevitable. The Founding Fathers knew this. That's why they tried to limit governmental powers and persuaded the the public to be moral and pious. It is just like Patrick Henry said, "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains". Gaytan 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

George Washington fathered a slave child?

http://www.westfordlegacy.com/ http://hnn.us/articles/10827.html

It is not proven but there is some (strong?) indication. Maybe like Jefferson? I think it should be mentioned in the article. Since I am not a native speaker I would be glad if someone could put it in!

There was no DNA testing done so there is no scientific proof. It may or may not be true, but that's not for us to speculate. Personally, I don't think it should be mentioned in the article, but I understand that other people will probably conflict with my views (at least, I think so). If we were to include that information, what resources would we cite? Some woman's book that could possibly not be true? --Nishkid64 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone certainly could and should write an article on Washington's possible fathering of West Ford. Wiencek's book An Imperfect God also discusses the issue. (IIRC, he doesn't believe there's good evidence that Washington was Ford's father.) Unlike the Sally Hemings controversy, apparently few if any authorities believe the story is true, which should be made clear in the article. The story is too tangential to include in the main article on Washington — there's not enough room in one article to discuss everything — but an article on West Ford should be placed in Category:George Washington, where those interested in reading everything Wikipedia has relating to Washington will be able to find it. • Kevin (complaints?) 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

the story was passed down over 7 generations of Ford's descendants, and never written down or accompanied by any evidence. If true it would be one of the very few oral traditions that proved accurate over 200+ years--a remarkable event in its own right, especially since there is always a strong tendency of people to embelish their connections with the famous. Rjensen 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. --ElKevbo 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read several biographies of GW and many scholars feel that he was probably infertile. He did not father any children with Martha. The scholarly speculation is that this was a result of an illness in his youth. --rogerd 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's presently covered in the Wikipedia article on George Washington. I'd provide you with a link, but you can probably find it from here. ;-) • Kevin (complaints?) 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

His death

I've read several books on Washington and I've seen many conflicting views as to what he died from.

On Wikipedia it said he got a sore throat and cold which later progressed to something more severe that led to his death. In many book sources, I've read that he got a cold and quinsy, something similar to tonsilitis, but not the same as a sore throat.

At the current time, I changed: In 1799, Washington fell ill from a bad cold with a fever and a sore throat that turned into acute laryngitis and pneumonia

to...

In 1799, Washington fell ill from a bad cold with a fever and a throat infection called quinsy that turned into acute laryngitis and pneumonia

Even if you go on the article on quinsy on Wikipedia, it will tell you that Washington indeed had quinsy in the days before his death. The website it cites, [2], says that he died of quinsy. It seems there are so many conflicting views here. What do you guys personally think should be done?

All these sources are giving different reasons for his death, and I'm not sure what everyone thinks about it.

--Nishkid64 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AID votes

George Washington (36 votes, stays until September 7)

Nominated July 6, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by September 14, 2006

Support

1. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Leaders100 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Maurreen 06:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
4. --Crna Gora 17:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Will.i.am 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
6. PDXblazers 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Davodd 06:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Duran 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Casey14 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
10. YankeeDoodle14 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Crazysunshine 09:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
12. x1987x^(talk) 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
13. eric 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Chrisrivers 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
15. plange 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
16. BalfourCentre 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
17. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Draicone ^(talk) 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
19. C-squared 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
20. --TransNique 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
21. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Kaldari 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
23. GGreeneVa 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Kafziel 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
25. --Nishkid64 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
27. JColgan 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Lukobe 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Durova 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Kaobear 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
31. andrew 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Clay 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
33. mirageinred 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
34. ClockworkSoul 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Spongesquid 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
36. HereToHelp 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Votes

1. Casey14 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User already voted for this nomination (#9 above). –Dvandersluis 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• This article is so close to featured article status, however there are still some things that need to get done before this can go up. Hopefully, the Article Improvement Drive will help improve this important politician's article. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Help all the middle schoolers write their essays!--Will.i.am 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ha. Ha. Ha. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

State of the Union addresses

Per the item listed in the To-do about potential conversions of certain lists into prose paragraphs, I scrolled through and found a list of wikilinks on GW's State of the Union speeches. We only have articles on two of them. So, do we want to keep the list as is, with only the two bluelinks and the rest red, write stubs on the others, black the others, or convert the list into a prose paragraph with "See also"s at the top directing readers to the articles on the two speeches that we do have? -Fsotrain₀₉ 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Misconceptions

Is this encyclopedic? To me, this section is an awful lot like those troublesome trivia sections. If all concur, I vote to remove this section. PDXblazers 21:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'll start incorporating some of the information there into other section. --YankeeDoodle14 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I can't really find a way to get the information in other places, it'd probably be best just to remove the section. --YankeeDoodle14 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a mistake to remove the information because the mythology of George Washington is an important topic in its own right. Instead, the bullet points should be converted into a paragraph about Washington myths and placed in the "Legacy" section. • Kevin (complaints?) 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

Can we discuss which citation style is more appropriate? I'm thinking CMS is more appropriate for history articles, since it's not based on scholarly papers only that have hard and well-known author/date sets. Harvard style is best for scientific articles.... plange 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

anyone? plange 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Harvard works for me. Rjensen 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you state why using a scientific style works best for a historical article? Especially one mixed with web references and the like? CMS style seems the best style and most used for historical articles on WP when dealing with references from multiple media. --plange 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a history journal, merely an encyclopedia. Harvard is somewhat better, in my opinion, because it is anchored in the bibliography, where full book details can be given. That I think is more useful to users, esp for longer articles like this one. Rjensen 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

