Talk:George Washington/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
GW as modern-day Cincinnatus/hagiography
There are a few statements in the article that raised questions for me when I read them:
- "As the apprehensive Washington and party headed to Boston..." in the "Commander in chief" section (why was he apprehensive?);
- "After the war, Washington did not wish to involve himself in the political matters of the nation" in the "Constitutional Convention" section;
- "Washington had 'anxious and painful sensations' over leaving the 'domestic felicity' of Mount Vernon..." in the "First presidential election" section.
These all hint, to me at least, at a man who only reluctantly accepted public service. This is actually a theme in some historical leaders that has its origins in the 5th century BC Roman leader Cincinnatus. I did a little digging, and found that GW is often compared to Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus and the Citizen-Servant Ideal devotes a chapter to "America's Cincinnatus: George Washington", and the article currently quotes only indirectly from Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment by Garry Wills. I then found The Invention of George Washington by Paul K. Longmore, who talks on p. 32 of "tactics" that GW used in his "...more sophisticated and subtle performances at the times of his appointment to command the Continental Army, his selection as a delegate to the Consitutional Convention, and his two elections to the presidency". I'm left wondering whether the article is, in those statements I list above, subtely perpetuating a myth of GW as humble farmer who only reluctantly took up public service, when in fact he was an ambitious man who cultivated this image in order to secure the positions he sought? Certainly I would be more interested in reading about this aspect of GW's life than his physical characteristics, favourite animals, preferred leisure activities, etc. Factotem (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly historians, Washington, and Knox created this myth. The history of Cincinnatus is sketchy. The comparison between the two is sketchy. It is a fact that Knox started the Society of Cincinnatus. That should be in the article. I moved one historical commentary to Washington's reputation section. I think it is the idea that Washington did not set himself up as a "king" or "dictator" that historians laud. But then the article says Washington was for a strong central government and the office of the presidency is "Commander in Chief". The problem is editors have to go by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- There needs to be some source that says Washington was ambitious and that Washington being compared to Cincinnatus is a myth. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Longmore, who is not used as a source, talks of GW's "intentional shaping of his public and historic self", his "inventiveness as a political actor and leader", and describes him as an "ambitious frontier soldier and provincial politician" who played a "deliberate part in...historical events...with increasing skill and sophistication as a political leader" and became "politically shrewd" and a "consumate political leader and public actor" (pp. ix-x). Then, on p. 32 Longmore enumerates the tactics that GW used to secure each of the appointments he did: "He carefully regards appearances; how will his audience perceive and interpret his conduct? He protests his inadequacy. He avoids actively soliciting the job. And finally, by making the offer come to him, rather than promoting himself, he increases his influence and authority." Is this aspect of GW's life properly covered in the article? Factotem (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- There needs to be some source that says Washington was ambitious and that Washington being compared to Cincinnatus is a myth. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly historians, Washington, and Knox created this myth. The history of Cincinnatus is sketchy. The comparison between the two is sketchy. It is a fact that Knox started the Society of Cincinnatus. That should be in the article. I moved one historical commentary to Washington's reputation section. I think it is the idea that Washington did not set himself up as a "king" or "dictator" that historians laud. But then the article says Washington was for a strong central government and the office of the presidency is "Commander in Chief". The problem is editors have to go by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Insert : It almost seems Longhorn is attempting to portray Washington as little more than an unprincipled schemer. Like all politicians and military leaders, maintaining one's reputation is important if you want to command respect and maintain authority. Washington no doubt wasn't any different, and his attempts to protect his reputation really isn't anything amazing. Seems to me if Washington was such an enterprising individual he wouldn't have given up power at the end of the War and he would have ran for yet another term as president, i.e.a prospect which he could have easily won. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "...and that Washington being compared to Cincinnatus is a myth". That GW has been compared to Cincinnatus cannot be disputed, given the publications I identify in the post above. The myth, if indeed there is one, is of GW being portrayed as a humble citizen who selflessly and perhaps reluctantly answered his nascent country's call to duty and, once done, surrendered all power to return gratefully to his real calling as a farmer, when in fact he was an ambitious political actor who actively sought these positions and manoeuvred to get them. Factotem (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that Cincinnatus was portrayed as a humble farmer who answered the call of duty, and that Washington was compared to this historical person, to hide his ambition. That is the myth. I can't even say Washington was a humble farmer. He meticulously kept track of his slaves and he designed the "farm" to be profitable or at least break even. He refused to free any of his slaves, or replace his slaves, with modern equipment, or hired workers. Washington returned to his slave plantation, not a "farm." As far as Longmore is concerned I have no opposition to Longmore being used as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- "I was under the impression that Cincinnatus was portrayed as a humble farmer who answered the call of duty, and that Washington was compared to this historical person, to hide his ambition." No, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a patrician and Roman Senator, and a dedicated opponent of the plebeians (the common citizens) and their efforts to acquire political rights. But he reportedly fell into poverty due to having to pay a huge fine for the crimes of his son: "his father subjected to a huge punitive fine, forcing him to sell most of his estates and to retire from public life to personally work a small farm". However when the Roman Republic seemed to be loosing its war against the Aequi, the Roman Senate appointed Cincinnatus as the new Dictator and authorized him to lead the army into war. He reportedly managed to win the war in only 15 days, and abdicated his office immediately, in order to return to his farm. He was praised for not using his office for personal profit. Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that Cincinnatus was portrayed as a humble farmer who answered the call of duty, and that Washington was compared to this historical person, to hide his ambition. That is the myth. I can't even say Washington was a humble farmer. He meticulously kept track of his slaves and he designed the "farm" to be profitable or at least break even. He refused to free any of his slaves, or replace his slaves, with modern equipment, or hired workers. Washington returned to his slave plantation, not a "farm." As far as Longmore is concerned I have no opposition to Longmore being used as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "...and that Washington being compared to Cincinnatus is a myth". That GW has been compared to Cincinnatus cannot be disputed, given the publications I identify in the post above. The myth, if indeed there is one, is of GW being portrayed as a humble citizen who selflessly and perhaps reluctantly answered his nascent country's call to duty and, once done, surrendered all power to return gratefully to his real calling as a farmer, when in fact he was an ambitious political actor who actively sought these positions and manoeuvred to get them. Factotem (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Factotem here. Washington was compared to Cincinnatus for simple reasons, i.e.a man who gave up power voluntarily and returned to his farm and a simpler life. Washington went through great lengths to disassociate himself from the idea of a military dictator, an idea he thought completely in contrast to republicanism. King George even praised Washington for stepping down. This is not rocket science, many sources mention this, including Ferling, Chernow, Brumwell, Flexner and others. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a 'biography' of Washington that didn't mention this. Cmguy777, I'm not understanding your desire to find a source that specifically tries to write off the comparison to Cincinnatus as some sort of myth. Again, if Washington was this ambitious individual he would have not given up command and would have ran for a third term as president. The fact that he always led his troops from the front, not from behind, also undermines the notion that Washington was simply an ambitious and selfish individual. We should of course keep the idea of hagiography in mind, but this doesn't mean we don't cover Washington's many good points, while reaching for ways to diminish them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm not suggesting that GW was "simply an ambitious and selfish individual", any more than I find it acceptable to portray him only as a humble private citizen who only reluctantly accepted public office. These things are always a question of nuance and balance, something which I can't help feeling the article currently lacks on this issue. The sources I have read discuss GW's ambition (and in addition to Longmore, the chapter titled "Washington as Cincinnatus: A Model of Leadership" in Fishman, Pederson and Rozell's George Washington: Foundation of Presidential Leadership and Character, already used as a source, is pertinent). The article, however, references ambition only twice, once as an accusation levelled by "political foes and a partisan press" at the end of his second term as president, and once in the title of a book listed in the bibliography. I don't believe personal ambition and selfless public service are mutually exclusive attributes, and it does not diminish GW's reputation or legacy to discuss his ambition. Factotem (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- re: "the apprehensive Washington..." -- Added clarity to this statement i.e.This was to be Washington's first military encounter with the British during the revolution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- re: "After the war, Washington did not wish to involve himself in the political matters." -- This idea is established immediately after the war where Washington relinquished command, wanting simply to return to his farm. As an opening sentence in the Constitutional Convention (following) section, this idea is reiterated – no need to repeat the idea at this juncture other than to say he didn't want to get involved with political matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is the sort of statement that leads me to suspect the article buys into the Cincinnatus legend when it should be giving a better insight into GW's political style. The source provided for that statement nowhere says that GW "did not wish to involve himself in the political matters of the nation" (my emphasis). It basically says that GW was reluctant to attend the Constitutional Convention for the following reasons:
- He was concerned that attending the convention would sully his reputation if too many states refused to send representatives and thus transform the convention into a fiasco;
- He was conscious that many people were suspicious that the convention would lead to the destruction of the states and the erosion of the changes achieved by the revolution.
- He wasn't sure that the convention was legal
- "...given his obsession with not being seen as grasping for power—[GW] might have been reluctant to be a part of a convention that would create the office he would occupy."
