Talk:George Washington/Archive 1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about George Washington. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The main talk page for this archive was refactored on 19 July 2005, see this version. Previous versions available at the main talk page's Revision history, the first/earliest post for the talk page being dated 16 June 2002.

I've restored the text from the refactor. Graham87 10:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Initial text

Note to myself and others: It sure would be nice if wikipedia had an entry on George Washington with some content:

biography: surveyor (learned of western opportunities in America, planter (hemp/marijuana =), slaveholder (freed on his death)
military career: not only French and Indian war, but the American revolution, his Fabian/Parthian tactics
political career: his modesty that led to his repeatedly stepping down from important jobs, such as commander of the army and President of the US, and his refusal to become any kind of king.

Nice article

Really nice article. Very well designed as it is possible in Wikipedia. The drawings of famouos (specially scientist) people is my dearly field. Someday I'll post some of my hand-drawings hereon as soon I'll reach down for a scanner. -- XJamRastafire 16:36 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Disconnect of GW's Wealth

"Washington farmed roughly 8,000 acres (32 km²). Like many Virginia planters at the time, he was frequently in debt and never had much cash on hand. In fact, he had to borrow £600 to relocate to New York, then the center of the American government, to take office as president.

In 1788–9, George Washington was elected the first President of the United States. The First U.S. Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a significant sum in 1789. Washington, whose wealth by some estimates exceeded $500 million in current dollars, refused to accept his salary."

Something has to be re-worded in there.Oldsoul 11:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Repairs undone>

I'm trying to fix the article and Stephenb wants to revert for unknown reasons. Rjensen 14:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He probably had wealth but no income (as in a regular, fixed stream of cashflows)? - just guessing --Gurubrahma 07:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he had quite a lot of real estate income from properties he owned on the frontier. –Shoaler (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely, if he had $500 million in today's dollars he would've rather liquidated a portion of it instead of borrowing $600 dollars. This has been bugging me since I first noticed the incongruence.Oldsoul 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is what the most recent major biography (Ellis's His Excellency) has to say:

[In 1799, to write his will] Washington compiled a comprehensive assessment of all his property. It revealed a personal empire that included acreage in Kentucky, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, housing lots in Alexandria and Federal City...and multiple plots in Virginia beyond the borders of Mount Vernon. The mother lode, however, were his tracts on the Ohio and Great Kanawha, which accounted for more than half his landed wealth. In total, he estimated his net worth at $530,000, which did not include the land and slaves at Mount Vernon.

Two facts leap out from these numbers. First, Washington was hardly the impoverished farmer he often claimed to be, especially when friends or family asked him for financial assistance. He did have what we might call a cash flow problem, meaning that his assets were tied up in land rather than more liquid forms of wealth, so he could honestly refuse a request for money on the grounds that he did not have any to spare. But the belief that Washington was living out his retirement on the edge of bankruptcy, a view that has seeped into some of the history books, is dead wrong. In fact, Washington was one of the richest men in America. [p. 262]

This doesn't tell us anything about his cash flow situation ten years earlier when he assumed the presidency, but I suppose one can deduce that it was much the same. What is the source of the statement that he had to borrow £600 to move to New York? -EDM 20:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

First President and "under the Constitution" issues

I removed "under the current Constitution", because, despite many many urban legends, there were NO other Presidents of the United States before Washington, they were called President of the United States in Congress Assembled, and was nothing more than chairman of the Continental Congress. Also, this article is a MAJOR mess. The table and the non-table entries overlap each other. -- Zoe

They shouldn't overlap now--at least on my screen they don't. In general I found that most of the presidents have little to no information about them, which is why I started making the tables. I hope to follow it up with some biographical information. Even in this particular case, more space seems to be spent on the cherry tree story and his rank as a Freemason than on his actual presidency and legacy. Danny

I have no problem with the tables, it was just impossible to read. :-)

You're right, it does need work, I'll try to do some when I get a chance -- Zoe

But, they're still overlapping -- Zoe

Zoe has a very valid point about the 'under the current constitution' wording. Yes there were men who had the title of President before Washington but this was because the presided over the Congress. The President back then would be the equivalent of the Speaker of the House combined with the responsibility of being the head of the federal government bureaucracy and, if memory serves, was appointed by Congress on a yearly basis. The Congress is where the real power was; they are the only ones who had the authority to set policy. In essence the President was little more than a bureaucrat who had to largely do the bidding of Congress. See President of the United States of America for a better explanation. Therefore it is highly misleading to say 'President under the current constitution' because the earlier position by that name is not at all what we would now call a 'President'. This wording should be removed from the table template in my opinion. --mav Done already. Danny

Danny, reduce the size of your browser window to see what the article looks like at lower res screens. The Washington photo is pushing the heading named "Career" into the table. Perhaps it would either be best to have the image in the table or lower down in the text. --mav 15:25 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks, mav, that took care of the overlap. Now, can somebody explain why THIS page is pushing into the right margin? Eek. :-) -- Zoe

President of the Union

oop. I guess I should say a kind of "sorry" for putting back in the 11th President of the Union fact, but however you wanna wrangle with the words, he was the 11th of the Union and the 1st of the Constitutional union. If you count your country beginning in 1776 instead of 1789, you really oughta give some credit to persons at the head of it meantimes. =p In any case, I don't think it does WP any good to ignore this dispute/debate/error on the GW main page. Reword if you feel you must - there may indeed be a problem with "11th president of the USA" as opposed to "11th of the Union", but for God's sake don't go sweeping it under the rug again. There's little point to an "encyclopaedia" that simply repeats what "everyone knows" and no point to it if it's not quite the truth.

This has been covered in discussion elsewhere (though unfortunately I don't remember exactly where); the distinction is made between President of the United States (constitutional form) and President of the United States in Congress assembled (which Washington never was). It's not so much that Wikipedia is ignoring that period (each of the previous ten has an article), but it's inaccurate to call them "President of the United States" or even "President of the Union; it was a completely different office with different powers etc. - Hephaestos 22:12, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

see President of the United States in Congress assembled. As Hephaestos points out, Wikipedia has not "simply repeated" what "everyone knows": it has sorted out the facts pertaining to this particular urban legend. -- Someone else 22:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do we have a page for the Presidents of the Cont Congress pre Art of Confedency. I have heard the arguement of Hanson being consider the first pres because he was president of congress at the time of the adoption of the articles but what about pre AOC presidents like Handcock who was president of the congress July 1776Smith03 22:33, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

President at time of ratification of the articles. I'm such a nitpicking pest! - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 00:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't find one. Rmhermen 22:50, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

I made a stub at President of Continental Congress. Should it be at President of the Continental Congress? Rmhermen 23:19, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

Now I see that President of Continental Congress and President of the United States in Congress assembled information is duplicated in the President of the United States article. Is this necessary? Rmhermen 23:24, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'd cut out extra info there and move it to the appropriate article [with the wikilink to the main article] ... for what it's worth (I made the main article links) reddi 01:26, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just a status note: I've combined the material for the two President of the Congress articles, and adjusted some of the President of the United States to try to clean up some of this whole area. I will still try to improve some of the biographies of the CC presidents. Lou I 23:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note on the Cyrus Griffin link

Since the Articles of Confederation is the legitimate predecessor to the current Constitution, the link should be established showing the transition of power between authorities. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In consideration, nevermind... removed. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:42, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very nicely done, I think -- Nunh-huh 04:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

remove "under the constitution

The qualifier "under the constitution" after "first president of the US" is awkward and out of place. Do all the other presidential entries need to be amended? Should Ronald Reagon be called the 40th president "under the constitution" because there were men who held a completely seperate office but also called president under the Articles of the Confederation?

