Talk:George Washington/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

"You are driving away editors. Please stop it!"

Gwillhickers, your comment applies equally to you and to Cmguy777. Here, as well as on the Grant and Jefferson articles, you have wanted to present the subjects as American heroes, emphasizing positive points and downplaying negative points, particularly, but not exclusively, with regard to slavery. Cmguy has taken the opposite tack, and compounded his unhappy contributions with whiny comments (in contrast to your blustering, bullying comments), poor composition skills, and misspellings. The two of you have driven away many of us. YoPienso (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not a perfect editor. My intentions were good in good faith. Wikipedia's motto is to be bold. I was frustrated at having to explain every edit to meet an editor's approval. I had tried to get Rjensen and Coemgenus involved in getting this article to FA. That failed. Trimming this article would help the article, not make it worse, especially at 100 kbs limit. I had recommended 95 kbs. The FA review had mentioned article reduction when at that time the article was 98 kbs. My recent edits had got the article to 97 kbs. I would call my edits reasonable. I don't want editors to be "scared away". In fact I encourage other editors to edit. What is missing is that editors need to work together, reduce conflict, and have one goal, to get George Washington to FA. I am willing to keep my talk more constructive and positive. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yopienso, you speak of editor conduct and in the same breath vent untrue accusations. I'm not the one who has several times turned around and made major and undiscussed changes in a Good (soon to be) Feature Article. I only "bully" at times after repeated accusations are levied at me, or when attempts to discuss matters are routinely ignored, My "blustering" comments are almost always directed at one editor. (e.g.I was accused of being "pro slavery" for trying to clarify ideas. How do you expect that to be received by anyone?) Otherwise my conduct is almost always diplomatic and congenial. Thank you. My "downplaying" of slavery has only amounted to the addition of context, well sourced, which has too often been routinely opposed and/or reverted by some editors. I have never blocked the negative things about slavery, and if you care to look at recent edit history here I have added several such points. With my "poor composition skills" I've insisted that we place the Retirement and Final Days sections among the last in the article. For your own sense of history, many American heroes had various faults. I only take exception when some focus on these, attempt to present them completely out of context, while ignoring the (very) big picture, as you seem to be doing with your suggestion that these individuals were not heroes. I suppose they've been written about by thousands of historians for over several centuries because all of those people simply didn't have anything better to write about. Thanks for frequently showing an interest and chiming in and offering a moderating voice, rather than showing up at the last minute to vent your piece of commentary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: OK, let's go point by point on this. First, please re-read my 3-line comment to you just above. Then, I suggest you carefully read this new one and then think about them and then read them and your first response once again before responding here.

• I wasn't venting at all.
• I made no false accusations.
• The second sentence of your reply is totally off-topic. I'm not even following that argument.
• Instead of bullying when people point out your faults, why don't you listen? You're sometimes display the behavior of WP:IDHT.
• Why is it OK to bluster at one editor?
• If anyone said you were "pro-slavery," I think they would mean you tend to paint it in softer tones than slaves experienced it. You try to portray it as more beneficial and less detrimental than it really was. You want to be sure we say they got time off, but aren't so keen on saying slaves suffered brutality. These aren't accusations, but simple statements of fact. Every editor here knows they are true. I don't think any of us think you are "pro-slavery" in the sense that you think slavery is 100% good and wish African-Americans were still enslaved. No, I think you're glad slavery no longer exists, but you have trouble accepting the fact that Washington (and Jefferson) were slavemasters. However lenient they were compared to Simon Legree, numbers of their slaves were unhappy enough under their mastery to run away.

One of your recent edits is an example of slanting the facts: you changed "To control slaves, Washington allowed whippings of both male and female slaves for idleness, stealing or fighting by his white and enslaved black overseers" to "Though he allowed whippings of both male and female slaves for idleness, stealing or fighting, Washington opposed severe punishment on other grounds, and discouraged excessive discipline by overseers, some of whom were slaves themselves." The first statement focuses on the fact that he allowed whipping, while your rewording focuses on the fact that he opposed severe punishment. Your edit slanted the statement to make Washington look kinder.

• If you re-read my first comment, you will have realized I was talking about Cmguy's poor composition skills and misspellings, not yours.
• I do think Washington is one of America's greatest heroes. That's not how a Wikipedia article is supposed to portray him, though, per WP:NPOV. (The article appropriately uses the word "hero" four times, and properly shows Washington's popularity. What I mean is that as editors we can't bias the article toward his heroism, but state it matter-of-factly, and include negative points in due weight.) I think most of us see you as wanting to promote Washington's good points and downplay his bad points.
• The reason I haven't been "frequently showing an interest and chiming in and offering a moderating voice" like I used to is because the incessant quarreling between you and Cmguy777 drove me away. YoPienso (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : — @Yopienso: Thanks for taking the time to discuss matters point by point. All I can say is that no one forces you to read the discussions between Cmguy and myself. If you ever have a mind to, you will see most of our heated discussions are initiated by his accusations, some of them rather ugly. "Pro slavery"? In any case, you are always free to point out things that you alone see, but you haven't done that as far back as I can remember around here. My "softer tones" about slavery only amount to adding important context that 'many' sources cover. The article mentions whippings specifically,and yes, there is important context that was added. Cm changed it to "control" before I changed it back to my original sentence. Whippings in particular must be presented in context because there are so many people ready to assume that slaves were whipped to a bloody pulp, as a rule. Like under Jefferson, whippings were rare and not excessive. Also, I added the first sentence to the slavery section. It point blank said Washington accepted slavery without question until the revolution. (It's been edited since then by another) Should we find harsher words for this statement? Also, the article doesn't say Washington was a hero, or a nice guy, though with so many positive things to say, esp during the revolution, it's a little difficult not to convey the impression that Washington was indeed a hero. Anyway, I offered to let the Ona Judge statement issue alone so we could move on, and rather than doing that I was hit with the same ol accusations by my fellow editor. In such events, I usually have little patience and my tone obviously shows it. Hard to sit still for those sorts of things. Btw, I must apologize for misreading your comments about misspellings and poor composition. Below I have some strong words for you, but not that strong, hopefully, made before I got around to reading this message from you. Perhaps if more people chimed in and offered consensus on some of the things Cm and myself debate, the talk wouldn't last so long. Howver, the ugly accusations keep the pot boiling. Don't know what else to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777. I was making appeals to you about lesser details in the slavery section, and offered condensed statements that conveyed the same idea - and you turn around and make radical and undiscussed changes in another section. 'When' that happened another editor through in the towel and my warning to you was made. (Are you listening Yopienso?) The article size is fine. As has been pointed out to you many many times, guidelines allows exceptions for exceptional subjects, while content should not be removed simply to satisfy a page length number. This mathematical tact is in complete opposition to writing a comprehensive narrative. I don't know how you expect to be treated when you constantly make false accusations, ("pro slavery", need my "approval", "editor control", etc, etc) ignore reasonable alternatives, show no sign of compromise, force editors to repeat themselves while making radical, major and undiscussed changes in a Good Article. You make it impossible not to address the contributor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Please don't make false accusations. I had previously started a discussion: Article length issues (30 July 2018) I specifically stated that the Finals days section can be reduced in the discussion. Editors were given a chance to discuss in that article section. I did not make radical changes as you contend either. I trimmed the narration and combined sections and removed two photos. You don't want any article reduction. No progress was being made on the Slavery section and that apparently was the only section you wanted to edit. You boss me around and say I can only comment on the Slavery section. I am not allowed to go onto other sections, apparently without your permission. That is not how Wikipedia works. Hopphy thought the reduction was appropriate. Why should I further edit on the article ? I had mentioned before that I have always felt like I was being watched like a hawk. Now you are saying I can only do edits unless there is a discussion. You claim I made a major edit. The article was at 100 kbs. I reduced the article to 97 kbs total. That is 3 kbs of narration. It was only done to get under the 98 kbs of narration, since the last FA review, said the article needed reduction. Hopphy mention the article needed trimming. I would call my edits necessary for the article to get to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything I said about your recent activity is entirely true. Esp your habitual accusations. Sorry. Making more than 3k of un-discussed reductions to one section, while discussing another section, unresolved, is radical. You can haggle about the term all you like, but you were hoping around making major changes without a discussion, as if you were trying to divert attention away from the slavery section. I am not really interested in your opinion of what you think I feel slavery was like under Washington. We've heard it before. My only concern at this point is that we add the contextual facts as covered by numerous sources and stay away from secondary details, many of which you dragged into the section while expressing concern for article size. You think we can't see this? Article size is a guideline. If a given reviewer is going to fail the nomination on that basis alone we educate that reviewer in the differences between guidelines and policies, and go on to another reviewer if he/she is going to act like a mule over the matter. Reviewers are not gods, they are editors just like us. Readers should be our top priority, not a gold star. Making them hop to a dozen different articles just to get a good summary coverage of Washington's life is ridiculous. This has been explained for you a dozen times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I did start a discusson on article length. Reviewers had time to discuss. What matters is that I started a discussion before I made edits that Hopphy did not think was too much. Wikipedia is not about protecting George Washington. He needs no protection. It is not about judgeing Washington either, no matter what and editors personal views. Protecting Washington only means there is something to hide. You can argue all you want Gwillhickers. It is impossible to continue one way conversations. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your conjecture and impressions are getting a bit much. "Something to hide"? The only one who has raved about bringing context out into the open is you, and another editor who expressed a flagrant bias against Washington and America. At least he was forthright and honest about his feelings. Please stop talking like the rest of us can't remember past yesterday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhcickers. We can only go by what the sources say. I don't have anything against or personal bias against George Washington. I was at his home in Mount Vernon, in his bedroom where died a horrible death. My opinions don't count in the article. But you Gwillhickers, when you protect Washington in the article, and do not allow constructive criticism from sources such as Chernow or Ferling, that gives the impression that Washington was a "bad guy" and he needs protecting. You think you are doing a good thing by protecting him. He does not need protecting. Did he abuse his power as President when he went after Ona Judge. According to Chernow he did. He still does not need protecting. I have no desire to edit in an article where my edits are overturned, berated, and watched like a hawk. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The heated rhetoric on this talkpage and some of the behavior in the article...