- These reasons, particularly the last, are revealing. Far from showing a figure who "did not wish to be involved in the political matters of the nation", they indicate someone who is being very calculating about his involvement in the political matters of the nation. Factotem (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is the sort of statement that leads me to suspect the article buys into the Cincinnatus legend when it should be giving a better insight into GW's political style. The source provided for that statement nowhere says that GW "did not wish to involve himself in the political matters of the nation" (my emphasis). It basically says that GW was reluctant to attend the Constitutional Convention for the following reasons:
- re: "Washington had 'anxious and painful sensations' over leaving the 'domestic felicity' of Mount Vernon..." The same holds true here. After the war Washington wanted little to do with public life and political responsibilities, so leaving his home and experiencing "anxious and painful sensations" I would think is understood at this point in the narrative. Besides, this idea is explained by the phrase in the very sentence in question : i.e. "...leaving the 'domestic felicity' of Mount Vernon..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- re: The address of "Excellency". Before Howe moved on New York where Washington and his army were held up, he sent a dispatch to Washington and addressed him as "Esquire", a civilian or non military title. Washington refused the letter, insisting that he be addressed as General. It seems for the same reason he shunned the term "Excellency", esp since he shunned things that suggested royalty, but after checking a fair number of sources I couldn't nail this one (Excellency) down, so I removed the term from our narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cincinattus fought one battle. Washington was in charge of the military for eight years. Quite a difference. Wikipedia should not be perpetutating a Cincinattus hagiography. Cincinattus was a dictator who was against the plebes. I thought there was agreement to get rid of hagiography, not add to it. Hagiography was a concern brought up in article's FA review. Washington was ambitious. You don't lede a revolution against the British Empire and not be ambitious. Cincinattus never led a revolution. Cincinattus fought for Rome, not against it. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- We are not being hagiographic by citing historians, among many, along with Washington's contemporaries, who have compared Washington to Cincinnatus for relinquishing command, regardless of the difference in time involved in military service, etc, between the two. Let's not confuse relating the facts with hagiography. Let's not try to blur that distinction either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, Factotem is referring to the tone of the entire article, not the citing of individual historians, thus he cites things like the "apprehensive". Washington, traditionally, has been portrayed as someone who had to be dragged away from Mount Vernon to the army and the presidency. It could, I suppose, be argued that reluctant people don't show up to the Continental Congress in full military uniform.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thankyou Wehwalt. The comparison to Cincinnatus has been made more than once in the sources. The article discusses this in the "Demobilization and resignation" section, and that may be all that is necessary on that aspect. The snippets I've read of Longmore's book suggest that there was a political acumen to GW that is not covered in the article. They suggest that he consciously cultivated the appearance of being reluctant to accept public office in order to strengthen his authority and influence in public office. There is, I'm sure, a great deal of nuance to this; I don't doubt that he did actually find leaving his wife and home difficult. And I don't see it as any kind of hatchet job on GW's reputation to include this aspect, but rather yet another aspect of his career that he performed with great skill. Factotem (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would be careful placing too much weight on the speculation of any historian who seems to believe that Washington "cultivated" the appearance of reluctance. That Washington gave up command and later turned down a chance at a third presidential term more than undermines this notion. Best to stick to the established facts and let readers make up their own minds regarding notions of this sort. It takes no stretch of the imagination to appreciate that after a long and bloody war, Washington just wanted to return to a simple life. There are plenty of facts that say Washington was understandably reluctant -- only notions and assumptions, nothing concrete, that suggest he wasn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- It would seem the burden of proof would be on the ones making the claim. I see none to speak of. Is it your intention to say that a given historian claims Washington was only "cultivating" reluctance, deceiving his friends and contemporaries, with nothing to support it? Washington didn't have to put on airs to keep power or run for a third term. Most of his contemporaries wanted him to remain as commander, and later, as president. As for general claims about a hagiographic tone to the article, we are going to need specifics. I see no embellishments or exaggerations being made in the prose. e.g.Saying, The heroic and brave Washington gallantly fought on the front lines, would be hagiographic. Simply stating that Washington fought on the front lines is not. If there is specific prose that is obviously hagiographic I'll be among the first to render it neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying he was only cultivating reluctance. The article seems to rely heavily on the Cincinnatus legend to explain GW's political motivations, when Historians appear to be saying that it is more complex and nuanced than that. I've already provided sources that discuss GW's political modus operandi and three examples where it seems to me the article demonstrates this bias towards the Cincinnatus legend. Of these, the most obvious is the start of the "Constitutional Convention" section and the statement that "After the war, Washington did not wish to involve himself in the political matters." I explain in this edit (later edited slightly, and still awaiting a response) how that episode was more nuanced than a Cincinnatus-like private citizen being persuaded to take a reluctant role in politics. Factotem (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, Factotem is referring to the tone of the entire article, not the citing of individual historians, thus he cites things like the "apprehensive". Washington, traditionally, has been portrayed as someone who had to be dragged away from Mount Vernon to the army and the presidency. It could, I suppose, be argued that reluctant people don't show up to the Continental Congress in full military uniform.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers. Hagiography is an issue with this article. All modern historical opinion should be put in the reputation section. Longmore's view should be allowed in the reputation section. The fact is Washington did not fight one battle during the Revolution and then retire like Cincinnatus. He showed up at the Congress in uniform ready to fight. Washington was Commander in Chief for eight years and then retired. Washington returned to service as President of the United States and served for two terms. He did not run for a third term because he did not think he could get elected. I think there is room for compromise and the talk does not need to be heated by arguement. Washington's retirement after the Revolutionary War is signifigant and noteworthy. His comparison to Cincinattus could have been used for political benefit as suggested by Longmore. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- According to Washington's American National Biography entry, "The act of laying down his arms astonished the Western world and won him even greater admiration than his generalship had earned him. Europeans and Americans alike, steeped in the history of military usurpations from Caesar to Cromwell, could scarcely believe that a victorious general would voluntarily surrender his command. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The moderation and virtue of one man probably prevented this Revolution from being closed by a subversion of the liberty it was intended to establish.” In America, Washington was hailed as the Father of His Country; in Europe he was heralded as the greatest man of the age."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I may not be able to complete the reading required this week, but I think an important source to hear from will be Matthew J. Flynn and Stephen E.Griffin Washington and Napoleon: Leadership in the Age of Revolution (2011, Potomac Books, University of Nebraska) - the “Look Inside” feature online at Amazon features an extended excerpt from the book’s introduction.
- Flynn and Griffin posit that both men were personally ambitious and both sought to bring Enlightenment ideals to realization in their respective countries. But the social and political context in each led to differing measures and policies. From my first scan, it seems as though the authors end up arguing that Washington in France would have become a despotic Napoleon, and Napoleon in America would have become a republican Washington.
- I believe that the impact on this discussion would reinforce the representation of George Washington as the Cincinnatus of the U.S. republic — one who deferred to constitutional civil authority by (1) resigning his military office rather than surround the Congress and seizing the national government as Cromwell had Parliament as the Newburgh conspirators proposed to him, and then later (2) voluntarily relinquishing his national office as “commander in chief” in contradistinction with Julius Caesar who was duly elected dictator of the Roman Republic by its Senate, then a usurper of lawful Roman governance as a “dictator in perpetuity”, lauded by his partisan-appointee Senators with the honorific, “Father of the Fatherland”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- "than surround the Congress and seizing the national government as Cromwell had Parliament" Much different circumstances here. The New Model Army (1645-1660) was a mix of professional soldiers and religious zealots, who were personally loyal to their generals and shared some of their "radical" views towards the reformation of the political system. The Continental Army (1775-1783) was a mix of regular soldiers and militia members, raised and mostly financed by individual British colonies. Their loyalty to Washington was not guaranteed.
- "Julius Caesar who was duly elected dictator of the Roman Republic by its Senate" Caesar ceased power during Caesar's Civil War (49-45 BC). Most of the soldiers loyal to him, were the veterans from the Gallic Wars (58–50 BC) who had fought under his command for much of their military career and were willing to support his rise to power. Caesar could also rely on the Populares political faction, which favoured the cause of the plebeians (the commoners) and wanted major reforms. Most of Caesars' opponentrs belonged to the Optimates political faction, which championed the cause of the patricians and were highly conservative. They did not have that much support from the average Roman citizen. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- There could be endless comparisons of Washington and Persons A B and C. This article should focus on what Washington did. Washington led a colonial rebellion against a British King and Parliment. Since we are involved in speculation, the closest person Washington resembles is Cromwell, who overthrew Charles I's Army and executed Charles I. In fact, Cromwell's Puritan regime was in part why Washington's ancestor migrated to America. Washington and the Colonial Army with the help of France overthrew the King's Army in an eight year war. Washington resigned. That has been duly noted. His comparison to Cincinnatus was in part political as Longmore (1999) suggests. That should be in the article in the reputation section. Washington was President of his own Society. That would show ambition. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I stipulate that George Washington was (a) personally ambitious socially and financially, (b) physically brave and an effective leader both administratively and at combat both as a commander and as a leader directly under fire, and (c) fiercely committed to public service so as to advance his reputation — in uniform before and after the Revolution, as a legislator, as Member of Continental Congress, as President of the Constitutional Convention (as @Factotem: points out) and as “Mr. President” of the United States, — though not John Adams’ “Highness” or “Protector of the United States liberties” (ala Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, etc., etc.).
- Nevertheless, it is as @Cmguy777: notes referencing Longmore, that Washington had “political acumen”, using the historical reputation of Cincinnatus, who was widely known among the Continental officer corps from their boyhood lessons. Washington also repeatedly sponsored productions of Joseph Addison’s play Cato, a Tragedy for his officers and men during army encampments celebrating the Stoic opponent of Julius Caesar, upholding individual liberty over state tyranny, the republic over monarchy, and holding onto political principles in the face of death. [See fellow Virginian Patrick Henry’s quote from the play, Act II, Scene 4, “Give me liberty or give me death.” derived from “chains or conquest, liberty or death.”
- — that repeated appeal to personal virtue, republican principles and individual liberty would NOT indicate a self-dealing vaunting ambition in Washington to cultivate personal loyalty apart from and set against Revolutionary republican principles. Rather than a personal ambition to abandon all public virtue in a conspiracy among confederates to ensconce him in a position as dictator with self-dealing power and wealth, it demonstrates George Washington’s commitment to a publicly held ideal that he widely shared with others and that he strove to exemplify, so to become worthy of his fellow citizen’s trust in public service — yes, to get elected by a free suffrage in a constitutional republic.
- …unlike Washington's troops, “most of [Rome’s] soldiers” were loyal to Caesar? Yet Caesar had to quell a mutiny of his veterans in Rome in 47 BC by bloodshed. — Washington’s moral leadership quelled the Newburgh Conspiracy by force of personal example due to his following among the Continental officer corps and the overwhelming support of the rank and file troops who would follow no other to oppose him.
- — It seems I was mistaken as Factotem pointed out, once Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with an armed force, and winning, the Roman Senate was not in a position to “duly”, that is, constitutionally, enact anything by the rump session left behind. -- On the other hand, Julius Caesar had to reclaim a province leading an army warring on Roman citizens in Further Hispania, while Washington put down the “Whiskey Rebellion” of his first administration by negotiation through Hamilton in a neutral ground camp tent, offering a general amnesty to the rebels, and later pardoning the five jailed leaders.
- To return to the main point of discussion as Cmguy777 reminds us, the “political acumen” of George Washington referred to by Longmore (1999) was not the “ambition” of common usage that the casual Wikipedia reader would recognize — not anywhere near of a kind of “ambition” now associated with anyone associated with the presidency of our own day. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Reverse-hagiography?
- Agree with TVH and the stipulations put forth along with the refutation of this notion that Washington "cultivated" the appearance of reluctance -- not that relinquishing command and declining a third term as president doesn't do this all by itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cmguy777, you astonish and disappoint me at the same time with the claim that Washington did not fight one battle during the revolution. How do you lead troops into battle, from the front, and not be fighting a battle? Fighting in battle involves more than just pulling a trigger or swinging a sword. It involves planning, preparation, marching to the scene of battle, leading troops in the face of fire, etc. It seems you are attempting a sort of a reverse-hagiography with this latest, and I'm sorry, absurd claim.