Good point. Sometimes the thought is right there but the language isn't. Needs adjustment. Robby159 15:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Is it just me or is the picture of washington we have in the info box really wierd? His cheeks are all read and it is kind of freaking me out. Cant we replace it with one of the more traditional portraits usually shown of him, like one of the images further down the page? Unless anyone feels very strongly about this I am going to change it. --Bonus Onus 22:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

The new (JUL 2004 ) article says: "George Washington was one of the few early American Presidents who was not a total follower of any one specific Christian denomination."

I think it would be more accurate to say: "Like many of the Founding Fathers & earliest presidents, Washington was a Deist. He occasionally accompanied others (his wife especially) to Christian churches but never became a communicant. Before the Revolution, holding church office was a condition of membership in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and so Washington was also then a vestryman in an Episcopal church."

My research indicates that virtually all presidents at least up to and including Grant cannot be counted as "Christians". A great many were Deists. Several often expressed the social utility of having people believing in some religion, without necessarily including themselves among those needing such "faith". Many accompanied their wives to church services, but did not consider themselves members of any church. Washington repeatedly left the church before communion services.

Many states still had established religions & religious tests for office (even in 2004 MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, and TX STILL have religious tests for office). No one wanted to be branded an infidel (as Jefferson had been), so there were several reasons to be quiet about not being Christians.

Washington: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html

Adams & others: http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

Jefferson: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html

Madison: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1995/artmay95.html

Madison: http://lcweb.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html

Lincoln: http://www.adherents.com/misc/Lincoln.html

Lincoln: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steiner0.htm

Grant: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_6.html

4 Unitarians: http://www.mind.net/rvuuf/pages/4pres.htm

More

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html

http://www.straighttalkers.com/new_page_1.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html

Why can't you put all these links on an article called Religious beliefs rather than the Talk:George Washington article?? They don't necessarily have to do with George Washington. 66.32.139.109 00:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They have to do with George Washington's religious beliefs. - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 00:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They have to do with religious beliefs about the Presidents of the United States. 66.32.139.109 00:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Up to President Grant, which includes George Washington. I haven't checked, but isn't this the only article which has some focus on a President's religious beliefs? - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 00:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Try moving this to the Talk:Presidents of the United States page. That makes much more sense to me because that is a page for talk about U.S. Presidents in general, while this page is for talking about George Washington Or, you may move these links to the appropriate President's page (e.g. Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs should go on Thomas Jefferson.) Any objections?? 66.32.139.109 00:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Site by site at Wikipedia:Presidential religions? - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 00:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the older article said

"George Washington was arguably one of the few American Presidents who was not a Christian."

the 2004-JUL article now says

"George Washington was one of the few early American Presidents who was not a total follower of any one specific Christian denomination."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html

"If a member of the Episcopal Church is supposed to be a communicant, Washington and William Henry Harrison were not Episcopalians; and there is no evidence Madison, Monroe, Taylor, Tyler and Arthur were. The lumping together of so many Presidents as Episcopalians is due to the fact that St. John's Church of that denomination, in Washington, is located only 3,000 yards from the White House, on Lafayette Square."

"That Washington was a vestryman has no special significance religiously. In Virginia, this office was also political. The vestry managed the civil affairs of the parish, among others, the assessment of taxes. Being the largest property holder in the parish, Washington could hardly afford not to be a vestryman, which office he would have to hold before he could become a member of the House of Burgesses. Thomas Jefferson, a pronounced unbeliever, was also a vestryman, and for the same reasons. General A.W. Greeley once said, in 'The Ladies Home Journal,' that in that day "it required no more religion to be a vestryman than it did to sail a ship." It is remarkable, after the civil functions of the vestry were abolished in Virginia, in 1780, how few times Washington attended church. He no longer had a business reason for going."

...

Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd President of the United States, was a great-grandson of Benjamin Harrison, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and a grandson of William Henry Harrison, the ninth President, at whose house he was born, in 1833. He was a Presbyterian, an elder in the Church, and the first President who was unquestionably a communicant in an orthodox Church at the time he was elected. Grover Cleveland was a communicant in his youth and late in life, but there is no evidence that he was such when he was first elected.

Both Adams' were Unitarian. Unitarians do not believe Jesus is/was God, and so cannot be really regarded as Christian.

Jefferson was a Deist. Madison kept his religious views to himself, but agreed with Jefferson on many things - especially separation of church & state. -- JimWae; 2004-Nov

Religious writings

It's very fair to say that GW was "religiously tolerant" and open minded, however, it's not conclusive to say that he did not view himself as a Christian. At the very least, present both aspects in the article on GW's religious beliefs and indicate there is evidence for both sides.

Numerous sources of his own writing indicate direct references to Christian belief and activity.

namely:

"... the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. "

from: George Washington's Circular to the States, June 8, 1783, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XXVI (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 496.

-Response: Divine Author is Deist terminology. --JimWae 09:37, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

-

and a letter to the leaders of Native American communities in Delaware: (ostensibilty proselytizing)

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

from: George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.

Response:Many of these Delaware Indians chiefs were already Christian. The Delawares (Lenapes) were among the few Indian tribes NOT fighting against the colonists & for the British (who by Treaty of Paris (1763) had prohibited colonists from settling in Indian Territories). The Delawares were in trouble with other tribes & were (or would soon be)negotiating terms favorable to their resettlement (homes & church) further West. Washington was being diplomatic, passing responsibility to Congress, & complimenting on things they were already proud of. Many ended up mistakenly massacred by Pennsylvania militia in 1782.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/history/h_indian/tribes/delaware.shtml

-- --JimWae 08:08, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

and from a private letter:

"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations. "

from:

George Washington's letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 343.

Response: Providence is Deist terminology. --JimWae 09:37, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

To ignore these very easily found and referenced items and claim outright that GW was not a Christian is intellectual dishonesty and revisionism of the worst sort.

Response:One needs to have an idea what a Deist is to participate in this properly --JimWae 09:37, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

JJW says look here --- http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm

If one were to take a peek at Washington’s papers at the Library of Congress, one would quickly see that the man was not a “deist” by any stretch of the imagination. Those who say that Washington was a “deist” are not interested even in the man’s own words; they are interested in rewriting history to ease their own guilty consciences. The link above that JJW provides is one of an agenda. Why not try searching for the truth and go straight to the source?