make me sad... I think all of us regulars (myself included) need to step back and hold off editing and posting on the talk page for at least a little while. Cool down y'know? I'm out for a few days and am taking the article off my watchlist. See y'all later. Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shearonink: — Thank you for offering a moderating voice. It is much needed. Sometimes I have a short fuse. After the smoke has cleared I hope you will return. When the article is finally nominated your opinion and moderating voice will be a big help. In the mean time, we should all try to move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking that Gwillhickers and Cmguy777 should take a break after inviting all the regulars plus the ones they drove off to work on the article without any input from the two combatants that keep the article in constant flux and fill the talk page with rants and whines. I seriously suggest Gw and Cm take 30 days off without editing or commenting. Gw needs to relinquish the control he's assumed and Cm needs to stop fighting him. YoPienso (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not wish to throw stones or to become embroiled in this brouhaha, but I have to say that YoPienso's observations in general are accurate. I was trying hard at one point to get this article into good shape, but I gave up in frustration over the endless back-and-forth, particularly between Gwillhickers and Cmguy777, and the arrogant attitude and comments concerning those of us who actually care about good writing, spelling, grammar, and syntax. This coupled with the absolutely endless tweaking and adding of utterly insignificant minutia—generally badly written—which is then reverted and re-reverted, then taken to the mats on this talk page, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. If you want this to become a featured article, you need to relinquish your choke hold of attempted ownership and let others come in and clean it up. —Dilidor (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is my view that it is impossible to edit on this article, since all edits apparently need the approval of Gwillhickers, and that any critical assessment of Washington and slavery should be left out. But this extends into the Final days section. That is not allowed to be reduced. That is set in stone and it really is not that controversial. One reviewer in the FA review said the article was to big, since there were existing secondary articles. Editors have a right to reverse edits, but my editing was inline with the FA review. Even the reduction of the Farewell address has been reversed. I believe Gwillhickers has established himself as the owner of this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777 demonstrates the point with his habitual accusations. All edits need my approval? Any critical assessment should be left out? The section is filled with critical assessment, much of it included by me. As was explained, major edits to a Good or Featured article should be discussed. This is the norm. There was no current discussion that preceded the major deletions, let alone a consensus. I have never gone against consensus, so until Cmguy777 can get a clear consensus to chop up the section, for the sake of page length, I will do all I can to keep the narrative in wholesome and comprehensive form. Dilidor doesn't help matters by first claiming he doesn't want to " become embroiled in this brouhaha" and turns around and dives right in. Same with Yopienso. The article has been edited by several editors in terms of grammar improvement, so while the two of you are joining in with the accusations about poor writing, don't forget the others who have greatly contributed to the writing, which is largely good writing, btw. Same ol same ol. Empty accusations with no specific examples to back it up, and no recent efforts by either of you to rewrite any sentences that may need it. I have no intention of taking a 30 day vacation, and I doubt Cm' has. The notion that I have control over the article is just that. Like Cmguy777, I have contributed greatly to the article and am active with my opinions Though I recently have reverted a small number of the hundreds of edits Cmguy777 has made, I've never gone against consensus. Hoppyh and Shearonink have made numerous improvements. No one has prevented either of you from making edits, so please, get off it, and concentrate on specific article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I did offer a discussion on article length. No editors except Gwillhickers responded. Article length issues (30 July 2018) I don't have to have permission to make edits that complies with the previous FA review that the article was too large. I believe the context was kept. Hopphy thought the reduction was appropriate. Gwillhickers, in my opinon, opposed the FA review in reducing article size. I gave editors plenty of time to make comments. Here is the other issue. I would have to get permisson from Gwillhickers to make that edit. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Having a talk page would set up defeat. I boldly made the edits and got the article reduced to 97 kbs. These edits were reverted. Why not let the edits remain in the article for awhile. Sometimes it is best to make edits first and then wait for comments. I had in mind what I wanted to do to improve the article. I did it. It was reverted. And then a speech was made in reversion that it was a "radical" change. That is not true. The main information reduced concerned medieval medical practices of the time period. Even Chernow did not believe Washington would have survived a tracheotomy. I put in a modern definition of what Washington was believed to have suffered, a diagnosis by a medical doctor. In my opinion I stabalized the section. I see no reason to continue editing when all I can expect is to be reverted by Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• You're still repeating yourself at this point? The events were explained several times now. There was no prior discussion at the time you up and decided to make 3k of deletions to the Final days section in a Good Article, which occurred in the middle of an unresolved discussion about the Slavery section concerning all the things you added, before you turned around and carried on about reducing article size. At that point another editor threw in the towel. Your actions and your words were and are contradictory, so don't expect anyone to believe you're actually being sincere here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• If you would like to add items about Washington's last few days there is nothing wrong with that, but again, major changes, esp large deletions, should be discussed at the time you are about to make them. This is what is widely expected of editors with Good and Featured articles. Hope that isn't too much to ask of you. Yes, you are free to ignore this and just do what you want. Thanx for your consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. You continue to attack me and hound me in the talk page. Please stop. You have reverted the edits I made. My edits were good, not perfect, but good. I stream lined the article. But that was no account. There is no wikipedia rule that says edits must by discussed prior to editing. This is evidence that you are controlling the article. Insinuating that before I make a rule I must consult you and have a talk page before making an edit and I must get your approval Gwillhickers. The article needed to be reduced. It was at 100 kbs. Hopphy accepted my edits. I have made no recent edits. It's your article. I wish you success in all your future endeavors. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. I made no accusations but have only recounted your edit history and talk behavior. You made significant additions to the slavery section and turned around and advocated article size reduction, which is contrary talk. Pointing this out is not an accusation. Saying that someone "controls the article" or that one is "pro slavery" are accusations — ugly accusations. Claiming that the article is mine simply because of a few recent reverts, out of 100's of your edits, is ridiculous. While you're turning to Hoppyh for support, remember he didn't approve of your edits in the slavery section, including the weight given to one particular slave, Ona Judge. If someone else should remove this item, please don't tag the section again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not contrary talk. You continue to attack me in the talk page. Editors can edit at any moment without starting a talk page. It would go against the reason why I removed the neutrality tag. You are bossing me again telling me not to put up a neutrality tag. At least you said please. Hopphy said your revert was evidence of article ownership. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