In reference to your claim that covering Jefferson's view is some sort of hagiography, this seems to be yet another misconception as to what hagiography is. Jefferson's stated view, positive and negative, is history. Covering his references to Washington has nothing to do with hagiography. Also, covering the comparison made between Washington and Cincinnatus, made by Washington's numerous friends and contemporaries, covered by almost all biographers, is also history. Again, please don't confuse the covering of facts with hagiography, esp since there has been no embellishments or exaggerations made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC) - As said before, opinions can vary greatly when it comes to subjective ideas like hagiography. Again, if there is specific prose that overly embellishes or exaggerates the narrative we can deal with it. These general claims, with no specifics to support them, are only compounding and dragging out the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Washington's ambitions: Ambition can be either good or bad. We qualify Washington's ambition with neither of these ideas. It seems Washington was no more ambitious than anyone else would be. Any attempt to convey this idea as something bad, without concrete facts to support it, would seem to be yet another attempt at reverse-hagiography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Historical opinion. Nearly all of Washington's biographers cover his ambitions e.g.land acquisitions, position of power, etc, in a neutral manner. We should also. By singling out one exception, and going so far as to quote any such individual, e.g."cultivated", with no established facts to support it and only conjecture to offer, would be raising serious undue weight and neutrality issues. Contesting opinions can go on forever it seems. It would be nice if the lot of us could put our energy into making sure the 'existing' prose is supported by the cites/sources. Without specific hagiographic prose at issue, any such claims seem wholly opinionated and a major distraction away from the work that has needed to of been done long before this issue came up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers. I never said Washington fought just one battle. I said Washington did not fight one battle and then retire. Cincinnatus fought one battle and then retired. I said Washington was commander of the Continental Army for eight years. I don't have the total of how many battles Washington commanded in person. It is not reverse-hagiography to assume Washington was political and ambitious. It is an opinion of Longmore (1999). It is not up to Wikipedia to judge whether ambition and being a politician is bad. Editors and readers don't have to agree with Longmore (1999). Adding Longmore (1999) would reduce hagiography, not reverse-hagiography. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I know historians do not refer to Washington as a Machiavellian. That is a far cry from being ambitious or political. You have to have ambition to be a General and President of the United States. That is not necessarily controversial, more like human nature. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Cmguy777: My apologies for reading that wrong. In any case, the analogy between Washington and Cincinnatus is, regardless of the number of battles each fought, that they were both in a position of great power, and both stepped down. Also, I agree that stating any not so good facts, is not reverse-hagiography, remembering also, that enumerating the good points, regardless if there are many, is not hagiography by itself. Hagiography occurs when exaggerations and embellishments are used to present the simple facts. I don't see any such occurrence in our biography here.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers. I never said Washington fought just one battle. I said Washington did not fight one battle and then retire. Cincinnatus fought one battle and then retired. I said Washington was commander of the Continental Army for eight years. I don't have the total of how many battles Washington commanded in person. It is not reverse-hagiography to assume Washington was political and ambitious. It is an opinion of Longmore (1999). It is not up to Wikipedia to judge whether ambition and being a politician is bad. Editors and readers don't have to agree with Longmore (1999). Adding Longmore (1999) would reduce hagiography, not reverse-hagiography. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Parting shot
I started this section by identifying three statements in the article which appear to favour the idea that Washington was a Cincinnatus-like figure who only reluctantly played a role in military and political affairs. That Cincinnatus legend is a form of hagiography, and obscures the role GW's own ambition played in his military and political career. I've already identified sources which discuss the Cincinnatus legend, and I believe there are also plenty of sources that discuss GW's ambition, yet the former is barely touched upon in the article, the latter not at all. I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. @TheVirginiaHistorian: provides an excellent potted analysis of GW's ambition in this edit. I don't seem to be getting very far with my arguments here, and I do not intend to repeat myself any more than I already have. I will bow out of this conversation by quoting from The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon, already used as a source in the article, in which Ferling writes on p.6, "The real Washington burned with ambition: ambition for his country to be sure, but also for renown, power, wealth and success" and "What can be seen in Washington with great clarity is that his overweening ambition was visible from an early age." Good luck. Factotem (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ambition should not be confused with being ruthless or Machiavellianism. Washington's land acquisitions, running for political office (three times), his slave plantation, military careers, both Colonial and Patriot, and his two terms of presidential office, all point to ambition. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- ”Ambition” means a strong desire for advancement. It may be either praiseworthy or an inordinate desire. I would say that on balance, Washington’s ambition to social status and wealth were inordinate desires. Apart from marrying Martha Dandridge for social ambition, Washington’s ambition for wealth hinged on his desire firstly for financial independence and secondly for prosperity which he proposed to gain by land speculation and commercial enterprise, and not upon the backs of slaves.
- 1) As a surveyor of the west, he thought his financial pile would come from frontier land sales to settlers via investments in the Mississippi Land Company and then the Ohio Company, 2) as a expansionist businessman, he put his money on the Patowmack Canal upriver of DC and the Dismal Swamp Canal from Norfolk to North Carolina's Albemarle Sound, and to drain the swamp for further land speculation and settlement.
- 3) Washington’s principle interest in owning a plantation was to be independently wealthy, not to own slaves. His emphasis was on independent wealth, hence the move from tobacco cultivation to wheat, away from slave field gang labor in tobacco to five independently slave-run farms of wheat, along with diversification in the gristmill and distillery, spring-run fishing, blacksmithing. Washington provided for slave manumission and their land ownership of the farms they had worked upon at his death, -- perhaps to help them as freemen to become financially independent as a life goal "ambition" for them as well? -- If so we should say in this article that, "Washington was ambitious for his slave's freedom and their future financial independence, so he provided for both from his estate."
- ”Aspiration” means striving for something high or great. I would say that on balance, Washington’s ambition to public service in uniform and in elective office, both as a colonial and as a patriot, were aspirational. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the use of the word “overweening” when referring to Washington. “Overweening” means firstly, arrogant or presumptuous. “Arrogant” relates to “exaggerating one’s own worth” . . . by an overbearing manner — but that is not in Washington’s strict code of polite society as a matter of historical record. “Presumptuous” indicates overstepping due bounds of propriety or courtesy; taking liberties. Washington’s behavior was nothing but socially conventional, despite the rarely occasional outbreaks of temper recorded, as Washington was ambitious to appear to have attained the manly virtue of self-control. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Slavery brought Washington wealth. He married a woman who owned slaves. That brought him more wealth. I don't want to reargue slavery. Did Washington actually every use the plow or personally till the fields ? Slavery brought Washington the freedom to be President and General. This talk is on Washington's ambition. I just felt I needed to respectfully respond. Chernow says Washington was ambitious, so I would use that word on the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the use of the word “overweening” when referring to Washington. “Overweening” means firstly, arrogant or presumptuous. “Arrogant” relates to “exaggerating one’s own worth” . . . by an overbearing manner — but that is not in Washington’s strict code of polite society as a matter of historical record. “Presumptuous” indicates overstepping due bounds of propriety or courtesy; taking liberties. Washington’s behavior was nothing but socially conventional, despite the rarely occasional outbreaks of temper recorded, as Washington was ambitious to appear to have attained the manly virtue of self-control. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, Chernow and Washington's "ambition", Chernow always qualifies attributions of ambition to Washington with additional context. Wherever "ambition" is used in the article, we should search for Chernow’s footprint, that is, descriptions of Washington as diligent, cautious, disciplined, with seriousness of purpose, determination to succeed, maintaining great self-command, manifesting better judgment, exhibiting unmatched gravitas, with an apparent sense of responsibility, he was conciliatory by nature, smoothly methodical and solidly reliable, “he didn’t seek power” throughout his career, but “let it come to him” (p. 186).
- p. 12: The furnace of ambition burned with a bright, steady flame inside this diligent boy.”;
- p.56: Washington believed that ambitious men should hide their true selves, retreat into silence, and not tip people off to their ambition. …This cautious, disciplined political style would persist long after the original insecurity that had prompted it disappeared.”;
- p. 69: [as a colonial militia Major], he exhibited a naked, sometimes clumsy ambition that he later learned to cloak or conquer. …Nevertheless there was a gravitas about the young Washington, a seriousness of purpose and a fierce determination to succeed, that made him stand out in any crowd.”;
- p. 76: The young man’s social ambition seemed boundless.”;
- p. 185: No less driven than Adams, Washington kept his ambition in check behind a modest, laconic personality, whereas Adams’ ambition often seemed irrepressible. …[Adams reported] ‘He had great self-command.’ …When comparing Washington [to Horatio Gates and Charles Lee for command], he had superior presence, infinitely better judgment, more political cunning, and unmatched gravitas. With nothing arrogant or bombastic in his nature, he had the perfect temperament for leadership.
- p. 185: …Endowed with an enormous sense of responsibility, he inspired trust and confidence. A man of the happy medium, conciliatory by nature, he lent a reassuring conservatism to the Revolution. Smoothly methodical and solidly reliable, he seemed not to make mistakes.”;
- p. 186: The hallmark of Washington’s career was that he didn’t seek power but let it come to him. …Things seldom happened accidentally to George Washington, but he managed with such consume skill that they often *seemed* to happen accidentally. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- How can one be ambitious and not seek power ? Chernow does use the term ambitious concerning Washington. Washington not seeking power is Chernow's opinion. Historical opinions are not set in stone. Also, it does not explain why Washington showed up in Uniform at the Continental Congress. Would not that be seeking military power. I do not have the Longmore (1999) book. Longmore (1999) assessment would be valued. Chernow is not the only authority. Is Washington infallible and above historical criticism ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Cmguy777 holds on 12/22, 4:35pm UTC “Chernow says Washington was ambitious.”, then on 12/22, 10:23pm UTC, “Chernow does not use the term ambitious concerning Washington.” Neither of these interpretive assertions by Cmguy777 about his reading Chernow reflect on the historical figure of George Washington as “infallible and above criticism”.
- This discussion should explore how to describe Washington’s character on two fronts — on the one hand — socially and financially, which I have explained as rather inordinate in that he sought (1) social acceptance into Lord Fairfax’s social circle which had claims of territory in the Northern Neck and aspirations beyond, into the northwest over the Ohio River, and that he sought (2) not only financial independence as a member of the plantation gentry, but as a titan of land speculation and frontier settlement — first as a surveyor on his own account and as an investor in the Mississippi Land Company as a colonial, then as an investor as a patriot in the Ohio Company, and commercial ventures in the Patowmack Canal and the Dismal Swamp Canal. —Washington amassed a great deal of land by military grants and investment.
- A second facet of George Washington’s character is the aspirational ambition to be worthy of trust in office, both in military command, and in elected public service. That Washington had noble aspirations that historians can discover and confirm does not make Washington “infallible and above criticism”.
- Historian John E. Ferling wrote: “Few public figures in American history could match Washington’s record of virtuous and selfless service, but even he stumbled when the vast potential of the frontier West was at stake....That personal considerations, … should now have entered his thoughts can hardly come as a surprise. As always, he convinced himself that the nation was the chief beneficiary of his actions. If that was not quite the case, it nevertheless would be difficult to argue that the national interest was in any way harmed by his conduct.” -- seen at The Founders and the Pursuit of Land at the Lehman Institute online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Chernow does use term ambitious. I said "Chernow does use the term ambitious concerning Washington." It is in his book. Chernow says Washington did not acknowledge his ambition. Please stop directing the arguement towards me. This is the hagiography that was said was in the FA review and now it is being proposed to add more hagiography. This is not a blog. Washington should be viewed objectively. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Chernow uses “ambitious” eight times in his book, -- I have directly quoted and cited them above. Seven of them available in the “search” feature of “Look Inside” at the book site online at Amazon Washington: A Life (paper 2011). — My point is that he always places the term in some kind of scholarly context, whereas you would cherry pick for this article to misrepresent Chernow’s published account of Washington’s life.
- I’m not sure what your reference to “hagiography” in the FA Review could be. At FA candidates/George Washington/archive4, (1) Victoriaearle noted “there's definitely a hagiographic tone in the few sections I read”, and called out three in early military career, (2) MarchOrDie mentioned an unspecified “irritating hagiographic tone”. (3) Cmguy777 agreed without any supporting evidence.