Just one example: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw300388))

There is nothing there that shows him not to be a deist, even had he written it himself --JimWae 06:45, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a forum for personal agenda; deism by definition is the belief that once He created everything God no longer is involved in the affairs of man. This is clearly not what George Washington believed. In his own words:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw050322))

The section on Washington’s religious beliefs needs to, and will, present the truth.

There is plenty of evidence of his deism; this is not simply a personal agenda on my part. Prayers are not always for divine intervention, but also serve as a form of meditation & self-cleansing - perhaps even with future consequences. The article mentions how important he thought religion & religious observances were. Orders he gives as a general cannot always be taken to reflect his own personal beliefs, but also can be seen as an appeal to the motivations of those he is addressing. There are also deists who do believe that God does sometimes intervene. --JimWae 05:15, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Oh, so now you interject what you "think" he might have meant with all of his ref. to God? That is "agenda" driven. Somehow I knew that you would resort to this self-interpretation of Washington's words.

You have declared your agenda. You are making blind reversions without considering or responding to points made in edit summaries. You have removed well-supported sentences & phrases. He also supported the religious freedom of Muslims & atheists. Many Christians accept he was a deist too. Saying "among atheists & agnostics" is misleading & clearly shows your POV. Please read the Deism article--JimWae 05:57, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Sight credible sources that Washington supported “religious pluralism”; “atheism” websites will not suffice. In the meantime, also sight credible references that Washington was a “deist” and that every time he spoke of Jesus, God, righteousness, prayer, Heaven, etc., he meant it in an “deistic way. At the same time, prove that his prayer journals are not really his own.

His support for religious freedom went beyond Jews & Christians. There is plenty of support for this and more in these links
- Excerpts from The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, 1936, by Franklin Steiner
- Six Historic Americans by John Remsburg, 1906, examines religious views of Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, & Grant
Regardless of whether or not you consider them to be "atheist" sites, they are book excerpts. His prayerbook was written when he was quite young - and he abandoned it. I suggest you do more research before you revert again -- which would violate the 3RR rule. Have you even noticed you are reverting spelling corrections too?--JimWae 06:18, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

You offer no proof? Only agenda-driven sources? That is not "fact". Here is a credible source http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/index.html

You just violated the 3 revert rule. If you think Deists never pray, you know nothing of Deism. Have you found a single mention of Jesus anyhwere? Nothing will count as proof to those who will not consider alternative possibilities--JimWae 06:31, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

You have violated the first rule: do your research!

Jews

On the other hand he is also credited with the statment "The Jews work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in ... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

This would appear to be a fact, why was it removed? Has anyone got proof that he never said such a thing? [1] [2] If it is in fact not true, it seems to be a popular misconception, so it should be debunked in the article. -Martin

Martin: Both of those sources cite "Maxims of George Washington". Read more at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/what_they_said.html about that.... --Gabbe 18:39 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

Cheers for the info. -Martin

According to ZOE, Amedeo Modigliani is Italian because he was born there. George Washington, in fact and in 'law, was born a British citizen, in his majesty's colony of Virginia and carried British papers. Why is George Washington different than Modigliani? Your inconsistency is further proof that you don't know what you are talking about, and you are a total fraud...DW

The following material was removed by 217.127.141.173:

In recent years Washington's image has been unfairly tarnished by anti-Semites who attempt to use his name to further their goals. Many anti-Semitic Arab and Neo-Nazi books, journals and websites offer forged "quotes" supposedly by America's founding fathers, especially George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. These supposed quotes have been debunked as forgeries by historians.
- - Example of an Anti-Semitic website pushing fraudulent quotes from America's founding fathers - - Egyptian government sponsored press spreads Anti-Semitic forgeries about Washington and Franklin -
- Urban Legends website debunks the anti-Semitic Washington quote forgery

.

The reason given (on my talk page) is that the material is "out-of-place, not noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article, stigmatizing and written by somebody with an axe to grind. "

I generally find snopes.com to be quite useful in sorting out disinformation, but let others judge. -- Someone else 03:32 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I personally find the information somewhat irrelevant to an article on Washington, as it rarely comes up, and the single sentence already there suffices to inform that Washington was not an anti-Semite. Given that the exact same content was added word-for-word to several articles (this one and Benjamin Franklin are the two I know of), it strikes me as a somewhat POV attempt to attack Arab anti-Semitism in the guise of defending 18th-century Americans. --Delirium 03:39 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it seems disproportionate. The Snopes link may come in handy if someone stops by to add in bogus quotes. -- Someone else 03:43 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the lines badly written and out of place. FearÉIREANN 03:50 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

unambiguously

Since you seem incapable whether through chronic stupidity or monumental arrogance to understands facts, let alone show the slightest tact, politeness or decency, people like you aren't worth replying to and I won't be doing so again. But just for the record,

there is no such thing as a British citizen; he or she is a British subject;
when a state achieves independence, those alive at that point are deemed citizens of that state, so Washington was not after independence a British subject but a United States citizen (as your average 12 year old with an elementary knowledge of history knows!);
No one on Wikipedia suggests that in every case a state identity must be listed, but where that person is clearly and unambiguously a citizen/subject of a state, and where a clear an unambiguous state existed, then that state is used. Not just on Wikipedia, but on other encyclopedias (to which I am paid contributor), in books, reference articles, texts, documents, archives, etc. It is a generally observed standard rule which obviously has failed to penetrate your enormous ego.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that there's some ambiguity about that "achieves independence" bit. US citizens would probably mistake that to be 1776, whereas de facto independence wasn't achieved until 1781 and de jure independence wasn't achieved until 1783 - it's the difference between conception and birth. Also, the "British Subject" issue wasn't finally resolved until 1814 or so anyway, so it is at least possible that de jure, under British law, Washington remained a British subject all his life. It is worth mentioning the "Alexander Hamilton Benefit Clause" in the US constitution, a transitional measure relating to who can be US President. This routinely gets ignored in Australian republican discussions, when they propose an Australian-only presidency citing a US precedent and ignoring transitional issues. This clause implies special handling of people around over a transition. Oh, and see also "optants", particularly in relation to the Schleswig-Holstein question (the technique was handled wrongly later in other peace treaties, a bit like lifting with your back). PML.