|}

Moving forward

If one can remove some text without removing important details this would be nice. Improvements in grammar are always welcomed also. I'll see what I can do. Other than that, I have no plans to include any more content. It seems we've covered Washington's life in full, and in summary and comprehensive form, where the reader is not forced to hop around to numerous other articles to get the basic picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Now we are talking about article size reduction. That is what I did. Those edits were reverted. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This would be a rewrite for the first paragraph in the Final Days section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

On Thursday, December 12, 1799 Washington inspected his farms by horse during a freezing blizzard. He returned late for dinner, his neck was wet, and snow matted his hair. Washington refused to change his wet clothes, not wanting to keep his guests waiting. The following day, despite having a sore throat, Washington marked trees for cutting outside in bitter weather. That evening Washington complained of a sore throat and chest congestion, but he remained cheerful. On Saturday morning, Washington awoke to an inflamed throat and difficulty breathing. He ordered estate overseer George Rawlins to remove nearly a pint of his blood, a common practice of his times. Three physicians were summoned, Dr. James Craik, Dr. Gustavus Brown and Dr. Elisha Dick.

Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Your version here is 730 characters. The existing paragraph is 893. Context is in tact. Looks good. However, we should keep what I added in bold, as this is Washington's very own feelings, while he was mortally ill and very near death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Slavery section can be reduced. I think there needs to be only one mention of Ona Judge. There is too much detail on the slaves daily lives, that would best be put in the designated article. I am trying to compromise and work together. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Context is very very important in the slavey section. Caring for the sick, consent for splitting up families, first warnings, supporting many slaves he had no productive use for, etc, are all direct acts of Washington. If you can reduce the narrative without cutting into this context I would have little to no objections.
  Please remember, I deeply resent having to reduce the literature because of a guideline number, but will compromise, to a point of course. We should stand up to any reviewer who would use page length as the 'sole reason' to fail the nomination. I can only hope a reviewer's approach to review is not robotic and he/she holds the narrative up as the first priority. Nuff said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind putting in that Washington was "cheerful", but it is hard for me to imagine he was not in any pain, emotional or physical. I am trying a much less abrupt approach allowing editors to make comments. People do read the dedicated article. I don't want to argue about slavery. Honestly, it has not really hurt Washington's reputation, whether he was stern or compassional slave owner. A pessimist would say Washington cared for the sick slaves because the slaves were worth money, but Chernow says he had sincere compassion. I don't mind keeping that. All I suggest is leaving room for the reader to make decisions concerning Washington and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Slavery under Washington, typically presented out of context, has hurt Washington's reputation appreciably, if not greatly, in modern times, esp when presented by trendy media sources or pushed by the 'Friends of America' crowd. Too many people today, esp the young and naive, have greatly lost sight of the struggle for independence that occurred then and take freedom for granted, having very little idea of the living realities of 200 years ago. We are not here of course to condemn or excuse Washington, but still we need to present things in context, so at least the unbiased and intelligent readers have something to go on. I believe the context in the slavery section is balanced. If we can reduce the word count and still keep the important things in tact, so much the better. Let's keep in mind that we could get the readable prose down to even 80k and chances are some reviewer is still going to make an issue of it. Our best chance for nomination is standing together and reminding any given reviewer about the difference between a guideline and a policy, insisting that they concentrate their review on the narrative itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

At some point one should to not care whether there is a negative view of Washington, in the public. What matters is how historians present Washington. Historians have ranked Washington in the top five as President. Chernow (2010) actually is "nice" to Washington, for lack of a better phrase, but he is not a protectionist. Compare Washington to Grant. Grant had to overcome attacks by historians. Viewed as one of the worst Presidents. He is finally being appreciate for his civil rights presidency. A little criticism won't hurt Washington's reputation at all. That is another subject. I am all for neutral wording. It is not what is said but how it is said. I don't think information about the Holidays is necessary. The best thing to do is go paragraph by paragraph and make a sample writing. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made some reductions in the text. Mention of the holidays are important, they were all religious holidays, directly reflecting on Washington's beliefs that effected his treatment of slaves -- they only amount to a few words anyways. I'm willing to go along and reduce some of the text, so we're comfortably under the 100k mark, but I don't want to begin reducing 'any' narrative to outline form. Your treatment of the 1st prgh in the Final days section was near perfect, reducing text, but keeping context. This should be our model of how to treat any sections that may get trimmed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the article to be reduced randomly or discussion first ? The article size goal should be at least be 97 kbs. I don't think it is a good idea to have an article at the same size as the last FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite II: Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

When ancient remedies, including three more blood-lettings, produced no relief for their patient, Dick proposed performing an emergency tracheotomy to save Washington's life. The other two doctors disapproved of the new risky medical proceedure and it was not used. Washington instructed doctors Brown and Dick to stop their attempts to save his life and leave the room, while he assured Doctor Craik, "Doctor, I die hard, but I am not afraid to go". Sensing his eminent death, Washington's last instructions were let his body lie three days before entombment, to prevent being buried alive. With Martha calmly composed at the foot of his bed, at the age of 67, Washington died peacefully without further struggle at home around 10 p.m. on Saturday, December 14, 1799. Funeral arrangements were made by Washington's Masonic lodge of Alexandria. When news of Washington's death reached Congress, which was in session, they immediately adjourned for the day, and the next morning the Speaker's chair was shrouded in black.

Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As long as we keep context, it doesn't matter in what particular order the sections are dealt with. Other editors reduced text and dealt with grammar this way. Discussions are in order if there are major changes to a section, and I don't foresee the need for this. No doubt comment will occur here or there as the case may be. Again, we should let the context of the narrative by our guiding light. If it were up to me I'd trash page length guidelines altogether, and replace them with a few simple rules. i.e. Summary form, context, comprehensiveness, nothing redundant or overly tangential -- all determined by editor consensus. This way the length of the article would work itself out. As it is we're running circles around a page length number rather then focusing on comprehensiveness and good writing. Even if an article was 200k, as long as it wasn't redundant or tangential, it would be okay. Most readers only read the sections they're interested in anyway. 97k seems okay, as long as we don't chop a few sections off at the knees to get there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I should have made my initial edits on paragraph at a time. So far I have put in two rewrite sections in the talk pages. Yet I have no comments on the second one. When other editors are free to edit without starting a talk pages then I should be also. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Stamps and currency

I removed a somewhat large paragraph covering details about stamps. The stamp images and captions offer enough information, and there are dedicated articles for the stamps if a reader wishes to know more about them. Feel free to revert if anyone feels this should be discussed first.
We are currently down to 98k of readable prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeping focused

We still have a bloated slavery section with undue weight being given to specific slaves (while we ignore Billy Lee) and legal details that offer nothing extra in terms of Washington overall relationship with slaves that hasn't already been communicated with numerous general ideas that are presently in this section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I have removed several secondary and specific names and legalities in the slavery section. However, I left the statement about Ona Judge in place, as you were led to believe this statement could be made in lieu of removing the neutrality tag. I had reconsiderations I had hoped to communicate to you. However, the Ona Judge statement should still be replaced with a general statement if you ever have a mind to do that, esp since we don't even mention Billy Lee. As a gesture of good will and so we can more easily move on I will no longer pursue the subject of Ona Judge. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers The whole article is bloated, not just the Slavery section. I believe your reduction suggestions make it appear as if slavery was not a central part to Washngton's lifestyle at Mount Vernon or that being a slave at Mount Vernon was not a hard life. Is that what you are trying to convey ? Washington said his was alone at Mount Vernon when he had around him hundreds of slaves. He did not consider the slaves to be people. Your language is also protectionist. I am against both protectionist and judgemental language in the article. The Ona Judge statement should not be replaced with a general statement. A book was written on the subject. It was not a minor thing because Washington did not want to portray himself completely as a Southern slave owner. He has abolitionist tendencies that he fullfilled in his 1799 will. Billy Lee does not have to be mentioned. What does Billy Lee have to do with Ona Judge ? Why does Billy Lee have to be mentioned ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You've been one of the major contributors to the article all along, and after making significant additions to the slavery section we have to listen your claims of "bloat". I said I wasn't going to pursue Ona Judge any further, yet you're still whining and obviously have no interest of resolving matters and moving on. Please review the explanations about this topic. You've completely ignored them, once again. Last, if Washington did not consider slaves as people, he wouldn't have asked them for their consent to split up families, wouldn't have personally tended to the sick, wouldn't have supported so many slaves that were not needed and wouldn't have directed Martha in his will to look after the sick and elderly after he was gone. The Washington biography obviously needs "protection" from the sort of blind and narrow estimations you just vented. Thanks for demonstrating the point for us.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Chernow 2010 page 111 said Washington wrote of being "at home all day alone" when he was surrounded by slaves at Mount Vernon. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ferling 2000 page 164 said that Washington spoke of blacks as "innately ignorant, shiftless, careless, deceitful, unconscionable, untrustworthy, and dishonest." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Slaves were not considered as people in the Constitution either. Chattell means property, not people. It is not to say that Washington did not have any sincere compassion on his slaves. He did describe blacks as individuals, noting their character traits. Ironically slaves were in his will, again as property. Only a 3rd of his slaves were allowed to be in a family type environment, but none of his slaves were legally married. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington didn't have to do anything he did for his slaves, regardless of his alleged opinions of these human beings, spiritual entities he no doubt was fully aware of. He kept them on, elderly, woman and children, even though he had no productive use for them. He didn't split up families and supported many dozens of slaves that he very well could have split up and have been done with. Further, it was the Constitution that provided the basis for abolition, thanks to slave owners like Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others. It seems irony is something you have a difficult time grasping. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My view that Washington did not view slaves as people was from Chernow who wrote that Washington said he was home alone when he was surrounded by slaves. He just viewed them as individual slaves, not people. Washington split up families when he was President. He took slaves from Mount Vernon to New York and Philadelphia. The Constitution was a slave document. It allowed slave owners to capture fugitive slaves and slaves were counted only as 3/4 persons. The Constitution allowed the slave trade to remain in full effect until 1808, or twenty years. There was no abolition clause in the Constitution. That simply is not true. An admendement could have abolished slavery, but the Southern states succeeded from the Union, and formed the Confederacy. Involuntary servitude (slavery) in the United States is still in effect today for punishment of a convicted crime according to the 13th Amendment. Whippings, families being split up, buying and selling slaves, sending them to the West Indies, and field labor, had taken place at Mount Vernon. Chernow did say Washington viewed slaves as individuals and gave examples of Washington giving them personal descriptions or character traits. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"The Constitution was a slave document"? It lacked specific amendments in several areas. This didn't make it a "slave document". Your choice of words here is really narrow. As for bringing certain slaves to Philadelphia to live in the Presidential mansion, you don't know if Washington didn't have their consent, or whether the slaves in question had families they were torn away from in the obvious manner you're suggesting. Chances are they jumped at the chance to live with the President in his mansion, rather than remain at Mt. Vernon doing regular work. All the sources say Washington didn't split up families, so I'll leave you with your wholesome opinion and the one sketchy exception you seem to be clinging to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." This clause protected slave owners including Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It's says "person", not slave, and the clause pertained to soldiers and prisoners. Slave owners of course took advantage of this clause, there's no denying that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." This reduced taxes on Southern slave owners and increased white representation in the House. The slaves could not vote. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It didn't "increase white representation" it just didn't provide for the voting of slaves. Let's also remember, that the ideas of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc formed the legal and moral basis to abolition. And it was slave owners like Jefferson who were among the first to advance reform, as they saw first hand the evils and ill effects this institution often had on slaves, slave owners and society in general. Before we get carried away, let's remember this is the Washington article, and our efforts should be directed at specific article improvement. if you would like to continue this thread we should take it to the United States Constitution or Slavery in the United States Talk pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For every one hundred slaves in the census that counted as 60 people in the population. Slaves could not vote, but this allowed more Southern whites in the Congress. Had the slaves not counted as 3/5th people then the Southerners would be under represented. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Some comments

I'll try to work through the article as time permits. Through the start of the military career.