- At FA candidates/George Washington/archive3 there is no reference to hagiography, nor is there a …archive 2, nor …archive1.
- No reviewer at the FAR seemed to find any fault with the article’s treatment of George Washington's ambitions and aspirations. On review of the FAR, the critical failing overall is wordiness throughout the article, — now that article length is no longer an issue. -- I will of course look to copy edit various sections in the article for brevity -- to match the word count of any additional sourced text I add. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)\
Washington's ambition for his slaves
The article should reflect Washington’s ambition to free his slaves and secure their future financial independence through the sales of his western lands:
- …Biographer Harrison Clark wrote: Over the years [Washington’s] holdings increased until they totalled about ninety-six square miles. These lands were situated in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, the District of Columbia, and the present states of West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky.”63
- …Historian Stuart Leiberger wrote: “Washington, Madison and Lee linked personal friendships to the nation’s destiny: whatever benefited one, benefited the other. They would prosper personally while uniting America and making it self-sufficient. This attitude led neither to breach of law nor to the use of public office for personal gain. Their speculations were private ventures and were not based on privileged information or abuse of the people’s trust.
- …But another issues was weighing on Washington. In a letter to secretary Tobias Lear in 1794, Washington described financial reasons for selling off his Western Lands: “I have another motive which makes me earnestly wish for an accomplishment of these things, it is indeed more powerful than all the rest, namely to liberate a certain species of property which I possess, very repugnantly to my own feelings.”69
See The Founders and the Pursuit of Land at the Lehman Institute online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is hagiography. It is language designed to make Washington look like a good slave owner. Wikipedia needs to be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't want to go through endless arguments on this matter. I have to drop the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion the level of detail that is seeming to be proposed for "Washington's ambition to free his slaves" would be more appropriate for George Washington and slavery. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cmguy777 concludes of sourced, verifiable scholarly information, "This is hagiography. It is language designed to make Washington look like a good slave owner. Wikipedia needs to be neutral". -- He is mistaken on three counts.
- No, hagiography is to write historical narrative as though the author were worshipping a god. But unlike the mystical reports of miracles by the saints required for canonization, George Washington actually, verifiably sold off land holdings to capitalize slave emancipation of his "certain species of property, which I possess very repugnantly to my own feelings."
- No, there is no design in this reliable citation to make Washington look like a "good slave owner". The passage merely reflects Washington's aspirational ambition for his slaves, that they be free, and that they have an independent, financially secure future as freed farmers. It does NOT speak to Washington's daily administration of slavery among the enslaved for whom he was legally and morally accountable.
- No, Wikipedia is not "neutral" if articles cherry pick sources to suppress information. There is no call to indulge in the fallacy of incomplete evidence. Wikipedia editors need not expunge every account of a slave holder that is not malicious and perversely evil. -- Washington wrote and acted on his express belief in a publicly, historically, verifiable manner as though it were true, -- that slavery and slave-holding was "repugnant" to his personal sensibility. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- So. How much additional content are you proposing to add to the article? Another paragraph? A sentence or two? Shearonink (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm still researching and composing in fits and starts, but I propose to write a total word-count content that is certainly less than I copy-edit trim before-hand. -- a) I like to act collaboratively, so I want to use the Talk page here to consider language before I post it, and I amy not be right on it, because I have competing interests at Wikipedia, to complete my proposed expansion of the Confederate Congress article, and b) I have fallen behind on my other online history writing hobby.
- Two aspects at hand looking forward to developing the George Washington Wikipedia article:
- 1) distinguishing facets of Washington's character between -- the ambition for advancement leading to personal gain -- related to
- a) social climbing into the top tiers of Virginia aristocracy;
- b) owning slaves in plantation production;
- c) amassing great landholding wealth;
- which should be differentiated from -- the ambition related to aspirational service to distinguish himself --
- d) in uniformed command: training, in service, combat, and land grants;
- e) in elective offices of public trust; and
- f) emancipation of his slaves and endowing their future financial independence as landowning farmers.
- 2) distinguishing between the aspirational value, monetary investment, and personal attention that Washington placed on:
- a) landholding wealth derived from settlement expansion versus the contemporary strategy of perpetually held expansive plantation holdings found personally amassed among the Fairfax's in the Norther Neck or the Carter's on the Lower Peninsula;
- b) commercial investment in river navigational improvements and canals to expand trade links to the Virginia interior and to adjacent colonies to promote the value of lands that he held for resale to settlers versus the contemporary speculator practice of selling title claims to jobbers for resale;
- c) slave owning practice
- - in the plantation's cost effectiveness and opportunity cost associated with Washington's choice to abandon tobacco cultivation by white overseers driving tightly supervised tobacco field gang laborers -- the path of economic success perpetuated by his most wealthy Virginia contemporaries, versus Washington's innovating five independent farms run by slave-managers raising wheat, running a grist mill, and operating a distillery;
- - in the slave lifestyle, freedom of movement, independent trade, and personal material acquisition experienced among those in George Washington's employ while in a) directly supervised tobacco field gangs dawn to dusk producing three staggered crops a year, without a "growing period" break, harvesting by moonlight, versus b) independently cultivating wheat once a year on one of Washington's farms with time for independent crafts and gardens for personal trade, or earning wages shared with Washington from the slave's trade when it was leased-out.
- -- @Cmguy777 and Gwillhickers: Given what we can document about comparative life among slaves on Washington's wheat farms, we can leave it to readers to determine whether it was "good" for those slaves at that time, to cultivate wheat versus tobacco, or whether Washington was a "good" slave owner for changing their employment. I personally am not in the business of asserting any slave owner was a "good" slave owner; In my personal point of view as a non-scholar, the only "good" slave owner was a "former" slave owner. - See Edward Coles who emancipated all his slaves and personally directed their migration into free territory on his own removal to Illinois, then provided them with farms there. -- Still, distinctions can be drawn from the record among the various practices of slave owning and slave trade, and in fairness, they should be.
- Please do not fear that I am some kind of interloper attempting to high-jack the page with chaotic disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged, I believe I should respond. In 1799 Washington did do something. He freed his slaves in his will, after the demise of his wife, but she freed them before she died. Washington's intentions, such as selling land to support freed slaves, are only intentions. The will is a fact. Washington is different because he was President of the Constitutional Convention and the First President under the Constitution. His signature is on the Constitution, that extended the slave trade for 20 years, that added a fugitive slave clause, and 3/5 th person clause to give Southerners more representation in Congress. All those supported slavery. As President he signed a Fugitive Slave law that allowed Southerners, including himself, to capture runaway slaves. While in Philidelphia Washington rotated his slaves to keep them enslaved. Nothing in the article should say Washington was good or bad. In my opinion intentions to free slaves is not the same thing as freeing slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reasonable response. I hope I have successfully used a new feature on Wikipedia at your edits on the article main space to "thank" you for several recent copy edits you have done, because I mean to encourage your continued contribution to the article.
- I do agree with this last post of yours, that "intentions to free slaves is not the same thing as freeing slaves". It was merely aspirational ambition on Washington's part, to so endow his wife with proceeds from land sales that she would no longer herself feel bound to what he believed was the "repugnant" ownership of slaves for her financial security. In the event, George was not able to cash in sufficiently in time, so he did not have the wherewithal to realize his aspirations for the Washington slaves before his death.
- -- Washington's financial strategy to buy up lands and then hold them for future resale to settlers - while promoting internal improvements of roads, canals and navigation - by private developers, state and federal governments - did seem to be more successful than Robert Morris's sell-off frenzies of speculative undeveloped expanses to international stock jobber land consortiums . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Virginia historian. I appreciate your contributions to the article and talk pages. The term "aspiration" I take to mean Washington was intent on doing good, i.e. freeing his slaves. How does Wikipedia know the true motivation of any individual ? Virginia allowed slave owners to free slaves from 1782 to 1806, without any qualifications. Robert Carter III, a fellow Virginian, did starting in 1791 manumitting 500 slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged, I believe I should respond. In 1799 Washington did do something. He freed his slaves in his will, after the demise of his wife, but she freed them before she died. Washington's intentions, such as selling land to support freed slaves, are only intentions. The will is a fact. Washington is different because he was President of the Constitutional Convention and the First President under the Constitution. His signature is on the Constitution, that extended the slave trade for 20 years, that added a fugitive slave clause, and 3/5 th person clause to give Southerners more representation in Congress. All those supported slavery. As President he signed a Fugitive Slave law that allowed Southerners, including himself, to capture runaway slaves. While in Philidelphia Washington rotated his slaves to keep them enslaved. Nothing in the article should say Washington was good or bad. In my opinion intentions to free slaves is not the same thing as freeing slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with TVH. "Ambition" was not mentioned at all in the review, and though the idea of "hagiography" was brought up there was no specific prose in the article that supported that general claim. And from what I've seen here in Talk, there is only conjecture and claims to that effect thus far. There is not one statement where Washington's good points are over embellished or exaggerated, so at this point I would drop that stick. --
- The article only mentions that Washington was compared to Cincinnatus. We do not say that Washington was, in fact, like Cincinnatus, so there is no "hagiography" occurring there. This term is being used so much it is becoming rather meaningless at this point.
- It's generally understood that Washington was "ambitious", to the extent he was, i.e.nothing unusual or amazing. If we must use this term we simply do not inject it into the narrative as a stand alone statement, as if we've uncovered some hitherto unknown and revealing fact, but present the term within context. e.g.Washington's ambitions included, farming, land acquisitions, etc. However, since most sources show Washington's pursuit of politics as something he'd rather not do, it would, at least, raise issues to claim that Washington was politically ambitious, esp since no one has presented a notable and RS that says he was, and in definitive and no uncertain terms. There are established facts that more than support this premise. i.e.Washington had to be persuaded by Madison and others to oversee the Constitutional Convention, and of course he refused a third term -- all consistent with the fact that he relinquished command after the war on his own initiative.