Furthermore people like like Camembert, Maverick, Zoe, Deb, Jimbo and many others who have personally insulted in an extreme manner do competent, capable work on Wikipedia. You may have opinions that differ with most people, but you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to utter personal villification and abuse to people on Wikipedia. And you have no right to deliberately spike articles (whether through stupidity, ignorance, arrogance or childishness) by adding in facts which anyone with an iota of knowledge about editing documents knows to be factually incorrect, such as describing Washington as British. If you cannot follow basic standards of politeness, decency and show even the slightest element of a willingness to work with the hundreds of others on Wikipedia, then maybe it is time you set up your own encyclopedia, though going by previous standards, you'd probably end up writing nasty notes to yourself! At times various people have become controversial through their opinions, through edit wars, through disputes. Various members have been complained about by many people, but in my time on Wikipedia I have never come across a person who has made so many enemies through such arrogant rudeness. Whatever positive items you contribute are more than outweighed by the offensive nature of your behaviour. So cool it, cop your self on and start acting with some of the maturity you keep claiming to have. Like everyone else, I have had my fill of communicating with you. The number of people willing to try to talk to you is diminishing, as is the support for keeping you on Wikipedia. Daily, a new person offers to try to talk calmly with you, only to be greeted with venom and rudeness by you and to give up. Issue closed, now grow up and stop being such a prat. JTD 21:32 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

When did Washington die? Was it 1797 or 1799? -- Zoe

He died 14 Dec 1799. He was buried 18 Dec 1799. His remains were moved in 1831 from their original burial site a few hundred feet to a brick tomb that overlooks the Potomac. -- Someone else 01:44 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Odd stories

As a matter of historical curiousity, has everyone heard the three stories about George Washington that circulated over the years:

that Washington was a eunich;
that 'he' was really a she in disguise; (a US presidential 'pope Joan!!!')
that in 1798, Washington wrote a letter to Sally Fairfax, wife of his friend George Fairfax, asking her to leave her husband and 'run away' with him. She never replied to his letter, helping to preserve the 'fairy tale' image of the 'George and Martha love affair' that never was true, certainly not in a sexual sense. JTD 03:19 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I think I'd heard reference to the the third, but this is the first time I've heard the first 2 rumors. -- Infrogmation

Apparently someone even checked his corpse just to be sure he . . . em . . . dangled (if you catch my drift!). And sure enough, he dangled. So the stories that there was something very feminine about him, with soft small hands and a lack of a need to shave. His body shape and also some his behaviour led to rumours to the effect that he could be, like the legendary and possibly mythical Pope Joan, a woman who got places in a male patriarchal society by 'pretending' to be a man. The fact that he never fathered children, had no love affairs (apart from one rumour that was spread around by friends that seems to have been intended to kill of the other rumours, just as a rumour was spread around by Lincoln's 'true love' when gossip began to spread about whether he was a homosexual) all added fuel to the fire. But then US presidents attract rumours the way Bill Clinton attracts women. And there is about as much truth to most of them as in Bill's claim that 'I did not have sex with that woman'. JTD 05:34 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Father of his/the/our Country

Hmmm... I've always read this as "Father of The Country", but Google seems to disagree:

597 hits: "George Washington" "father of the country"
4730 hits: "George Washington" "father of his country"

I had changed it to "Father of the Country" before double-checking with a Google search, but a little more digging found that the most common expression seems to be:

8840 hits: "George Washington" "father of our country"

So, I'm going with that. Daniel Quinlan 18:55, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

Early life

I think I have some evidence of George washington's birthplace and a little of his early life.. I live in a village (in the UK) which has records of the Washington family and a record of his birth in the village. I'll try to get more evidence of it though before posting..

No more fights!

At Wikipedia, at all the pages talking about a President of the United States, there have been a few fights about whether there should be a rectangular box containing the Presidents from being at the bottom of the page. Can you please let everyone come to an agreement on whether there should be one?? User 66.32.127.241

For a long time since this was posted, there has been no box at the bottom, but there is again now. Do you think everyone will agree to include it?? 66.245.10.117 23:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Honored Americans

Do you know of a list of Americans who get honored in order by how often they get honored?? (There is a site called "The Political Graveyard" that you can use as a reference tool.) Here are some ways:

By having a portrait on a denomination of U.S. coins or U.S. currency (For example, George Washington's portrait is on the $1 bill and quarter.)

By having a state, city, or county named after him. (For example, the state of Washington as well as the capital city of the United States, as well as several counties were named for George Washington.) The total counts as one honor per city, state, or county.

By having a geographic feature, such as a mountain, named after him.

By having a person from a later time in history be named for him. (For example, we have Washington Irving and George Washington Carver.) The total counts as one honor per person being named.

By being carved in a known area. (For example, George Washington has a statue carved at Mount Rushmore.)

By having a college or university named after him.

By having a holiday in their honor.

By being honored with an award, medal, or knighthood.

By having a navy ship named after them.

By being compared to another.

As far as I know, I believe it is most likely that George Washington got honored the most, followed by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. How far do you know about how this list goes?? Try to make it go as far as you can, at least to #10; there is no maximum limit. You may include any American who lived entirely between 1706 and 1945.

Some possible answers that could rank somewhere from #11 to #16 include James Monroe, John Q. Adams, Henry Clay, James Polk, Robert E. Lee, and Woodrow Wilson. Try to put them wherever they go in this list, but remember that there really is no maximum, as long as you are using Americans who lived entirely between 1706 and 1945.66.32.139.147 17:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Honors

George Washington

$1 bill
quarter
$50 war bond
Mount Rushmore
Washington state
Washington, D.C.
Washington County, Alabama
Washington County, Arkansas
Washington County, Colorado
Washington County, Florida
Washington County, Georgia
Washington County, Idaho
Washington County, Illinois
Washington County, Indiana
Washington County, Kansas
Washington County, Kentucky
Washington County, Maine
Washington County, Maryland
Washington County, Minnesota
Washington County, Mississippi
Washington County, Missouri
Washington County, Nebraska
Washington County, New York
Washington County, North Carolina
Washington County, Ohio
Washington County, Oklahoma
Washington County, Oregon
Washington County, Pennsylvania
Washington County, Rhode Island
Washington County, Tennessee
Washington County, Utah
Washington County, Vermont
Washington County, Virginia
Washington Parish, Louisiana
Mount Washington in New Hampshire
George Washington Carver
Washington Irving
USS George Washington (SSBN-598)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
George Washington University
Washington and Lee University
Washington and Jefferson College
Washington University in St. Louis (?)
Washington Township, New Jersey
Washington Monument, Washington, D.C.
George Washington Doane
Cincinnati, Ohio (he was called "The American Cincinnatus")

Thomas Jefferson

$2 bill
nickel
Mount Rushmore
Jefferson City, Missouri
Jefferson, Maine
Jefferson, Texas (Jefferson County, Texas was named for this city, not for the President)
Jefferson County, Alabama
Jefferson County, Arkansas
Jefferson County, Colorado
Jefferson County, Florida
Jefferson County, Georgia
Jefferson County, Idaho
Jefferson County, Illinois
Jefferson County, Indiana
Jefferson County, Iowa
Jefferson County, Kansas (?)
Jefferson County, Kentucky
Jefferson County, Mississippi (?)
Jefferson County, Missouri
Jefferson County, Montana (?)
Jefferson County, Nebraska
Jefferson County, New York
Jefferson County, Ohio
Jefferson County, Oklahoma
Jefferson County, Pennsylvania
Jefferson County, Washington (?)
Jefferson County, West Virginia
Jefferson County, Wisconsin
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (?)
Mount Jefferson in New Hampshire
Mount Jefferson in Oregon (Jefferson County, Oregon was named for this mountain, not for the President)
Jefferson Memorial
USS Thomas Jefferson (SSBN-618)
Jefferson Davis
William Jefferson Clinton
Washington and Jefferson College