• "and the Justice of the Westmoreland County Court.[5] " more likely one of them, rather than the only one, the way things worked in Colonial Virginia, any prominent landowner would be appointed.
• "Epsewasson" why is this italicized when Ferry Farm is not?

Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• "He spent much of his boyhood there, giving him his first experiences of a world beyond his boyhood haunts," These were his boyhood haunts apparently.

Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• "where tradition holds that he damaged his father's fabled cherry tree." is this really worth saying, as the tree had no substance beyond the fevered imagination of Parson Weems?

I've adjusted the text a bit - I do think it is important enough, especially to show how hagiographic stories about Washington were used to build the founding mythos of the United States.Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1751, Washington made his only trip abroad to Barbados with Lawrence," I would put "to Barbados" within commas to avoid ambiguity.

Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Washington eventually acquired" should the verb be "inherited"?

Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• A word or two on the need for surveyors for the large tracts of land in the western portion of the colony might be useful, and perhaps that this allowed a young man on the make the opportunity to spot the best lands.
• " and he continued to survey at different times throughout his life.[31]" After 1775? Really?

Apparently so. Take a look at this page in Chernow's book. Shearonink (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• On the false teeth, wasn't one set made by Paul Revere? Might be a useful mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• We know Paul Revere was a copper smith, but he did dental work too? If there's a source that nails this down it would be an interesting item for the biography and would contribute to the good writing and "engaging" prose, per FA criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Paul Revere did make false teeth/dentures but, according to The Real History of the American Revolution: A New Look at the Past by Alan Axelrod, Revere did not make GW's false teeth. At least some of Washington's dentures were made by a French dentist who became disgusted with the British and jumped sides to the Americans during the Revolutionary War. Shearonink (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I moved the new section, Land investments, with its redundant title, that was added to the very end of the narrative, for some reason, and combined it with the existing section, Colonial surveyor and land investor   I think it's understood that Washington, like anyone else, jumped on the chance to acquire land when the opportunity presented itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I have read land acquisition was one reason to for the American Revolutionary War. The King had prevented Washington from investing West of the Allegany Mountains. All wikipedia needs to do is state the facts and let the readers make their own opinions of Washington. That is why I thought it important to mention the extent of his land investments that did reach present day Kentucky. 70,000 acres is about the size of Amarillo, Texas by comparison. I don't mind the information being moved. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

What is interesting is that Ulysses S. Grant and Orville Babcock gets so much heat from historians for Santo Domingo. Wasn't Babcock just trying to make a buck with Santo Domingo land aquisition too ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the King's limit on land investment would indeed be another reason to break away from the crown, and would be worth a mention if we have a reliable source that spells this out in no uncertain terms, and can demonstrate due weight. Aside from mounting taxes to pay for a war the colonists largely fought, the colonists were forbidden to print currency also. Evidently the King frowned on free enterprise altogether. Even the Indians went to war with rival tribes over choice land. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Chernow 2010 pages 136-137 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Seizing Destiny: How America Grew from Sea to Shining Sea Richard Kluger (2007) Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"The King had prevented Washington from investing West of the Allegany Mountains." The Allegheny Mountains, not "Allegany". They are part of the wider Appalachian Mountains.

The relevant document here is the Royal Proclamation of 1763. "Issued October 7, 1763, by King George III following Great Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War. It forbade all settlement west of a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains, which was delineated as an Indian Reserve. This proclamation rendered worthless all land grants given by the government to British subjects who fought for the Crown against France. People throughout the various colonies were filled with indignation at having been unjustly shut out of the vast western wilderness and away from its resources. This anger was a foreshadowing of the discontent that would later arise during the American Revolution. The Royal Proclamation continues to be of legal importance to First Nations in Canada. The 1763 proclamation line is similar to the Eastern Continental Divide's path running northwards from Georgia to the Pennsylvania–New York border and north-eastwards past the drainage divide on the St. Lawrence Divide from there northwards through New England."

"Some Native American peoples—primarily in the Great Lakes region—had a long and close relationship with France, and were dismayed to find that they were now under British sovereignty. They missed the amicable relationship with the French, along with the gifts they bestowed upon them, neither of which they had with the British. Pontiac's Rebellion (1763–66), a war launched by a group of natives around the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley, was an unsuccessful effort by the western tribes to push the British back. However tribes were able to take over a large number of the forts which commanded the waterways involved in trade within the region and export to Great Britain. The Proclamation of 1763 had been in the works before Pontiac's Rebellion, but the outbreak of the conflict hastened the process. British officials hoped the proclamation would reconcile American Indians to British rule and help to prevent future hostilities."

"The lands west of Quebec and west of a line running along the crest of the Allegheny mountains became Indian territory, temporarily barred to settlement, to the great disappointment of the land speculators of Virginia and Pennsylvania, who had started the Seven Years' War to gain these territories." ... "British colonists and land speculators objected to the proclamation boundary since the British government had already assigned land grants to them. Many settlements already existed beyond the proclamation line, some of which had been temporarily evacuated during Pontiac's War, and there were many already granted land claims yet to be settled. For example, George Washington and his Virginia soldiers had been granted lands past the boundary. Prominent American colonials joined with the land speculators in Britain to lobby the government to move the line further west."

The Proclamation did not affect all the colonies, it mainly targeted the expansionist ambitions of the Province of Pennsylvania and the Colony of Virginia, and negated land grants to George Washington and the veterans who had served under his command. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Allegany" & "Allegheny" are both accepted variant spellings of the same term. While it is true Allegheny is used to describe the mountain range there are many places using Allegany. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And even "Alleghany". Shearonink (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not justifying the King's 1763 Proclamation. As far as the article goes for now, Washington is an "investor", rather than a "speculator". The American Revolution then was, in part, spurred on by speculation, or by a profit motivation. Washington was motivated by profit to break the King's 1763 edict in 1767. Again, I am not saying that is good or bad. Siezing land was a motivation for the American Revolutionary War. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"I am not justifying the King's 1763 Proclamation." Huh? I did not ask you to justify it. Just noting grievances in the aftermath of the French and Indian War. Dimadick (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

By "seizing" the land in question it strengthened national security, which of course was a major consideration whether one owned land or not. It would prevent the French, and esp, the British, from moving into the territories in question. They no doubt had the same motivations as Washington and others did, including Indians. If we're going to entertain 'Washington's desire for more land', we'll need to include this important context. At this point we should put some actual proposals on the table, per more than one reliable source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"per more than one reliable source" You don't see Gordon S. Wood and Jack M. Sosin as reliable sources? Why? Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : I didn't say they weren't. My emphasis was on a proposal, per more than one reliable source, ideally. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as land acquisition, it should only focus on Washington. How could Washington be thinking about national security in 1767, when there was no United States ? Land is worth money. Independence from Great Britain would allow Washington to profit from the sale of the lands he secretly obtained against the King's decree in 1763. However, this is not a referendum on Washington's land speculation. All the reader needs to know is that Washington was a land investor and how much land he acquired, regardless of national security of profiteering interests. Any motivations for profiteering would be speculation. The other issue is that Washington could only make profits on the sale of his lands. We don't know how often he sold lands to make money. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : "Siezing land was a motivation for the American Revolutionary War", sounds like a negative POV, typically out of context. The article already cover's Washington's acquisition of land, yet you still feel we need to expand on that idea more than we have. In fact, it seems we have given too much weight to this idea already and some more details need to be trimmed from the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the most pressing need of this article, currently, is trimming or streamlining. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Above is a discussion about adding more content — now we're having one about removing it? Talk pages should be reviewed before comments are made. A couple of editors have been making reductions and improvements all along, but there's a limit. (Potential) FA articles really shouldn't be reduced to B-class coverage because of a page length number. Good and comprehensive writing requires some space, esp when multiple subjects are involved. Please review FA criteria.
Also: "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length" -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The article size, readable prose, is currently 102kp. The Wikipedia limit is 100kb. I started a discussion on article length. No one responded on that issue specifically. First you say some more details need to be trimmed and then more content needs to be added. I could not find anything specific on expanding this article. In the last FA review article length was an issue, and now you want to trim/expand it ? Which one ? I thought the goal was to get George Washington to FA. Do you want another failure ? I don't. This article can be reduced without removing content. It seems you want to keep content you approve of and get rid of content you don't. Adding more content will surely increase the likely hood for another FA review failure. Don't you want to do what is in the best interest of getting an FA pass ? I do. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