- Slavery has been mulled over time and again. This topic also didn't come up in the review. In our biography we've presented a balanced account, including punishment, fugitive slave laws, along with personally caring for slaves, and supporting many more slaves than Washington had use for. The practice of repeating and/or dragging in other issues before existing ones are resolved is only prolonging the 'talk' indefinitely. We need to deal with specific statements, or drop the stick at long last.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hagiography was a concern in the FA review and
editors should be allowed to edit on their own and decide where the hagiography exists in the article."Drop the stick". We should all drop the stick and work together as editors in a collegiate manner. Chernow mentions ambition and George Washington in his biography of Washington. Longmore (1999) apparently says Washington used the Cincinattus Society to make him look less political. In one sense that would make Washington a modern polititian, a grass roots polititian. I would say Chernow and Ferling are Washington's best sources for this article. Taylor helps with the Revolutionary War, putting in the perspective out side of Washington. Please don't misinterpret me. Nothing in the article should denigrate Washington. Washington, an "ambitious politician", does not denigrate his name, in my opinion. Again. I don't want to continually argue in the talk page. There is no need to ping me or mention directy or by inference any further in this conversation. I suggest editors work on the article productively. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)- "Editors should be allowed" implies that some one is not allowing them, so I would be a bit more careful before making such provocative inferences. As was said on several occasions, if there are specific statements that need tending to, we should do so. Again, if you feel the need to say Washington was "ambitious" I've no objections if this idea is effected in a contextual and neutral manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I struck out those words. I only said that because of your Gwillhickers' last statement "There is not one statement where Washington's good points are over embellished or exaggerated, so at this point I would drop that stick." I disagreed. The FA review said there was hagiography in the article. My suggestion is that editors should work on the article rather than endless debate. The article should not be "good points" vs "bad points". I hope we can leave this talk with an "Era of Good Feelings." Washington is rated high among historians. "Ambitious" should not be controversial. Chernow and Ferling should be the primary sources for this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Editors should be allowed" implies that some one is not allowing them, so I would be a bit more careful before making such provocative inferences. As was said on several occasions, if there are specific statements that need tending to, we should do so. Again, if you feel the need to say Washington was "ambitious" I've no objections if this idea is effected in a contextual and neutral manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ambition, a common human trait, is not controversial if presented in factual and neutral terms. As said, any specific prose that is over embellished should be dealt with. I've found none. Endless debate is most often fermented when general and highly subjective opinions are levied on an (entire) article that multiple and knowledgeable editors (i.e.you, I and others) have contributed to, with no specific statements pointed out in definitive terms. e.g.Cincinnatus is only mentioned once, and again, in factual and neutral terms. Also, while Chernow and Ferling are among the most notable reliable sources, there are a good number of others, several of which both of us have introduced. This is good, given the fact that Washington is widely covered by many notable historians and therefore should be reflected in the biography here. This by itself is not something that should cause yet another issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hagiography was a concern in the FA review and
Spot checks, and thorough checking
Help is needed in the effort making sure the citations support the given statements, as mentioned during the last review. If this effort was pursued with the same enthusiasm that was used in checking "haigiogarphy" it seems we could have this wrapped up in little time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Felicity with sources
A few editors now have noted assertions in the article that are not supported by the sources. A few more examples I have found:
- Final days and death (already raised in the recent FAC but left unaddressed by the time the nom was withdrawn). The source states only the request for a delay of three days. It does not give a reason why, therefore the statement "...in order not to be entombed alive..." is unsourced.
- Constitutional Convention. I see nothing in the source to support the statement "After the war, Washington did not wish to involve himself in the political matters of the nation." Also, the source states that it was the Nationalists who urged GW to attend the convention, not just Madison as stated in the article, on the basis that his presence would "induce" (not compel as stated in the article – the two words have significantly different meanings) hold-out states to attend.
- Commander in chief. I see nothing in the source to support the assertion that GW "spurned" the title of your excellency.
Unlike prose, WP:V is a core policy, and unsourced statements like these would quickly lead to an oppose at FA. Factotem (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Net worth. The article says his net worth was 1$ million in 1799 dollars, or $20 million in today's dollars, however the source it links to doesn't say this - it only says the former, that he was worth 1$ million dollars in the 1799 dollars. However the later, that he was worth $20 million dollars in today's dollars is not supported and is incorrect- Time estimates his net worth at $525 million in today's dollars - http://content.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2106519,00.html.
Marxistanarchistcapitalistyogi69 (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2019 (PT)
- As long as we're discussing "Felicity with sources"...
- A "note" & its supporting source was removed regarding the earliest published image of Washington being identified as the "father of our/his country" in 1779. I wanted to ask the various usual suspects around here if they think the info is superfluous or extraneous.
- The note was:
- "The earliest known image in which Washington is identified as the Father of His Country is in the frontispiece of a 1779 German-language almanac, with calculations by David Rittenhouse and published by Francis Bailey in Lancaster County Pennsylvania. Der Gantz Neue Verbesserte Nord-Americanische Calendar has Fame appearing with an image of Washington holding a trumpet to her lips, from which come the words "Der Landes Vater" (translated as "the father of the country" or "the father of the land").{{sfn|Lightner|Reeder|1953|p=133}}}}
- I wrote the Note originally because it seemed important to me to mention that 1)this idea of GW being The Father of the Country permeated the rebel colonies to the extent that images were being published in 1779, 2)that David Rittenhouse (first director of the US Mint, etc.) was associated with this particular almanac, and that 3)this image was published not in a newspaper but in a book, an almanac, that people would keep around their homes for at least an entire year. I just want to know what the consensus might be on the info being put back into the article. Or not. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since no one has objected in the interim I am restoring this Note & its source. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- A "note" & its supporting source was removed regarding the earliest published image of Washington being identified as the "father of our/his country" in 1779. I wanted to ask the various usual suspects around here if they think the info is superfluous or extraneous.
Chernow's statement about Washington
@Cmguy777: The statement I had added, imo, reflected Chernow's statement about Washington's regard for British rule at the end of the F&I war, without paraphrasing. Compare Chernow's statement with the one that was in place:
- Forced to deal with destructive competition among the colonies, dilatory legislative communities, and squabbling, shortsighted politicians, he had passed through an excellent dress rehearsal for the prolonged ordeal of the American Revolution. <Chernow, p.93>
- During this era, due to frequent political squabbling and dilatory politicians, Washington developed his first dislike for Britain's rulership over the colonies. <prior statement>
Chernow outlines several reasons why Washington would come to dislike British rule, and wraps up this idea by simply saying that Washington went through a "dress rehearsal" for the revolution – a war fought specifically in rebellion of British rule. This was an important transition in Washington's life and military career, a major detail. Instead of simply reverting we need to say something here. I added another statement to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing that directly says Washington personally hated or disliked British rule at this time. Chernow is saying that what Washington went through was a dress rehearsal for the Revolutionary War. That is jumping ahead way to far into the narration. I think Chernow is saying that Washington had difficulty with British military beauracracy just as he had with American military beauracracy. We can be the "interpreters" of Chernow. This brings up hagiography. We are writing as if Washington already formulated the United States independence in 1758 when he retired. He retired because he did not want to be outclassed by a Regular British officer who was lower rank. Washington was betrayed by the British military. He was loyal only to be rejected. This hurt his pride. For all practical purposes, until the Revolutionary War, Washington's military career was over. A simple but signifgant sentence is all that is needed to close the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion your statement does not reflect accurately what Chernow was saying. That is why I removed the sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The terms "British rule" or "Britain's rulership over the colonies" is not used by Chernow (2010) on pages 92 or 93. The terms "dilatory legislative communities" and "shortsighted politicians" could be colonial. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The second addition looks fine in line with Chernow. The American Revolution did not begin until 7 years later. It is doubtful Washington was contemplating rebelling against the Great Britain immediately after his retirement, unless there is some letter that says otherwise. Possibly Washington thought of seperation or rebellion around 1763 when the King outlawed settlement of the Western Frontiers to the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- The terms "British rule" or "Britain's rulership over the colonies" is not used by Chernow (2010) on pages 92 or 93. The terms "dilatory legislative communities" and "shortsighted politicians" could be colonial. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion your statement does not reflect accurately what Chernow was saying. That is why I removed the sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not to stir the pot, but the @Cmguy777: take-away from the Chernow quote seems spot on.
- The existing edit that has a two-editor consensus now reads, "During this era, Washington also gained first hand experience of the destructive competition and infighting among dilatory and shortsighted politicians that would reoccur again in the coming American Revolution."
- It might more aptly be rendered, "...the destructive competition and infighting among shortsighted colonial politicians that would recur among Patriot governments in the American Revolution."
- -- that version might then include elective colonial representatives, appointed British imperial governors and their subsequently appointed royal councils. (Thus netting minus one word count from the existing copy edit.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TheVirginiaHistorian: —
Done — Though not explicitly stated by Chernow, it seems by the end of the F & I War, due to the seemingly detached rule over the colonies by the British Crown, overseas, along with his disappointment, Washington began to harbor feelings of indifference towards this remote, and seemingly uncaring, entity. Chernow makes reference to a "dress-rehearsal" to the revolution, and, imo, the "dilatory" rulership, etc, is (along with excessive taxation and no representation) also largely what carried him to the point of rebellion only a few years later. It seems we could do better to summarize Washington's sentiments during this transitional period. Will look to other sources to substantiate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Cincinnatus dictator
From what I have read Cincinnatus was a dictator, but he only was alloted six months. So Cincinnatus may have relinquished power because his allotted time ran out. I am not sure this article is portraying who Cincinnatus was accurately. Famous Men of Rome John Henry Haaren, Addison B. Poland (1904) page 78 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Writing "Cincinnatus was a Roman dictator, who surrendered his power and returned to his farm, after his Roman military victory at Algidus" is like writing "Eisenhower was a US president, who surrendered his power and returned to his farm, after his second term in office". Cincinnatus was not "a dictator", with all the modern-day connotations of that term. He was appointed to the position of Dictator - a perfectly legitimate, temporary magistracy in the Roman Republic. He relinquished the office after 16 days because the emergency that made the appointment of a Dictator necessary was resolved, thus making the position superfluous. He did nothing more than follow the rules, just as Eisenhower did. In the 5th century BC the word dictator did not have the negative connotations that we now associate with it. It was the abuse of that magistracy by Sulla and Julius Caesar in the 1st century BC that transformed the term into something that today conjures up images of Hitler and Mussolini. I would suggest something along the lines of "Cincinnatus was appointed to the temporary position of Dictator in 458 BC to deal with the emergency presented by war with the Aequi. He relinquished this position and returned to his farm when his victory in the Battle of Mount Algidus removed the need for the office of Dictator" would more accurately reflect the Cincinnatus legend, not to mention the parallel with GW. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above link says Cincinnatus was a dictator, that held a six month term, who had more power than a consul. The page number is given. I was reducing the hagiography in the article. The above source also says Cincinnatus forced his vanquished to walk under the spear, something extremely humiliating during that time period. Nothing in the article compares Washington to Hitler or Mussolini. My contention was to present Cincinattus historically accurately. I supplied a source, page number, and year of publication, and authors. The article does not say Cincinnattus was a modern dictator. The battle date is given in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Factotem. This issue has been belabored long enough. Washington was compared to Cincinnatus, regardless of the number of battles he fought, or whether he was a "dictator", because he was in a position of great power and stepped down on his own accord. Cm', we don't need an outline of Cincinnatus' life, only that Washington was compared to him, by friends, contemporaries and almost all of Washington's biographers since then. You seem to be reaching for ways to inject reverse-hagiography into the article, either by statements, or by removing ones that show Washington in a positive light, as you just did with removing Jefferson's opinion of Washington. We witnessed the same sort of behavior when you scoffed and objected every time we added context and mentioned when Washington's did something good for his slaves.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- My intervention here was solely to sound a note of caution about the use of a term, the connotations of which have shifted fundamentally between the times of Cincinnatus and GW. But that's fixed now. And to be absolutely clear, nowhere in my post do I compare GW to Hitler or Mussolini either. Factotem (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cmguy777. Due to modern day stigmas and the distortions routinely perpetuated by the media, "dictator" would indeed tend to confuse the complacent and naive reader. Note. Any military commander during times of war acts like a dictator. i.e.he gives a command, and the army obeys. But again, the point is, Washington was compared to Cincinnatus for one major reason, i.e.relinquishing command, and would have been even if Cincinnatus lived on Mars. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Historical accuracy reduces hagiography. Cincinnatus did not relinquish power completely after the battle. He humiliated his opponents. He forced them to walk under the spear. Washington did not do that. Also, the British gave up and left New York in 1783. There was no decisive battle that ended the Revolutionary War. Washington also had the help of the French Navy and soldiers to defeat the British at Seige of Yorktown in 1781. I had removed the Jefferson quote because it was already established that the Society of Cincinnatus honored Washington. There is no need to add the Jefferson platitude. I am here to work with editors, not fight them. Let's not bring slavery into the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cmguy777. Due to modern day stigmas and the distortions routinely perpetuated by the media, "dictator" would indeed tend to confuse the complacent and naive reader. Note. Any military commander during times of war acts like a dictator. i.e.he gives a command, and the army obeys. But again, the point is, Washington was compared to Cincinnatus for one major reason, i.e.relinquishing command, and would have been even if Cincinnatus lived on Mars. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- My intervention here was solely to sound a note of caution about the use of a term, the connotations of which have shifted fundamentally between the times of Cincinnatus and GW. But that's fixed now. And to be absolutely clear, nowhere in my post do I compare GW to Hitler or Mussolini either. Factotem (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- As was just said, Washington was compared to Cincinnatus for relinquishing power. Once again, he was compared to Cincinnatus by friends, contemporaries and almost all biographers for doing so. Your continued attempts to diminish the comparison by attempting to distinguish Cincinnatus' character from Washington's is indeed a form of fighting with editors. -- Also, Jefferson's view is included for two reasons. i.e.His view of the Society and for his view of Washington, regardless of the latter's membership in the Society. The intelligent readers will appreciate this perspective about the Washington-Jefferson relationship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- It seems your persistent comparisons were aimed at removing mention of Cincinnatus and your perceived "hagiography" of Washington, but your opinion, in contrast with that of multiple biographers, didn't spill over into the narrative. Fair enough. Also, I restored some context, including yours, i.e. "fellow Virginian". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate your candor Gwillhickers. My opinions were based on the source I gave. I don't put them in the article. In my opinion the only similarity between Washington and Cincinnatus was their surrender of power. Washington in one regard was better than Cincinnatus, such as "passing under the yoke." Washington did not humiliate his opponents after a successful battle like Cincinnatus did. All I want is that information on Cincinnatus be historically accurate, not to remove the information. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI, after the fact of the discussion above, never mind misapprehensions of the term "dictator" conveying the sense of Hitler and Mussolini to the modern reader. Noodling through the Encyclopedia Britannica, I find that the Roman Republic "dictator" 500BC & 458BC -- was different from -- 300BC -- and different from -- 82BC, and 46BC.