Andrew Jackson

$10 bill (1914-1928)
$20 bill (1928-present)
Jacksonville, Florida
Jackson, Mississippi
Jackson, Georgia
Jackson, Ohio
Jacksonville, Florida (Called Cowford from 1816 to 1822)
Jackson County, Alabama
Jackson County, Arkansas
Jackson County, Colorado
Jackson County, Florida
Jackson County, Illinois
Jackson County, Indiana
Jackson County, Iowa
Jackson County, Kansas
Jackson County, Kentucky
Jackson County, Michigan
Jackson County, Mississippi
Jackson County, Missouri
Jackson County, North Carolina
Jackson County, Ohio
Jackson County, Oklahoma
Jackson County, Oregon
Jackson County, Tennessee
Jackson County, Texas
Jackson County, West Virginia
Jackson County, Wisconsin
Jackson Parish, Louisiana
Hickory County, Missouri (named for his nickname, "Old Hickory")
Mount Jackson in New Hampshire
USS Andrew Jackson (SSBN-619)

James Madison

5000 bill (1918-1946)
$200 war bond
Madison, Wisconsin
Madison, Georgia
Madison, New Jersey
Madisonville, Kentucky
Madison County, Alabama
Madison County, Arkansas
Madison County, Florida
Madison County, Georgia
Madison County, Idaho
Madison County, Illinois
Madison County, Indiana
Madison County, Iowa
Madison County, Kentucky
Madison County, Mississippi
Madison County, Missouri
Madison County, Montana
Madison County, Nebraska
Madison County, New York
Madison County, North Carolina
Madison County, Ohio
Madison County, Tennessee
Madison County, Texas
Madison County, Virginia
Mount Madison in New Hampshire
James Madison University
USS James Madison (SSBN-627)

Abraham Lincoln

Penny
$5 bill
Illinois State Quarter (has Lincoln on the back)
Mount Rushmore
Lincoln Memorial
Lincoln Highway (Runs from New York to San Francisco. The route is approximated today by Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. Highway 30 and was the first coast to coast paved road in the United States.)
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum (Springfield, Illinois)
The Lincoln Museum (Ft. Wayne, Indiana)
The Lincoln Museum (Harrogate, Tennessee)
Lincoln Bedroom
Lincoln Logs
Lincoln Cars
Lincoln Life Insurance Co.
Lincoln, Alabama
Lincoln, Arkansas
Lincoln, California
Lincoln, Colorado
Lincoln, Idaho
Lincoln, Illinois (Founded 1853, only city or town named after Lincoln during his lifetime)
Lincoln, Indiana
Lincoln, Iowa
Lincoln, Kansas
Lincoln, Nebraska (Was Lancaster until 1869)
Lincoln, New Mexico
Lincoln, North Dakota
Lincoln, Maine
Lincoln, Michigan
Lincoln, Minnesota
Lincoln, Missouri
Lincoln, Montana
Lincoln, Oklahoma
Lincoln, Oregon
Lincoln, Pennsylvania
Lincoln, South Dakota
Lincoln, Tennessee
Lincoln, Texas
Lincoln, Utah
Lincoln, Washington
Lincoln, West Virginia
Lincoln, Wisconsin
Lincoln Acres, California
Lincoln Beach, Missouri
Lincoln Beach, Oregon
Lincoln Center, Iowa
Lincoln Center, Maine
Lincoln City, Indiana
Lincoln City, Nevada
Lincoln City, Oregon
Lincoln Crest, California
Lincoln Estates, Illinois
Lincoln Estates, Virginia
Lincoln Falls, Pennsylvania
Lincoln Heights, California
Lincoln Heights, Ohio
Lincoln Heights, Illinois
Lincoln Heights, Louisiana
Lincoln Heights, North Carolina
Lincoln Heights, Pennsylvania
Lincoln Heights, Virginia
Lincoln Hill, Pennsylvania
Lincoln Hills, Colorado
Lincoln Hills, Illinois
Lincoln Hills, Indiana
Lincoln Junction, Michigan
Lincoln Mills, Maine
Lincoln Park, Colorado
Lincoln Park, Louisiana
Lincoln Park, Michigan
Lincoln Park, Nevada
Lincoln Park, New Hampshire
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
Lincoln Park, New York
Lincoln Park, North Carolina
Lincoln Park, Ohio
Lincoln Park, Pennsylvania
Lincoln Park, Tennessee
Lincoln Park, Texas
Lincoln Park, Rhode Island
Lincoln Park, Virginia
Lincoln Park, West Virginia
Lincoln Pioneer Village, Indiana
Lincoln Ridge, Kentucky
Lincoln Terrace, Arkansas
Lincoln Terrace, Pennsylvania
Lincoln Valley, North Dakota
Lincoln Village, California
Lincoln Village, Indiana
Lincolndale, New York
Lincolnshire, Illinois
Lincolnshire, Indiana
Lincolnshire, Kentucky
Lincolnville, Indiana
Lincolnville, Maine
Lincolnville, Kansas
Lincolnville, Oklahoma
Lincolnville, Ohio
Lincolnville Center, Maine
Lincolnway Village, Iowa
Lincolnwood, Illinois
Lincolnwood Hills, Illinois
Lincoln College (in Lincoln, Illinois - Dedicated February 12, 1865, the only college or university named after Lincoln during his lifetime)
Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)
Lincoln Memorial University (Tennessee)
Lincoln County, Arkansas
Lincoln County, Colorado
Lincoln County, Idaho
Lincoln County, Kansas
Lincoln County, Kentucky
Lincoln Parish, Louisiana
Lincoln County, Maine
Lincoln County, Minnesota
Lincoln County, Mississippi
Lincoln County, Montana
Lincoln County, Nebraska
Lincoln County, Nevada
Lincoln County, New Mexico
Lincoln County, Oklahoma
Lincoln County, Oregon
Lincoln County, South Dakota
Lincoln County, Tennessee
Lincoln County, Washington
Lincoln County, West Virginia
Lincoln County, Wisconsin
Lincoln County, Wyoming
Fort Abraham Lincoln (near Bismarck, North Dakota)
Mount Lincoln, New Hampshire
Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico
USS Abraham Lincoln (SSBN-602)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
Land of Lincoln (Illinois state nickname)
Lincoln's Birthday (State holiday in Illinois and 20+ other states)

Theodore Roosevelt

Mount Rushmore
1906 Nobel Peace Prize
USS Theodore Roosevelt (SSBN-600)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
Medal of Honor (Posthumous, 2001)
Theodore Roosevelt McKeldin

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Dime
Franklin D. Roosevelt Library (Presidential library in Hyde Park, New York)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (Monument on Washington Mall)
USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42)
USS Roosevelt (DDG-80)