editbreak3

It's like telling the quartermaster that the supply compound is too well stocked and that he'll get a medal if he'll cut back on the food and supplies the soldiers will get by getting rid of some of it. Which is more important, food and supplies, or the medal? It's unfortunate that some editors are willing to play musical chairs with the content just for the little gold star up in the corner. Unfortunate also because guidelines allows exceptions and for editors to use discretion. Unfortunate yet again, that a well written and comprehensive article might fail simply because it happens to go over a guideline number. That would be sort of a sad indictment on the way some reviewers might chose to conduct themselves. Don't know how were gonna get below 100k without throwing out a lot of 'supply'. Will go along with consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why can't the article have both content and FA. By the way words are not food and supplies. Words don't feed a starving horse, hay does. Words don't groom a horse, a brush does. Why is trimming the article such a bad idea ? As mentioned in the limited previous FA one reviewer mentioned the article needed trimming. There are main articles on Washington's presidency and his religion. A little star will increase this already popular article and make it more popular. Isn't that a good thing ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's what they call an analogy. You actually didn't get it? Yes, when the article gets to be FA it appears on the front page for one day, and the number of views goes up. Otoh, every 4th of July and on Washington's birthday, the number of views goes off the chart, twice a year. Washington is already popular. Why is allowing for exceptions like the Washington biography, the main Washington article, such a bad idea? — It's the only article that shows up in Google search results when someone searches for George Washington. If a reviewer is going to use this one idea to block a well written, well researched and comprehensive article from achieving FA we should stick together and explain that guidelines allows for exceptions and editor discretion. If that editor is going to be a dick about it we request another reviewer. I guess I'm dreaming out loud. Anyway, it gets a little trying when someone places more importance on a guideline number than they do the actual narrative. Again, I will go along with consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It would help to get Coemgenus and Rjensen on board. I have tried to do that. And yes I get it. You think the article is good enough for FA as is. I don't think it is right now, and the FA reviewer was correct. Only GB seemed to be hyper critical. Rutherford B. Hayes and Ulysses S. Grant have FA stars. Shouldn't George Washington ? More trimming is needed in the article. It looks bloated in some areas. One historian told me that good history has the most context, but said with the fewest of words. I don't like a defensive approach to editing on Wikipedia. Washington does not need to be defended or made to look good by editors. Washington was who he was. We can't change the past. I have made efforts on the Religion section. Slavery could use some reduction too. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To quote WP:HASTE: Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage.

So, that being said, maybe we should take a look at some other featured articles about controversial political figures -

• Barack Obama - Page length (in bytes) 336,425, File size: 1320 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 159 kB, References (including all HTML code): 19 kB, Wiki text: 329 kb, Prose size (text only): 77 kB (12642 words) aka "readable prose size", References (text only): 2491 B
• Pope Francis - Page length (in bytes) 332,222, File size: 1232 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 208 kB, References (including all HTML code): 24 kB, Wiki text: 324 kB, Prose size (text only): 116 kB (19201 words) aka "readable prose size", References (text only): 3093 B
• Hillary Clinton - Page length (in bytes) 286,246, File size: 1146 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 185 kB, References (including all HTML code): 28 kB, Wiki text: 280 kB, Prose size (text only): 99 kB (16018 words) aka "readable prose size", References (text only): 3302 B
• Ronald Reagan - Page length (in bytes) 243,247, File size: 1083 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 171 kB, References (including all HTML code): 19 kB, Wiki text: 238 kB, Prose size (text only): 95 kB (15603 words) aka "readable prose size", References (text only): 2496 B
• George Washington - Page length (in bytes)199,719, File size: 813 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 164 kB, References (including all HTML code): 26 kB, Wiki text: 195 kB, Prose size (text only): 102 kB (16373 words) aka "readable prose size", References (text only): 2016 B
• Andrew Jackson - Page length (in bytes) 190,333, File size: 677 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 157 kB, References (including all HTML code): 20 kB, Wiki text: 186 kB, Prose size (text only): 98 kB (16048 words) aka "readable prose size", References (text only): 1821 B

That's all. Shearonink (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Those articles are too large and should be split up. This is about getting George Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Shearonink affirms the ideas I've outlined. We shouldn't behave like the article is going to assume critical mass should it go over the line in the sand that guidelines recommends for the average article. This is not a biography about 'Senator Smith'. There are exceptional articles indeed, and it would seem the Washington biography presents us with 'the' classic exception. Our priorities should be focused on comprehensive coverage. As long as the narrative isn't redundant and acutely tangential (context is a must for the intelligent reader) there should be no issues here. Again, guidelines allows for exceptions. As experienced and knowledgeable editors, per subject matter, it would seem it is our responsibility to remind any reviewer that is going to place page length over comprehensive coverage that page length guidelines makes allowances for exceptional articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Where did Shearonink find that data? How do I find it?

So, the Obama article is 3/4 as long as the GW. Pope Francis is too long. Hillary's, Reagan's, and Jackson's are just shy of the upper limit, which GW's slightly exceeds. YoPienso (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My take-away here is that this article should be slightly pared. These other very important biographies are FAs and stay within the guidelines, with the exception of Pope Francis's, which is not FA and exceeds the guideline by 16 kB. YoPienso (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The readable prose for Barack Obama is 77 kb. The readable prose for Andrew Jackson is 98 kb. The readable prose for Ronald Reagan is 95 kb. Trimming this article, in my opinion, will get this article to FA status. George Washington deserves to be FA just as much as any other presidents. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The readable prose for George Washington is 102 kb. When the article is trimmed, no reviewer can say "no pass" because the article is too large. For this article I would say 98kb would be a reasonable goal. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My point was that we are focusing on "readable prose" when what we really should also be keeping in mind is WP:CHOKING "Total article size should be kept reasonably low". GW isn't the worst offender on page length & file size: all these articles are FA and they all passed... Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make sense; Obama, Clinton, Francis, and Reagan are all considerably LONGER overall than this one, and Jackson somewhat shorter, and yet they are FA. Seems like all we have to worry about is readable prose size.