"Dictator, in the Roman Republic, was a temporary magistrate with extraordinary powers, nominated by a consul on the recommendation of the Senate and confirmed by the Comitia Curiata (a popular assembly)." Roman dictatorship was not a permanent office but a temporary one only for times of military crises. The dictator’s term was set at six months, although he customarily laid down his powers as soon as the crisis passed. The consuls and other magistrates continued in office during a dictatorship.
Cincinnatus was appointed Roman Republic dictator in 458 BCE.
158 years later (by 300 BC), the people had secured the right of appeal and a tribune’s veto over the Roman Republic dictator. Dictators subsequently administered temporary functions, like holding elections as needed. The Carthaginian seventeen-year invasion (218–201 BC) spurred a temporary revival of the office, but after 202 BC, no dictators were chosen for any purpose.
The examples of Sulla 113 years later (88-82 BC, 82-79 BC), and Caesar 130 years after that (46 BC), did not indicate a revival of the former office -- but the development of an extra-constitutional office with virtually unlimited powers for an unlimited emergency, meant “to restore the republic.” Caesar attained “dictator for life” in 46 BC and was assassinated two years later, ending the office of Roman dictator. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- The term for Cincinnatus as Dictator was for six months, however, I believe he only held power for about a 16 day period. So Cincinnatus did surrender power before the six month term limit. As far as I know Washington's commanding general office was unlimited, or without a term limit. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- You still seem to feel the comparison between Washington and Cincinnatus is inappropriate. Regardless of the distinctions between the two, Washington was likened to this commander, who indeed stepped down and relinquished power, and was praised by his friends and contemporaries, including the King of England, for doing so. Unless we're speaking in terms of article improvement, the biography Talk page really isn't the place to discuss on which side of his head Cincinnatus parted his hair, as compared to Washington. Perhaps we should mention that Cincinnatus was subject to 'term limits', unlike Washington, whose "office was unlimited", yet he relinquished command — anyways. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is appropriate to compare Washington and Cincinnatus. It is my opinion there are differences between the two. The link between them is the surrending of power that is duly noted in the article. That is historically accurate. The King of England reference was reported about 20 years later with out any other witness account. That is unreliable. It might be good to mention in the article that Washington was never bitter at King George after the Revolutionary War. I never said which side Cincinattus parted his hair. Cincinattus according to the source I gave had a six month term limit. Congress never gave a term limit to Washington's command. He served for 8 years in the post. This discussion was suppose to be on whether Cincinnatus was a dictator. That has been resolved by compromise. Maybe it is best to go onto other things in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- You still seem to feel the comparison between Washington and Cincinnatus is inappropriate. Regardless of the distinctions between the two, Washington was likened to this commander, who indeed stepped down and relinquished power, and was praised by his friends and contemporaries, including the King of England, for doing so. Unless we're speaking in terms of article improvement, the biography Talk page really isn't the place to discuss on which side of his head Cincinnatus parted his hair, as compared to Washington. Perhaps we should mention that Cincinnatus was subject to 'term limits', unlike Washington, whose "office was unlimited", yet he relinquished command — anyways. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- The term for Cincinnatus as Dictator was for six months, however, I believe he only held power for about a 16 day period. So Cincinnatus did surrender power before the six month term limit. As far as I know Washington's commanding general office was unlimited, or without a term limit. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Dictators subsequently administered temporary functions, like holding elections as needed." We already have a List of Roman dictators, along with notes on why they were appointed, if known. Among the various reasons given:
- rei gerundae causa (for a general purpose).
- seditionis sedandae et rei gerundae causa (for quelling sedition and for a general purpose).
- clavi figendi causa (for a religious rite).
- comitiorum habendorum causa (for a holding of the comitia to elect magistrates).
- ferarium constituendarum causa (for establishing a religious festival).
- dictator suffectus? (a substitute dictator?).
- Latinarum feriarum causa (for the Latin festival).
- senatus legendi causa (for filling the Senate).
- comitiorum habendorum et ludorum faciendorum causa (for a holding of the comitia to elect magistrates and for holding the Roman games).
- legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae causa (to rewrite the laws and revise the constitution).
- dictator perpetuo rei publicae constituendae causa (as dictator in perpetuity with the power to revise the constitution). Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
As I stated back on December 14th...
when editors remove content please make sure that the reference/s are removed that had supported that content. I just now took a look at the refs and there are at least two highly visible stranded Harv refs:
- Washington desired to live the life of wealthy planter aristocracy. (Ref 22) - Ferling 2000, p. 14.
- (2002). George Washington: Uniting a Nation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7425-2208-4. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHigginbotham2002.
- which means there is apparently no ref that uses this source - I don't know if it's an error with the year or what. HIgginbotham wrote 4 different books on GW that exist in this article's "Print sources" - one in 1971, one in 1985, one in 2001, and the last in 2002. This source was apparently connected to some of the article's discussion re:Cincinnatus, etc., etc., etc., etc. Someone else needs to figure out if this source is needed or not.
Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- The Ferling reference has been changed to 2002. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since no one else spoke up I deleted the stranded/unused Higginbotham 2002 ref. Shearonink (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
King George III's praise for Washington
- The discussion took on proportions that you had initiated, several times. No one disputed the differences between Washington and Cincinnatus, only that they didn't amount to anything that diminished the comparison. Re: King George's praise of Washington for stepping down. It's very unlikely that such praise for Washington, from a King, went unnoticed. From what source are you making the claim that there were no witnesses? You seem to be suggesting that the King's praise was spun out of thin air. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've read about the event on several occasion, but here is something I found doing a quick search: King George's quote: “If Washington does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” -- (Sources: 1, 2, 3 ) The quote includes the word If, as in before, or in anticipation of, Washington's resignation - not made 20 years later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a seperate discussion from Cincinnatus. You are the one who mentioned King George III. I only initiated the discussion on Cincinnatus and dictatorship. This should be a seperate discussion. King George has nothing to do with Cincinnatus.Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)The above sources are not book sources: websites. There is only one source for the King's statement. I had read that the person recalled about 20 years later the statement from the King. That is unreliable. I said there is only one account of the event from one person. There are no other witness accounts of the King's statement that I know of. One of the sources says "reported". Again this has nothing to do with Cincinnatus and dictatorship. I have moved this to its own conversation. The Cincinnatus conversation is over. I don't want to be drawn into a dispute about the King's statement.Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)The West information came from a letter written May 3, 1797 from Rufus King in a conversation with Benjamin West. There is no record of a meeting with Benjamin West and King George III. It is not a direct quote from West, but from Rufus King.Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Source: The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King: Comprising His Letters, Private and Official His Public Documents and Speeches] (1896) page 545Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
This is from Rufus King quoting Benjamin West: ...that in regard to General Washington, he [King George III] told him since his resignation that in his opinion "that act closing and finishing what had gone before and viewed in connection with it, placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living, and that he thought him the greatest character of the age." It is second hand information. The statement above is a misquote of the Rufus letter.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)- The link you provided is a general reference to an entire work, and page 545 makes no mention of King George's actual quote as outlined above. Can you cite the actual passage in regards to the King's actual quote? Re: Website sources, one of which is Mount Vernon, the likes of which you have introduced and used on several occasions -- I see no issue here. We have more than a dozen website sources used in the biography here. Are you now saying, at this late date, that they not as reliable as book sources? If so, we need to purge all Mount Vernon source/citations and the other website sources as well. After you do that, we'll be able to accept your contentions as if submitted with a little more sincerity. As it is, your argument thus far seems wholly academic, rather sketchy and a bit argumentative. I've offered three sources that support the King's actual quote. You've provided none that even suggest he never uttered such words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
That is just it. There is no direct quote from George III. And again there is no record of the King George III - West meeting. Rufus King is quoting Benjamin West in the May 2, 1797 letter, not the King of England. Chernow's source is Weintraub, General Washington's Christmas Farewell page 131. The sourced quotes are misquotes of the Rufus King May 2, 1797.Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)- Misquotes?? Okay, then where did the purported King's quote come from? The quote seems likely, i.e.Washington, who defeated the mighty English army/navy, stepping down, would seem to give plenty of reason for the King's relief and his words of praise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
General Washington's Christmas Farewell Weintraub, page 131. Weintraub makes no such quote reference. Chernow (2010) page 454 reference 23 is really off on this one. Frankly I am a little shocked. There is no direct quote from George III. It is a corrupted or misquoted statement from Rufus King who quoted Benjamin West.Cmguy777 (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- As it is, "corrupted or misquoted" is an opinion, with nothing really to substantiate it. Several sources use the same quote, (“If Washington does that, (relinquishes command) he will be the greatest man in the world.”), word for word, including Chernow. The question remains -- If not form King George himself, where did the quote come from? We now have yet another reliable source: Chernow. Hopefully our fellow credentialed editors, @Rjensen and TheVirginiaHistorian: will chime in on this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Chernow (2010) is mistaken. The source given by Chernow does not have any King George quote. Rufus King is quoting Benjamin West, not King George III. I supplied the May 3, 1797 letter of Rufus. That's why it is all speculation and should not be in the article. It is hagiography. The quote given is a corrupt or misquoted version of Rufus King quoting Benjamin West. It is all second hand. There is no record of King George III meeting West after the Revolutionary War ended. There simply is not enough evidence to put such a non existing statement in the article. It would be like this: Rufus King said on May 3, 1797 that Benjamin West said, "that act closing and finishing what had gone before and viewed in connection with it, placed him [King George III] in a light the most distinguished of any man living, and that he thought him the greatest character of the age." The corrupted version is “If Washington does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” We are going around in circles. It is unreliable to put such a quote in the article.Cmguy777 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)It is quite possible the King had no anger towards the United States. But we should not put in misquoted, second hand, or corrupted words said or not said by King George III.Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)- Here is another issue. By 1785 King George III was unintelligible in his conversation, as reported first hand by Ambassador John Adams in England. Adams had difficulty in understanding the King's words. The article should not put in words that King may or may not have said to Benjamin West. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I concur that more definitive sources are needed, however, Chernow clearly quotes King George. There is also an account covered in Garry Wills, book, Cincinnatus (1984), p.13, of West who is widely known for telling the account about his conversation with King George on numerous occasions. Again, we also haves the Mount Vernon and two other sources that cover the King's statement. Also, you need to be clear on what "hagiography" is. Hagiography is something editors do when they over embellish or exaggerate a statement. Stating historical facts that shed a favorable light on a subject is not hagiography. This has been explained for you several times now, yet typically you've been attempting to use this as an excuse to go after anything that involves Washington's good character, which is reverse-hagiography. i.e. Something that you as an editor are doing. This is further exemplified by your attempt to use Adams' account of King George's difficulty in speaking as to mean he was out of his mind and knew not what he was saying about Washington. This is clearly reaching for excuses, involves the action of you as an editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Chernow is not quoting King George III. He used Weintraub as a reference. I looking up that reference Weintraub on page 131 does not use the quote. There is no first hand account of the quote. It is a second hand account by Rufus King on May 3, 1797. The quote that Chernow and Ferling use in their books is made up, non existant. I am not going after Washington "good character". I am just being historically accurate. No original research or synthesis. Here is the source for John Adams: The works of John Adams "I dare not say these were the King's precise words... page 257-258 I am not attacking Washington's character in any manner. It is my opinion I am editing in a hostile environment. For now, I am taking a break from this talk page. I can't continually be accused of "bad faith" talk. Put whatever you want to in the article Gwillhickers. I don't want to participate in a talk page when I feel I am unable to express my opinion freely.Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Misquotes?? Okay, then where did the purported King's quote come from? The quote seems likely, i.e.Washington, who defeated the mighty English army/navy, stepping down, would seem to give plenty of reason for the King's relief and his words of praise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Chernow is indeed quoting King George. Chernow, p.454 explicitly says — the thunderstruck King declared "If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world". Also, Adams has nothing to do with this, and I can't find his quote in the book you linked to, nor the google books on Adams' works ( vol 1, vol 2 ) Again, we have numerous sources that quote the King's words, outlined immediately above. Many events in history are recorded other than by the people that were actually involved. History is replete with such accounts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, you are free to express your opinions, as you always have -- no one can stop you, and suggesting that someone has is not very sincere. Likewise I'm free to comment on them, and if my remarks seem less than friendly at times it's mostly because of the sort of comments you closed your last message with and also because you almost always take the negative side, e.g. with countless assertions of "hagiography", unfounded. Looking at the greater picture, however, we've always manged to come up with a compromise and have always moved forward. It's a little much that I have to stop and remind you of this sort of thing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- IMHO, more than enough has already been made of Washington’s resignation (I’m quite sure GW would agree); nevertheless, if there are several uses of the King’s quote, can’t that fact be properly cited, with the qualification that the statement’s having been made is not conclusive? Hoppyh (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since Washington's resignation was roundly praised, even on foreign soil, it was my hope that we could cover it with more than a passing comment. It's something of a landmark item about Washington. Assuming King George's praise was not a rank invention made up by Benjamin West, and is nothing at all fantastic, I would have no objection if it was covered in the manner you suggest. As for Chernow's footnote on page 454, it is placed at the end of a rather large paragraph, not after a particular sentence in the midst of the paragraph, so we can't expect that it was meant to cover every item therein, which it doesn't. No matter, Chernow (2010) and Wills (1984) (not to mention Mount Vernon.org and other sites) specifically attribute the quote as that of the King's. If you would like to add the statement I'd have no objection. I was hoping we could hear from some of our more learned editors first, so we might want to wait a bit before adding any statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- IMHO, more than enough has already been made of Washington’s resignation (I’m quite sure GW would agree); nevertheless, if there are several uses of the King’s quote, can’t that fact be properly cited, with the qualification that the statement’s having been made is not conclusive? Hoppyh (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sources
- — Chernow, 2010, p.454
— Chronology of the U.S. Presidency, Volume 1, Manweller, 2012, p.2
— The American Miracle: Divine Providence in the Rise of the Republic, Medved, 2017, p.94
— Liberty! The American Revolution, Fleming, 1997, p.343
— Randall, 1998, p.402
— Ferling, 2002, p.272
— George Washington: Foundation of Presidential Leadership and Character, Fishman, 2001, p.202
— Taylor, 2016, pp.319–320
— Wills, 1984, p.138 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Any such statement used need not quote King George, and only mention that Washington's resignation was widely praised to the extent that even his major adversary during the revolution gave him praise upon learning of Washington's intention. Just as importantly, we should mention that Washington's resignation sent the message that the new government was to be ruled by the people, not by a monarch or dictator for the duration of his life; an idea intimated by Fleming, p.343, and Randall, p.402. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- — Chernow, 2010, p.454
I have made an attempt to add King George’s perspective - for the citations, I have intentionally deferred to others who have worked tirelessly on that aspect. Hoppyh (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposal
As mentioned, we need not add any quote, nor concentrate on King George's thoughts in detail, and only mention that Washington was widely praised even to the extent that King George praised Washington upon learning of his intentions to resign. This way we don't have to deliberate about the exact verbage and concentrate on the overall significance of resignation.
- Proposal : Washington's relinquishing of command was widely acknowledged favorably, even to the extent where his revolutionary adversary King George III praised him for his decision. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, but was only thinking of keeping the statement at a minimum. If we're going to convey the King's words we should use the exact quote, as Chernow, Taylor, Manweller, Medved and others offer it. I added some needed context for the statement. Also, we should use existing and secondary sources as our first choice. To this end I've substituted Taylor, 2016, for Rufus King, to supplement Chernow, 2010. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It was reported by Rufus King what Benjamin West said, according to the May 3, 1797 letter. The term reported should be added for qualification. Also, Thomas Coke, a member of Parliament, said Washington was "the greatest man on Earth." Washington's relinquishing of command was widely acknowledged favorably, even to the extent where his revolutionary adversary King George III was reported to have praised him for his decision.Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, but was only thinking of keeping the statement at a minimum. If we're going to convey the King's words we should use the exact quote, as Chernow, Taylor, Manweller, Medved and others offer it. I added some needed context for the statement. Also, we should use existing and secondary sources as our first choice. To this end I've substituted Taylor, 2016, for Rufus King, to supplement Chernow, 2010. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we can use "reported", however, we need not drag in Benjamin West and Rufus King, as we have plenty of reliable sources to qualify the statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Taylor (2016) does not use Rufus King as a reference. Actually Taylor just cites Chernow (2010), so it is like a repeat citation of Chernow. And it was Coke who said Washington was "the greatest man on Earth," not King George III. Somehow those two quotes must have gotten mixed up, is my guess. But since there is no quote in the sentence it does not matter. Rufus King should be added as a reference, in my opinion.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Rufus King is confirmed by this source: All Cloudless Glory: The Life of George Washington : Making a Nation Harrison Clark (1996) pages 349-350.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
editbreak3
- Taylor, 2016, which I have in hand, does not cite Chernow. His footnote #18 in Chapter 9 is Larson, Return of Washington, 2015, p.6. Evidently Rufus King was not the only one informed of King George's praise, so we should go with what most of our sources say. There are evidently two quotes reported by West. i.e.One made by the King in anticipation of Washington's resignation (hence the term "If he should do that..."), and one made after the fact of resignation, (hence the phrase "placed him in the light the most distinguished...") We should use the former, the one cited by most of the sources, including Chernow and Taylor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Let’s cease with the warring quotes, please. Just leave them both in with appropriate cites. Hoppyh (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that but we should only use one quote. We should use the quote used by most of the sources, esp since there are two reported quotes from West. We also don't know if Rufus King was the only one informed of the King's praise for Washington, (not likely) so again, we should simply go with what most of the major sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
“Most” say this, some say that. The statements don’t conflict. Leave them both in with cites, and move on, for goodness sakes. Hoppyh (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- If WP/the article came down on one side (with reliable sources) while there are other reliable sources that state something different...leave them both in. While Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources is an essay and not policy or a guideline, I think it is a common-sense approach to this kind of dilemma. Use both quotes along with the appropriate cites. And move on. Shearonink (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Clark (1996) confirmed the Rufus King letter. We should go with the most accurate quote and that is in the Rufus King letter. Chernow is cited in Taylor for the quote. I have the book too. There is a difference between "greatest man in the world" and "greatest character of the age". Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Suggested reading for all: WP:COMPROMISE Hoppyh (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cmguy777, if you have Taylor's book how is it that you missed to what his footnote attributes to?? No matter. Both quotes say the same basic thing. "Greatest man in the world" should be understood that it applied to the "greatest character of the age", at that time. Originally I suggested that we just acknowledge King George's praise so as to avoid this sort of belabored debate. Another proposal:
- Washington's revolutionary adversary, King George III, was reported to having praised Washington for his decision to relinquish command.
- This would seem like the best compromise if anyone is still insisting about a given quote. We would only need existing sources without introducing yet another source, used to cite only one item. After all, we don't even quote Jefferson's praise -- no urgent need to quote his kingship. A plan we all can live with? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cmguy777, if you have Taylor's book how is it that you missed to what his footnote attributes to?? No matter. Both quotes say the same basic thing. "Greatest man in the world" should be understood that it applied to the "greatest character of the age", at that time. Originally I suggested that we just acknowledge King George's praise so as to avoid this sort of belabored debate. Another proposal:
Early years section image
IMO, the image depicting the Parson Weems story should be considered for removal. I’m concerned about squeezing the text right-off-the-bat in the article without justification. If it needs to be retained, how about moving it to the historical reputation and legacy section? Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- No objections here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have removed the file - Parson Weems' Fable.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Washington holding an axe asked by his father whether Washington damaged his father's cherry tree.|Depiction of Washington's cherry tree fable by Parson Weems.