Alexander Hamilton

$1000 bill (1918-1928)
$10 bill (1928-2014)
USS Alexander Hamilton (SSBN-617)

Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis's Birthday (State holiday in some southern states)

Grover Cleveland

$20 bill (1914-1928)
$1000 bill (1928-1946)
Grover Cleveland Alexander

Ulysses Grant

$50 bill
USS Ulysses Grant (SSBN-631)

William McKinley

$500 bill
Mount McKinley
McKinely Coutny, New Mexico

Francis Marion

Marion, Alabama
Marion, Kentucky
Marion, Indiana
Marion, Iowa
Marion, Massachusetts
Marion, Ohio
Marion, North Carolina
Marion, South Carolina
Marion, New York
Marion County, Alabama
Marion County, Arkansas
Marion County, Florida
Marion County, Georgia
Marion County, Indiana
Marion County, Iowa
Marion County, Kentucky
Marion County, Ohio
Marion County, Tennessee
Marion County, Texas
Marion County, West Virginia
Marion Township, Arkansas

How come nobody is focusing on the "Honored Americans" section any more?? Can anyone think of a new Wikipedia article to move this section to?? 66.32.131.87 20:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Large Section Headings

Is there any reason the sections starting with Presidency are full headings as opposed to regular headings (one equals sign instead of two) causing the article to be renumbered halfway through? Telso 02:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'm changing it. --Furrykef 02:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Birth date

I just added some date notes to the "Early Life" section and changed the Old Style year of his birth to 1731 (I did it 1732|1731, so clicking on the Old Style year brings you to the correct Gregorian year).

Reason: At the time of Washington's birth, England started its new years on March 25, not January 1. For English Old Style dates prior to March 25, it's necessary to subtract 1 from the Gregorian year to get the correct Old Style year. See the Mixed-style date page for a good explanation of this issue. Dale Arnett 01:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) __

Ahem - the switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar advanced the date by 11 days in the 1700s. The year, however, should really be the same - either 1731 or 1732. I don't know which would be correct, but both the "old style" and the "new style" date must have the same year. Lupo 14:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Forget it, I learned something new today. Double dating is really bizarre... Lupo 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Washington's poet friend?

I may be getting my Presidents mixed up, but I remember reading in one of my English classes poetry by a black female poet who held audience with Washington a couple of times -- apparently, he was quite fond of her. I recall she coined the word "Colombia" in reference to the New World in one of her patriotic poems. I've been trying to recall her name, but with no luck. Since I was thinking on writing an article on "Colombia" in this sense (the current article there on the Republic of Colombia will have to be moved :P ), it would be good if I had her name and could find that poem... Any ideas? Garrett Albright 06:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Washington apparently wrote a letter to Phillis Wheatley in appreciation of her poems. I don't know that they ever actually met or if "Colombia" appears in her poetry, but it's a place to look. -- Nunh-huh 06:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(The word in question was "Columbia.")

Birthplace

My book Presidential Places says that he was born in Washington's Birthplace, Virginia not Wakefield, Virginia. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 15:51 August 25, 2004 (EDT)

Wakefield

Wakefield, Virginia is in Sussex County, Virginia not Westmoreland County --Patricknoddy 19:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 19:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 15:57 August 25, 2004 (EDT)

This is a thorny issue, but I had to change it since saying his birthplace was "Washington's Birthplace" tells us nothing. I have two sources saying he was born in Wakefield; however, it's apparently in the wrong region of Virginia. Unless it's a different Wakefield, we could change it to "Pope's Creek," "Ferry Farm," or just "Westmoreland County" -- which are other locations for his birthplace I've seen. Brutannica 02:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ferry Farm was his childhood home, if I'm not mistaken (I live within a few miles of that area)... ugen64 01:21, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do you know his birthplace?? Brutannica 01:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, someone wrote "Pope's Creek," so I guess the issue's closed. Anyone know how Wakefield has to do with anything? Brutannica 03:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

His birthplace is not Pope's Creek, Virginia it is Colonial Beach, Virginia. --Patricknoddy 11:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 11:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 7:31 September 16, 2004 (EDT)

No, Colonial Beach was nearby, he wasn't actually born there. Brutannica 00:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The website for the [George Washington Birthplace National Monument] reports that he was born at a place known as Pope's Creek Plantation. The closest municipality is Colonial Beach, Virginia. The first paragraph under Early Life describes this as well. Since Colonial Beach is actuall several miles distance from the monument, I think it is probably best to simply list Westmoreland County as Place of Birth in the table with the explanation in the text. older≠wiser 12:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not just "Pope's Creek Plantation?" Brutannica 00:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Small Change

Rev. Dr. Abercrombie link added. bgk 21:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

James Abercrombie died 1781 & was not a Rev--JimWae 21:32, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Careful! Tricky Vandalism!

Okay, apparently a new editor had edited the article, changing — to –

But, he/she did not see the vandalism before that: -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Washington was commissioned in 1989 as a colonel in the Virginia militia and built a series of forts in Compton, California. He was dispatched by the governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie, to force the French out of the Ohio valley. When they refused, he attacked a French scouting party, killing ten, including its leader, Jumonville. Anticipating retaliation, he built a small fort (Fort Necessity). It proved ineffective: Washington's forces were vastly outnumbered and the fort, built on low ground, flooded during a heavy rainfall. He was forced to surrender and negotiated a safe passage back to Virginia. Nevertheless, the incident ignited the French and Indian War.

Should be:
Washington was commissioned in 1754 as a colonel in the Virginia militia and built a series of forts in the western frontier of Virginia. He was dispatched by the governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie, to force the French out of the Ohio valley. When they refused, he attacked a French scouting party, killing ten, including its leader, Jumonville. Anticipating retaliation, he built a small fort (Fort Necessity). It proved ineffective: Washington's forces were vastly outnumbered and the fort, built on low ground, flooded during a heavy rainfall. He was forced to surrender and negotiated a safe passage back to Virginia. Nevertheless, the incident ignited the French and Indian War.

In 1992, Washington accompanied the Braddock Expedition of the British Army during the French and Indian War. During the Battle of the Monongahela in western Pennsylvania, he had three horses shot out from under him, and four bullets pierced his coat. He showed his coolness under fire in organizing the retreat from the debacle. Washington then organized the First Virginia Regiment, which saw service through the war.

Should be:
In 1755, Washington accompanied the Braddock Expedition of the British Army during the French and Indian War. During the Battle of the Monongahela in western Pennsylvania, he had three horses shot out from under him, and four bullets pierced his coat. He showed his coolness under fire in organizing the retreat from the debacle. Washington then organized the First Virginia Regiment, which saw service through the war.

In 2000, he resigned his commission and married Martha Dandridge Custis, the wealthy widow of Daniel Parke Custis. Washington adopted Custis's two children and never fathered any of his own. The newlywed couple moved to Mount Vernon where he took up the life of a genteel farmer. He became a member of the House of Burgesses.