Can you please tell me how to access this data myself? Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Install & Run User:Dr pda/prosesize.

See Page information over to the left of every Wikipedia page.

(FYI: WP:CHOKING says there are ~2,000 lists or articles larger than 200 kB, the largest being ~830 kB (as of June 2018). Special:LongPages shows the currently largest articles - mostly lists). - Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is concerned about readable prose, not overall size. The rp of 98kb I beleive is a good compromise. It is under the 100kb limit. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size states Wikipedia editors should be concerned about both.

"There are three related measures of an article's size:

• Readable-prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections,
• Wiki markup size: the amount of text in the full page edit window, as shown in the character count of the edit history page,
• Browser-page size: the total size of the page as loaded by a web browser." Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Shearonink, but I couldn't do it. All I can find regarding size is the page length in bytes. I also found User:Dr pda/prosesize.js and User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js but they are unintelligible to me. YoPienso (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Go to User:Dr pda/prosesize - you have to install it on your .js script page. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you already said that, and I already tried it. You over-estimate my computer literacy. I have no idea what a common.js script page is or where it may be lurking, so how can I possibly open it? I dutifully created this, to no avail. YoPienso (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yopienso: I can set it up on your vector.js page if you want. Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Blur... The biography here is only 2k over the guideline limit. Since page guidelines allows for exceptions for exceptional articles none of this is really an issue unless someone prefers to make it an issue. Why are we not taking advantage of this provision that Wikipedia has provided for us? This is one of the reasons why FA reviews can be so tacky, i.e.argumentative editors fixating on one guideline while ignoring others:
        "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length"
Not to mention Featured article criteria :
         • well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
         • comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
         • well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;
How many of these things are we going to ignore as we continue our obsession with a page length guideline? Our collective energy should be aimed at the readers and a well written narrative. Instead we're playing math games with a guideline -- one that allows editors to go ahead and write a well written and contextual narrative. This peevish and endless talk isn't about article improvement, it's about doing math in order to get a gold star to gloat at. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Shearonink, thanks for your time and effort and attempts to bring common sense and discretion to the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thank you. How @ we trim maybe 1K & see how that looks? Think @ if 1 or 2K is really the WP-"hill you want to die on" with this article... Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Even if we trim 1 or 2 k of prose we are still faced with the same obsession at the hand of various individuals. During the FA nomination of June 24 the article was at 98k of readable prose, and we still were subjected to comments about length. I suspect we could chop off another 10k of prose and chances are we'd still hear comments about the math. This is ridiculous. We will forever be at the whim of anyone who up and decides that the article is too long unless we collectively point out that guidelines allows for exceptions for exceptional articles, and that we simply need the room to write an article that doesn't over look major details and covers the narrative in a well written and comprehensive manner. There are numerous dedicated articles for Washington but they are for in depth coverage -- they are not a dumping ground for basic and contextual summary coverage we otherwise would chop away from this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That is true. 98 kbs was too large. Thanks for the reminder Gwillhickers. The article is current at 99 kbs last I checked. I would only suggest going down to 95 kbs. We can still keep content at 95 kbs. That is a good number. I don't think major details will be over looked at 95 kbs. We can say the article has been reduced from 98 kbs to 95 kbs or 3 kbs from the last FA. I am only for reducing the article enough to get an FA review. At the same time, I think there would be a quality article at 95 kbs, and that is under the Wikipedia cap of 100 kbs by 5 kbs. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's because I just trimmed it. I do not agree that more content must or should be removed but let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Shearonink. I would say 95 kbs would be the optimal reader prose size. This article will not pass FA unless FA reviewers believe the article is a reasonable length, but at 95 kbs I think there would be no complaints. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

editbreak4

We're only hoping and guessing here. Guidelines exceptions are also reasonable. If we pooled together, and explained to any reviewer that came along and decided to review the biography, about the situation we are dealing with, an exceptional subject, covering many topics involving Washington and the pre Revolution, the Revolution itself, and the post Revolution / Presidency eras, we could carry the biography to FA. We should make the attempt. We would be setting a WP precedent that very well could lead to a reexamination of page length guidelines that too many editors equate with WP policy. In order to chop the biography down to 95k, just how much context are we going to omit? It's a gamble. We could reduce the article by 10, even 20k, and any reviewer that happened along could very well hold the existing article size up as a 'rEaSoN' to fail the nomination. It would seem this preoccupation with a guideline number has caused enough instability and has compromised the narrative for too long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How about we all move along and concentrate on

• sources - do they all check out? are they all 'according to Hoyle'?,
• narrative structure - does the structure make sense? does it flow easily?, and
• guard against content creep (keeping in mind page size & possible article bloat) - if text is added 1) it has to be really important & 2)other text should most probably be removed.

and together we can deal with whatever the review is when it actually happens.

Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we can keep content and get to 95 kbs. I don't think we should be pressured to keep going lower on article size. There needs to be shown some effort that the article has been reduced in size from 98 kbs, in my opinion. The Final days section can be trimmed. That is bloated in my opinion. There is too much information. As far as I know there really is not that much controversy, except possibly, that lack, or too much of, medical treatment, or not performing the tracheotomy. There were no modern medical procedures that could have helped Washington survive. Washington's condition at that time even today could have been difficult to handle, but I suspect he would have survived. I made some trimming on the Slavery section. Trimming the article is half the battle. All we really want from FA review is a thurough review of the article and for the article to pass. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

too much information?". Washington was 1) basically bled to death and 2) he was given severe laxatives and 3)the cathartics/purgatives/laxatives (calomel and tartar) were administered rectally etc., etc. People were so interested in how Washington died that 2 of his drs took the extraordinary step of publishing a very graphic account of his dying-hours five days after his death. Controversy is not the issue, but enough information is....besides, that section was already trimmed. I do think trimmed versions of the article need to sit a bit (consensus!) before we possibly continue to cut. Shearonink (talk)