? So is CMS (anchored in bibliography).... See an example of what I mean here... How would you handle web references with Harvard citations? --plange 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

CMS uses short titles after the first footnote entry, and for me it's a pain in history journals to find that first reference. I would have it something like this:

1. Kegley and Kegley 1:117
2. Virkus, 887.
3. Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, III, 309.
4. Kegley and Kegley 1:91
5. Summers, 108-109.
6. Kegley, , 401. Rjensen 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

? You find it easier to find Kegley and Kegley, than when the name of the book is used too? Doesn't make sense to me, but also you haven't answered how you'd handle web refs in Harvard style... --plange 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

yes. Is there a difference in web refs between Harvard and Chicago? Rjensen 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually think you could use web refs in Harvard -- hard to concisely fit a whole web ref in round brackets at the end of the paragraph... Also, does anyone else have an opinion on this? Hard to reach a consensus with only 2 people :-). --plange 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) - can some others weigh in - hard to reach a consensus when split 50-50 :-) Our AID window is closing and I'd like to tackle this... --plange 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(I'm afraid that this won't be too useful) Citations are a mess in Wikipedia and until we come to a general consensus (which will never happen - it will have to be imposed and I don't think that would work well, either) I don't care what format an article uses as long as it (a) allows readers to quickly and easily identify the source(s) used and where information came from (particularly page numbers for printed books) and (b) used consistently. The references in this particular article are messy (now that I really look at them) with some of it in the References section and some of it in the Notes section. --ElKevbo 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My thinking is, that since it started out apparently as CMS, we should keep to the status quo for it and clean them up... --plange 23:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Length

This article is about 70 KB. Does anyone else think it's too long? Maurreen 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the opening summary a bit. Many people only read this part and it has to be comprehensive. Rjensen 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Washington is the most important person in U.S. history and so this article will always be on the lengthy side because there's much to cover. Several sections in the article do lend themselves to "spinout" articles, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. I wrote the slavery section and could easily spin out that section and leave a short summary here. George Washington and religion could be spun out as well, taking care to leave a NPOV summary here so as not to appear to be burying the controversy in another article.

How many other sections should be spun out? The first four sections of the article (Early life, French and Indian War, Between the wars, American Revolution) are, as of now, primarily my writing and I could spin them out and extend them elsewhere, e.g. George Washington's early life, George Washington in the French and Indian War, etc., which would be nice because there are other interesting or important details which are not covered here because of space limitations. Others who have studied Washington's presidency more than I might be knowledgeable enough to know the best way, if necessary, to spin out sections on his presidency. • Kevin (complaints?) 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think one or both of these suggested daughter articles should be created. --Fsotrain₀₉ 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I spun out George Washington's early life, George Washington in the French and Indian War, and George Washington and religion. Will see about shortening those sections and spinning out George Washington between the wars. Maurreen 23:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone who knows more than I do could trim the section on the French and Indian War. Maurreen 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try trimming down the section on the French and Indian War. At the moment, the article is 68 KB, but still seems too long as a whole. --Nishkid64 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the early life a bit. The article is not too long--readers expect suitable coverage of one of the most important people in the history of the Americas. Rjensen 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess someone else decided to trim down the French and Indian War section. The article is now 54 KB long. --Nishkid64 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spinning out sections helps reduce the length of the article, but this comes with a major drawback, which we're already seeing here. Namely, some people will not understand that this article contains short summaries of other articles (the spun out articles), and that they should add additional details to the other articles instead of here, and only adjust the summary here as the spun out articles develop. This creates lots of work for editors who should make sure that all of the related articles are kept in harmony. If you watch this page, be sure to move added details to the spun out articles as needed and try to instruct editors about how the process works. Good luck. • Kevin (complaints?) 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening summery

Should we shorten the opening summery any more than it had been? Right now, though not as long as it was, it still seems a bit crammed with info. For the summery we should probably try to simply get a few things about:

• His leadership as commander-in-chief during the Revolution

• His role as president of both the Constitutional Convention and first president of the nation.

• His importance in American culture.

However for the sake of space we may want to remove such things as the Frech and Indian War details, his motivations behind some things, and other excessive details which are already mentioned elsewhere. --YankeeDoodle14 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

there is no reason to "save space" in the summary, which is very concise and tightly written. Rjensen 19:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just a suggestion. --YankeeDoodle14 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this:

George Washington (February 22, 1732–December 14, 1799) commanded America's war for independence (1775–1783), and was the first President of the United States (1789-1797).

Washington was a <rank> in the French and Indian War (1754–1763). In XXXX the Second Continental Congress chose him as commander-in-chief of the American forces in the American War of Independence. After the war he retired to his tobacco plantation, coming back into public life in 1787 to preside over the Constitutional Convention that re-drafted the United States Constitution. During his two term presidency he built a new system of govenment, moved the U.S. onto the world stage, before retiring once more to his planation in XXX

He became a symbol of the U.S. and is often called the "Father of his Country."

(wihtout the spelling [or other] mistakes of course)Rich Farmbrough, 11:19 4 September 2006 (GMT).

I would be interested to know if the phrase "Father of his Country" is accurate reportage. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22 4 September 2006 (GMT).

• • That kind of summery is about what I had in mind before. I do think that father of his country is an accurate description. --YankeeDoodle14 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)