Should be:
In 1759, he resigned his commission and married Martha Dandridge Custis, the wealthy widow of Daniel Parke Custis. Washington adopted Custis's two children and never fathered any of his own. The newlywed couple moved to Mount Vernon where he took up the life of a genteel farmer. He became a member of the House of Burgesses.

By 2004, Washington had become one of the colonies' wealthiest men. In that year, he was chosen as a delegate from Virginia to the First Continental Congress and the next year to the Second Continental Congress. He did not support colonial independence until 1776, when he read Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

Should be:
By 1774, Washington had become one of the colonies' wealthiest men. In that year, he was chosen as a delegate from Virginia to the First Continental Congress and the next year to the Second Continental Congress. He did not support colonial independence until 1776, when he read Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

Dates were changed... and since when was George Washington from Compton, California? -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

duplicate sections

Some of the information on this page seems to be duplicated. A little past halfway down, it starts repeating sections from the top. I'm still pretty new here (still learning the syntax and customs), so I am hesitant to fix it myself.

Final Rank

For the record, I confirmed that Washington was indeed reappointed as a Lieutenant General after serving as President. Some sources give his rank as Major General, but a special bill authoirzing his appointment granted him three stars. He obtained 6 star rank very posthumously in 1976. -Husnock 15:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the 6 star is not quite accurate. The rank is General of the Armies, which was only held by John J. Pershing (besides Washington's posthumous appointment). Pershing never wore more than 4 stars, and the United States Army has never designated an insignia for that rank, which will probably not be used again. --Rogerd 17:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pershing's General of the Armies position was actually different from the 6-star promotion that Washington received in 1976. Before WWII, Washington and Pershing were the highest ranked military officers in US history. After WWII, several generals received a newly created "General of the Army" rank, which carried 5 star. This included Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Bradley. President Carter raised Washington to 6 stars, a position only he holds. Not sure where Pershing falls now, but he is not an official 5 or 6 star general.

Wig/powdering

So Washington didn't wear a wig. OK, I accept that. Never really questioned it, really, because every portrait I've ever seen of the man made it look like he was a closet mullet devotee rather than a wig guy.

However, I just reverted an anon -- and I feel bad for doing it, because it's certainly plausible -- who claimed, in the same section, that good ol' George powdered his hair. Anyone got a reference for this?--chris.lawson 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Got a reference for him not wearing a wig? Just because that was there first, we should accept it more than a new addition? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out something I've noticed today - existing unsourced material is kept, while new unsourced material is discarded. --Golbez 23:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I sure don't. But as I mentioned, I've never seen a portrait of him wearing anything that looked like a wig. Now, I accept that wigs can be very hard to distinguish, but the wigs that were stylish in Washington's day were, uh, well, very large and showy. And if there's one thing Washington's hair isn't, it's "large and showy".--chris.lawson 23:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. Way to kill two birds with one stone, Josh -- that ref not only supports powdering, but that it was real hair (rather than a wig).--chris.lawson 23:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, says powder, no wig. -EDM 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Military Rank

George Washington wasn't the only person in history to receive the General of the Armies rank. John J. Pershing also received it, so I made that change.

Category Scottish-American

This category has been added and removed a couple of times recently. In this context of the subject of this article it seems like an anachronism to me. -EDM 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cut 'n paste editing

I just repaired the list of other language version links as all non-latin alphabet ones were just question marks instead of their appropriate characters. I suspect this happens when someone copies the text into a word processor or notepad that doesn't support those characters and then, after the edit, pastes it back into the edit window and inadvertently replaces the links with question marks. Please make sure these other language versions are correctly displayed before saving.--Kalsermar 16:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources in this article

I quote now from the peer review: "The article needs better sourcing, it's not clear which if any of the books in the further reading section actually source the information in the article. Some inline citations would help as well." This is true, but as I have not helped with this article, it would be difficult for me to do. Will anyone with more familiarity of this article shoulder the greater responsibility for citing the sources? (If not, I guess I will have to, but I am pretty much a newcomer to this article). --Trevdna 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe all the information in the article is found in the Freeman book. Rjensen 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Federalist?

George Washington is part of the list of Federalist party candidates, and there's a little footnote at the end of the article explaining how he was president before the Federalist Party was formed. First, maybe there should be more information about this in the article proper, second, shouldn't this article be in the United States Federalist Party category? Billy Shears 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I always thought Washington was not a part of any political party and was not elected as a Federalist.--Kalsermar 22:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

==There was no Federalist (or other) party when Washington was elected and reelected. However it formed in his second term primarily to support his programs. Did he "belong" to it? They did not have formal membership forms. But GW was closely associated with it, his closest associate Hamilton ran the party, and and the party made GW their great symbol.

Reentering the military?

With the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who held a lifetime commission as General of the Army (five star), George Washington is the only President with military service to reenter the military after leaving the office of President.

All officer commissions are lifetime commissions. The only other way is to actually resign one's commission. Also—officers never actually "retire" from the military, rather they are put on "reduced pay." This is an obscure rule from the 19th century that was recently used in order to recall some general in order to court martial him on a sexual harrasment charge. Did Washington actually reenter active military service after his presidency? I'm not so sure about that. --Easter Monkey 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we add some Washington trivia?

I would like to add some fun interesting trivia. For instance that he was the first president to own a cooler, his height, how he proposed the design of the flag to Betty Ross along with other facts which I feel would be beneficial to add. Everyone please try to find some fun facts so we can add it!

Feel free to discuss. -JJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.204.60 (talk • contribs) 02:20, December 16, 2005.

I think trivia section is a great idea Rjensen 02:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as it is somewhat relevant and encyclopedic. Washington was the first president for everything btw so that's hardly noteworthy.--Kalsermar 15:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would hate to see this degenerate into the kind of stuff you see in other articles, like "Washington was a character in so-and-so video game", and the like. There is nothing wrong with a little relevant trivia, just remember to keep this a serious article about an important person. --rogerd 15:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

George Washington was the first presidents of the united states and has been a great dad. I wish he was still alive because I really like him! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.236.3 (talk • contribs) . and provides some insight into what we can expect if a trivia section is added.

I changed part of the introduction to religious views.

The word evidence was too strong. Some people see Washingtons writings as evidence, while others do not. It goes the same way for his writings which could be seen as evidence that he was a Christian. It is a matter of personal opinion so I took it off and made it more balanced.

His Bible

See the Washington_Inaugural_Bible for details. Ronabop 10:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

George Washington Farewell address...

I added exerts from his speech back to the address which were removed. Please do not remove them. Wikipedia is supposed to give a fair and balanced view and that's why I added them. The exerts give a great explanation on his view of religion, morality, and foreign policy. I feel that you can learn so more about Washington in 4 exerts then in the whole entire page. Everyone tries to block this view because it's not politically correct. I really want to make this article fair and balanced. They are merely exerts which show his views on important issues; views that you will not learn in school. I feel that these exerts clearly show Washingtons view on these vital issues and would answer many questions that people have. Please do not remove them. Please feel free to add to the discussion here.