I've made some reverts. I was rather shocked at the amount of info, major details and important context that were just swept away without a discussion, per topic. One controversial idea about slavery and punishment was completely turned around. We can not go on and edit the article on a mathematical basis. In some cases I feel that I was just talking to the wind all this time. If we can make reductions in text without removing context and important details, fine. Page length is a guideline. Please stop treating it as a rigid and unyielding policy. If a reviewer makes an issue, we explain, we don't just roll over. Many long articles have passed FA reviews. As a compromise I am willing to keep the article at or just under 100k, so long as we don't trash the narrative in the process of getting there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is now at 100k. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean repeating the same information twice, such as doctors attending his slaves sicknesses ? And I had thought you Gwillhickers had said just state the facts. That is what I did. My edits on slavery are meant to be neutral, not to defend or be judgemental concerning Washington and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't pretend to be naive. By including some facts and leaving out others one can give a less than accurate picture of the situation. It's become almost an automated response with some individuals to say we're 'defending Washington', or 'apologizing', anytime something positive is said regarding Washington's treatment of slaves. FA criteria says we present the subject in context. You were removing much of it. Thanks for deleting the redundant sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone checked sources lately? ok then.... Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There are still some that don't use the sfn convention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The article does say Washington freed his slaves. That is a positive treatment. Even the Mount Vernon Ladies Association says Washington had often had his slaves whipped or he made threats, in addition to actually sending them, to the West Indies. Even Chernow said Washington viewed slaves as commodities or property. For the sake of compromise, it probably is best to leave the slavery section as is, for now. Back to 95 kbs. It is my view that is the optimal number for getting Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the context that deflates that modern day notion is that Washington kept families together and supported many more slaves than he actually needed, while giving them religious holidays and Sunday's off, two hours off in the middle of the day, while instructing his overseers not to use sever punishment. If you prefer to think Washington viewed his slaves as lawn furniture that is your privilege, so long as you don't try to pass this distortion off on the readers.
95k is math. If we should encounter a reviewer that is not familiar with guideline exceptions we educate the reviewer and explain a few realities involved with writing about an involved and exceptional subject in a comprehensive and contextual capacity. This is easier accomplished when we have our priorities straight. i.e. Readers first. — Sorry about the curt tone, but this tends to happen when one's discussions are routinely ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Lawn ornaments" I was only referencing Chernow and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. Are we to ignore FA reviewers ? I never said Washington thought his slaves were "lawn ornaments". Any personal opinions I have of Washington and slavery are not to be in the article. Let's say Washington was a tough guy slave owner. Generals are not known to be nice people, but rather fighters. Does that make him a bad person ? Let the reader decide. This article is suppose to present Washington as he was, not who we want him to be. Here is what Chernow 2010 page 356 said "Clearly slaves were just another form of salable property for Washington, and the only question was what price they fetched and the interest of the money." Tough words. I did not say them. Chernow 2010 did. Back to FA, the article needs to be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The Talk page should be reviewed before comments are made. I said "lawn furniture" to make the point. Also, I didn't say that we ignore reviewers, only that we correct them if they confuse a guideline with a WP:policy inasmuch as they would use this as the sole reason to fail the nomination. Most reviewers, at least I'm hoping, wouldn't do that, unless of course they're reaching for ways to block the nomination, perhaps because of an extreme bias. Anyway, no one is saying that the narrative should say Washington is a "nice guy"; no doubt he was a real pain at times, like most people who are less than saints. Chernow has much more to say about Washington's regard for slaves than the one sentence you've posted here. He sort of contradicts himself, in this instance, when he says "...'just' another form of salable property."   "just"?   If that were entirely true Washington wouldn't have given so much attention to the sick, or split up families whenever it was financially convenient, or have supported so many slaves he didn't need to run the plantation. Our own biography is filled with other statements about Washington and slaves, some by Chernow who points out that Washington personally looked after sick slaves and had them all inoculated for small pox, which again, deflates the modern day notion that's often advanced by the media and others. We've included nothing but facts, and have not omitted anything important, as was done with one of your recent edits. It seems we've been through this often enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers I have reviewed the talk pages. I was the one who started a talk on page length. Almost everything on this article needs your approval. That makes editing on this page almost impossible. The best thing to do is just edit. No more talking. Good luck with your article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments

Still working on a run-through of the article:

• "an annual salary of 100 pounds" I find this interesting, as from my researches for Patrick Henry, I know salaries in Virginia then were often expressed in terms of quantities of tobacco. Was Washington's, and is this a conversion?
• "asking French commander Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre at Fort Le Boeuf to vacate the Ohio Valley, and providing him with a safe escort to Lake Erie. " I might say "offering" for "providing"

 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Washington then reached Fort Le Boeuf and delivered the letter to its commander, who replied that Dinwiddie should send his demand to the Major General of New France in its capital at Quebec City.[46]" I might conclude (after "New France") "at its capital, Quebec City".
• "On March 15, 1754, Dinwiddie commissioned Washington, at age 20 as a Lieutenant Colonel in the newly formed Virginia Regiment and sent him on his second Ohio Country expedition to safeguard construction of a fort at Pittsburgh. " He was aged 22. I might phrase thus, "On March 15, 1754, Dinwiddie commissioned Washington, then age 22, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the newly formed Virginia Regiment and sent him on his second Ohio Country expedition to safeguard construction of a fort at present-day Pittsburgh." It might be useful to mention why control of that site was so important.
• "He then led his militia unit" were they technically militia by the standards of the time?

 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Given the general success of Washington's career, it's important not to gloss over too quickly his mistakes. I would say more about the errors he made at Fort Necessity.

• more content? - I dunno...the article is already at 100kb of readable prose... Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "on the ill-fated Braddock expedition." you capitalize in the headnote immediately before.

 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "a primary column and a second, more lightly equipped and mobile "flying column" offensive.[58]" I'm not sure that "offensive" should be the noun here, it doesn't match up well with the "primary column"

 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Commander" has the word "but" four times in three sentences, including twice in one sentence, which I would advise against.

 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• "construction of a road connecting Fort Fredrick and Fort Cumberland," Are you sure you have the right Fort Frederick here? You link to one in Albany, New York. I would think this more likely had to do with Frederick, Maryland.

• sort of "fixed" but...looking at it closely now, the phrase doesn't quite make sense to me..."connecting Fort Fredrick and Fort Cumberland"??? Forbes Road ran from Carlisle, Pa/Fort Littleton to Pittsburgh/Fort Duquesne. The only "Fort Frederick" the source could/might be referring to is Fort Frederick State Park - why would he be working on a road miles and miles and a mtn range away from Forbes Road? Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "and was involved in North American politics.[84]" maybe "and moved events in North American politics."
• "Uncommon for his times, Washington, exhibited religious toleration, while he attended services of different denominations, and suppressed anti-Catholic celebrations in the Army.[86] "there is a problem with this sentence near the start.
• You seem inconsistent in capitalizing "masonic". Also "Custis Estate"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777 & Gwillhickers (+ Hoppyh and any other interested editors) - Since Wehwalt has been so kind as to review the article, can we all work through his suggestions above? Thx. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

More comments. I'm sorry for the slow pace, but RL has been busy and I'm in the course of scheduling September TFA.

• "since half of her inheritance passed to him.[112]" I would use "estate" rather than "inheritance"
• "In 1763, Washington was upset by a Royal Proclamation that banned American settlement West of the Alleghany Mountains, to protect the British Fur trade.[116] " I would lower case "West" and "Fur"
• You link George Mason in consecutive paragraphs.

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• "On July 4, 1776 the Second Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence from Britain, " well, the only member who signed on July 4, as I understand it, was Hancock, with many signing in August.
• "He declined a salary in his acceptance speech but received reimbursement of expenses for which he fully accounted.[130]" If I recall correctly, he was not paid back for most of it until after the war.
• " The American colonists were divided between the Patriots, who broke from the King and his Parliament, and the Loyalists, who wanted to remain under the protection of the King and his Parliament.[132]" I don't think it was that stark. Many people were fairly indifferent. I might use them as the far ends of a range of opinion.
• "In January 1776, Washington started with new recruits, since soldiers left the Army after their enlistments expired.[131] " I might say"again" after "started"

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• "as General Lee was captured by the British while having an affair with his mistress.[158]" I would change "affair" to "assignation", since I gather the point was it happened during one meeting.
• "Patriot army retreated into northeast New Jersey," they were already there as Fort Lee is in northeast New Jersey. I would change "into" to "through"

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The other British" I might say, "the remaining British"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)