Thanks all,

JJ

Recent shortenings of article

I think some good material is being tossed out in recent "shortenings" of the article. Why are we shortening it? If shortening is needed, is removing material the best solution? Wouldn't sub-articles do the job even better? If any part could easily be shortened, it certainly is the Farewell Address section. Should main articles contain more detail than their sub-articles? --JimWae 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be shortened. Keep in mind he was a very important man so he would have more information then other people. Comparatively with other people it appears that his page is not very long especially given his importance. Shouldn't quality come first? Also the farewell address goes over his advice for America to follow, it is very symbolic. If anyone wants to shorten the article please propose shortenings in discussion before doing it without consent to prevent edit wars. Hopefully we can find something that everyone can agree on.

-Eric

Umm... I don't know if you are talking about my moving things from "Personal Information" and "Legacy" sections, but I didn't remove anything from there - I just moved stuff to more appropriate sections My edit summaries sholud have been more clear when I did that. I'm sorry if there was any confusion there, but no material was removed, and the article was not shortened. (Go ahead and check the before and after histories - all that I did was move the material to more approriate sections.)

I also removed the "Quotes" section a few days ago, but my reasoning was provided in the edit summary - they were spurious or attributed, on Wikiquote, and they didn't really serve any purpose.

Finally, there seems to have been some controversy over "Farewell Address". I'm discussing this with Eric (aka JJstroker). It appears that there was a shortening, major lengthening, and reshortening (though not as short as the section was before lengthening) of the section. I will not edit that (I feel it should be much shorter) without seeking consensus first. --Trevdna 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Farewell Address

OK, I have been trying to discuss this with JJstroker, but he hasn't answered me yet on his (or my) talk page. However, I would like to bring this up for discussion with everyone working on this article - am I the only one that thinks that quoting large blocks of text in the Farewell Address is unencyclopedic and pointless (contributes nothing of importance or relevance to the article)?

Please discuss. --Trevdna 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that too much is quoted. cut the section in half by summarizing. Rjensen 17:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "fairness and balance" or "political correctness." The extensive quotations now in the section weaken it badly. The section should summarize Washington's philosophy as set forth in the Address and send the reader to the subarticle for the details and to Wikisource for the actual text. The great chunks of 18th-century prose that are currently dropped in there are just going to cause the casual reader to blip past them and to blip past the summaries as well, leaving the section useless as a reference. -EDM 18:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't think this discussion was to remove one paragraph (am I wrong?) - it was to remove the entire text. I added very obvious references to the full text in the article for those who are interested, so I think it will be alright to remove the rest.

JJstroker - will this be alright with you? (I'm asking you because I don't want to start an edit war.) People may be confused about his views, and this may help to clear stuff up for a few people, but I think that the concensus (other people feel free to agree or disagree - I don't want to come to premature conclusions) was that it weakens the article overall for most people.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?--Trevdna 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Its fine with me. It just the highlighted views are very important I would like to summarize it on the main page. If you want to make edits please post it here first so we can all agree. Thanks,

21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)JJstroker

OK - here's what I came up with. I worked pretty hard on it, but if anything is wrong with it, please say so. The indented stuff is the stuff I just worked on. Anyone mind?

Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.

Washington's Farewell Address was the defining statement of Federalist party principles and one of the most influential statements of American political values. Alexander Hamilton made major suggestions for Washington's draft, as did John Jay. The Address was not a speech, but a public letter issued in September 1796.

The Address is basically devoted to guidance for the newly established nation. Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation.

A common theme in Washington's letter was his strong opposition to political parties; he called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good. He felt that they created "ill-founded jealousies", "false alarms", "animosity of one part against another", "foreign influence and corruption", and a general "spirit not to be fostered".

He called for an America wholly free of foreign attachments, as the United States must concentrate only on American interests. While the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances.

Washington also discusses religion and public morality in detail, stating that Religion and Morality are indispensable for political prosperity - moreso than any other dispositions or habits. He asked (rhetorically) what would happen to trust in the testimonies in court, if the sense of obligation, accompaning the oaths of allegiance left. This was an example Washington used of the problems accompanying the loss of religion. He argued that without religion, morality leaves, and that morality is necessary for democratic government.

He asked that "instituations for the general diffusion of knowledge" be promoted, since "it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened", if the public opinion was to be the controller of the government.

He then continues to address foreign policy, "Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?"

He finished the address by asking forgiveness of the people, and of "the Almighty" for any errors he has committed, and shows optimism for the country's future.

(The article on the Address can be found here, and the entire text of the article can be found here or here, for those who are interested.)

The Address quickly entered the realm of "received wisdom." Many Americans, especially in subsequent generations, accepted Washington's advice as gospel and, in any debate between neutrality and involvement in foreign issues, would invoke the message as dispositive of all questions. Not until 1949 would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation.

By refusing a third term, Washington established a powerful precedent of a maximum of two terms for a U.S. president. It was broken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1940 but after Roosevelt's death was made part of the written Constitution.

--Trevdna 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job! go with it. Rjensen 08:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since no one objected, I went ahead with the changes. To prevent any edit wars, please continue to discuss changes to this section here, on the talk page. --Trevdna 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

This section is way too long. It should be a paragraph in the Presidency section, not a dozen paragraph section of its own (it already has its own article). --JW1805 (Talk) 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeez. Talk to JJstroker. He feels very strongly about this section for some reason. The text that's in there now, was actually originally blockquoted in the article. I agree with you JW, but I'm kind of worn out on this section, so someone else can do the rewriting if it comes down to that. However, I will still monitor this topic, and register support or objection.

BTW, for a complete history of this, see the discussions above, [[User talk:JJstroker#George Washington's Farewell Address|here], and here --Trevdna 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unanimous?

I found this in the article: "George Washington was elected unanimously by the Electoral College in 1789, and remains the only person ever to be elected president unanimously (a feat which he duplicated in 1792). As runner-up with 34 votes, John Adams became Vice President-elect.". If Washington was elected unanimously, how can there have been a runner-up with 34 votes? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the Constitution was amended to employ the current system of one vote for president and one for vice president electors would simply cast two votes without specifying for what office. The person with the highest number of votes became president and the runner up vice president. In Washington's case all electors voted for him but not all for Adams, thus it can be said Washington was the unanimous choice of the electors.--Kalsermar 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Innoculation

It says on the george washington page that he vaccinated his troops, this is wrong as vaccination did not exsist in 1776, read up on Edward Jenner, innoculation existed though. The preceding, previously unsigned comment by 172.215.199.149

Thank you for that (I realized that vaccines weren't around until the 1800s) - however, since I am not aware of Edward Jenner, and that is a fairly irrelevant point, I took it out completely, and replaced it with other stuff (it being a low point for the Army). However, if anyone has any references for that section, it would be great. --Trevdna 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about George Washington. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→