- No objections here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
A new source?
FYI, I saw this am a review of a new book in the Washington Post, The First Conspiracy, A Plot to Kill Washington, by Brad Meltzer and Josh Mensch. Hoppyh (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can do a search through the contents (inasmuch as the partial viewing will allow you) at this location. This almost sounds like a topic that might warrant its own subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Some thoughts about article-length
If anyone around here is interested in possibly submitting this article to WP:FAR sometime/someday in the future, I came across a discussion at the WP:FAR for Ulysses S. Grant where Brianboulton made what I think is a useful distinction between article-length in terms of kbs and article-length in terms of actual words when he posted the following:
- "The number of kb is a useless measure of length so far as the reader – or indeed the reviewer – is concerned. It is the number of words in the text, in this case 14,300+, that creates the burden. I'm not sure how many FAs have more than 14000 words, but I suspect the answer is not too many. It is a matter of concern whether these uber-articles get the depth of review treatment that they warrant – are potential reviewers put off by the length and time required, as I was?"
In the future, as any interested editors continue to work on the article, we all need to keep in mind the number of words the article contains.... That's all. I think it might be good for all of us usual suspects to take a break from editing the article or from posting here on the talkpage. For at least a little while - maybe a week or two, maybe a month. I'll see y'all around here at some point... Shearonink (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you can't expect to leave an opinion and ask that others not reply. Anyway, as mentioned before, article length should find its own level, with practical considerations, per summary and comprehensive coverage, of course. There should not be a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to how many words we happen to use in this very involved article. While I have no objections in condensing various prose, we should not treat the George Washington article the same as we do for an article about 'Congressman Smith'. This is why page length guidlelines allows for exceptions and editor discretion. Compromise is a two way street, and reviewers should be willing to do so. Fixing a given KB number and editing accordingly is a robotic approach to editing and writing about history, imo -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a reasonable argument to assert that complex subjects such as GW warrant an article that exceeds the recommended length. This does not, however, absolve anyone of the requirement for a lean, focused narrative, as I have tried to point out in a previous post. This is especially the case at FAC, where criterion 4, on length, requires that an article does not go into "unnecessary detail". Taking the third paragraph in the "Demobilzation and resignation" section as an example, which currently reads:
After leading the Continental Army for eight and a half years, Washington bade farewell to his officers at Fraunces Tavern on December 4, 1783, and resigned his commission on December 23, refuting Loyalist claims that he would not relinquish his military command. He appeared before the Continental Congress at the Maryland State House in his uniform. He gave a brief statement to the Congress: "I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my official life, by commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping." In 1783, Henry Knox formed the Society of the Cincinnati, in his honor. Cincinnatus, a famous Roman military leader, relinquished his position after his Roman victory at Algidus (458 BC). Washington was appointed and served as the Society's first president for life. Washington's resignation was widely acclaimed. Although fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson denounced the Societies' hereditary membership, he nonetheless praised Washington for his "moderation and virtue" in relinquishing his command. Washington's revolutionary adversary, King George III, was variously reported as saying of his resignation, that Washington was the “greatest character of the age” or “the greatest man in the world.
(206 words)
The problems I see with this are:
- Excessive detail. Do we really need to know that Washington bade farewell etc., that he resigned at Maryland State House (which fact could easily be incorporated into the image caption, if it is that important) or the words he spoke there on his resignation?
- The flow is disjointed, jumping from resignation, to Society of the Cincinnati (and was the society really formed in honor of GW?) then back to acclaim for his decision to resign.
- The important point is that even King George III praised GW for relinquishing his command. There is obviously some uncertainty about the timing or the exact words the king expressed (and this site offers a plausible explanation for the confusion), but there is no need to accommodate all that in the narrative.
The following prose conveys all the important information covered by the existing narrative in just 82 words:
- "Washington resigned his commission as leader of the Continental Army on December 23, 1783, refuting Loyalist claims that he would not relinquish military command. His resignation was widely acclaimed, including by such figures as Thomas Jefferson, who praised Washington for his "moderation and virtue", and King George III. The Society of the Cincinnati, formed earlier that year to preserve the ideals and fellowship of officers of the Continental Army, was named after the Roman military leader Cincinnatus, who also famously relinquished command."
In another example, the "Final days and death" section includes the following sentences:
Washington instructed his private secretary Tobias Lear to wait three days before his burial, out of fear of being entombed alive. Washington asked Lear, "Do you understand me ?". "Yes," responded Lear. Washington said, "Tis well.
Are those last three sentences absolutely necessary to our understanding of the subject? Factotem (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The article has shown it is too long to achieve an FA rating, or even an interest from FA reviewers to look at it; no surprise then that it is also unwieldy in detail for the average reader. It need not be, if only the subarticle structure of WP were properly availed. The article is hellhoundishly captive in this regard. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good article, but FA is not likely IMHO. Happy New Year to all, BTW. It’s a joy to work with each of you.Hoppyh (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Society of Cincinnatus should be mentioned because Washington was President of the Society. There was a direct connection and it is possible he used it as a grassroots effort to be elected President. The latter is just my opinion. I don't believe King George's reported opinion of Washington is necessary for the article. I put it in their out of compromise. I agree the narration is disjointed. It does not need to be stated where Washington resigned in the narration. The reality is Washington does not need King George III blessing. That could imply Washington did something wrong and he needs George III approval or that Washington somehow needs to be vindicated by British royalty. I don't think it necessary for the Jeffeson opinion either. The article should focus on Washington and not what people thought of Washington. There is a difference.Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)- Hoppyh — Well, reviewers jumped right in to our rightfully lengthy article and began dealing with the issues, undaunted. The issue of page length didn't come to the front of the discussion until near the end of, or after the review. Again, I've no objections of condensing text, which you've been doing a great job of, while preserving context. My thoughts are that we should nonetheless give the readers the best 'story' ever, something that will hit home and will be remembered. Few people remember an outline -- they remember a 'story' of human events. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Factotem — In regards to your statement:
"It's a reasonable argument to assert that complex subjects such as GW warrant an article that exceeds the recommended length. This does not, however, absolve anyone of the requirement for a lean, focused narrative, as I have tried to point out in a previous post. This is especially the case at FAC, where criterion 4, on length, requires that an article does not go into "unnecessary detail" ".
- Okay, but the idea of "unnecessary detail", as you might know, is a rather subjective prospect, and a recipe for perpetual debate. As long as the context doesn't wander out into 'left field', we need to include this in practical proportions, per FA criteria. Let's remember, there are a number of FA articles that far exceed the page length limits, guidelines, which are expected of the Washington biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see the details I have highlighted as setting context, I see them as unnecessary detail. Length has been raised repeatedly as an issue, not least in the two attempts at FAC last year. I'm simply trying to provide specific examples of where that length can be reduced without compromising the fundamental narrative. You have resisted every attempt I, as an impartial outsider invested in neither this article nor its subject, have made to help in this. That's your prerogative. I think you are mistaken. Wider input will provide a better indication as to which of us is right. I hope that you will follow the recommendation made at both FACs last year to seek peer review before the next FAC attempt. GOCE might be another avenue to garner feedback from uninvolved editors and thus improve your chances at FAC. Good luck. Factotem (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I've always gone along with consensus, but still feel that what is "unnecessary detail" can, and has often, been taken to unnecessary proportions, esp when our primary concern is removing text so some reviewers can have an easier time. GA's should be only "fundamental". FA's are supposed to go the extra distance and be well written and comprehensive, per FA criteria. These things are always worked out on the Talk page, as compared to edit warring, which, aside from an occasional revert, hasn't happened between the lot of us. Currently the Washington biography is at 85 kB (13,447 words) of readable prose; The Hillary Clinton article is at 100 kB (16,161 words); The Elvis Presley article is at 106 kB (17,972 words), yet we have some who still feel we should say (much) less about Washington than Presley or Clinton, while neither of these latter two individuals have had much to do with history and the fate of an entire continent. Something's wrong with that picture, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please understand, I am not resisting all efforts to condense text, and am being mindful of what is unnecessary detail. In fact I suggested that the King's exact words of praise were not necessary and have added the statement without them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Knox, etc
- @Cmguy777:, you removed two statements about the Society of the Cincinnati, yet left a generic reference to the society as concerns Jefferson's opinion of it. Any reader coming along would then ask what society is Jefferson denouncing. Simple events in history, if not embellished or exaggerated, are not hagiographic material. This will be at least the fourth time this has been explained for you. Is coverage about Washington being the Father of the Country "hagiographic"? Is mentioning that Washington was unanimously elected by the Congress "hagiographic"? Please make efforts to distinguish events in history from hagiographic prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, sticking basic coverage of the Society of the Cincinnati in a footnote, still left Jefferson's reference to it out of context. This needs to be discussed and a consensus reached since you are provoking an edit war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why has this come to an edit war? My edits are designed to get Washington to FA, not argue in a talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't stick major details in footnotes because you feel they are "hagiographic". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- The article is down to 85k of readable prose. There is no longer any reason to chop away at or place major details in footnotes. This page length obsession is not a blank check to endlessly deplete the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Factotem discussed these edits in the talk page. I agreed with Factotem and made the changes. It is about continuity of narration, not article size. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Above you said "The Society of Cincinnatus should be mentioned because Washington was President of the Society." And I see your last edits as an end run around getting your opinion about "hagigraphy" effected in the article. Again, you misrepresent things, as was done with saying Chernow wasn't referring to the King, and with your account about the footnote in Taylor's work. Am beginning to lose faith in your words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Hoppyh:, Thanks once again for your acts of moderation and latest edit. While I still feel major details should not be stuck in footnotes, you did, however, state that Washington was acclaimed at home and abroad in the main text. Now I can live with both Jefferson's and the King's praise in a footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Above you said "The Society of Cincinnatus should be mentioned because Washington was President of the Society." And I see your last edits as an end run around getting your opinion about "hagigraphy" effected in the article. Again, you misrepresent things, as was done with saying Chernow wasn't referring to the King, and with your account about the footnote in Taylor's work. Am beginning to lose faith in your words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Factotem discussed these edits in the talk page. I agreed with Factotem and made the changes. It is about continuity of narration, not article size. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why has this come to an edit war? My edits are designed to get Washington to FA, not argue in a talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
All I wanted was to get Washington to FA. We can't put everything in the Chernow (2010) book and the quote in Chernow is flat wrong. The Society of Cincinnatus is mentioned and should be since Washington was the president for life. The King George III comment is hagiography, in my opinion. It is not accurate and its only design is to somehow make George Washington look good. The article is suppose to be neutral neither favoring nor being hostile. I put in footnotes out of compromise. I can't find anything in the article that makes Washington a "bad person". Reducing the praise will help Washington get FA. From what I know, Washington, is hardly thought of in England and Canada. I believe this article needs to get to FA. I personally would look through the article to try and find and reduce negativity. Except for slavery, I don't see a lot of negativity in the article, nor should there be. I don't want edit warring either nor waste time argueing in a talk page.Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- We've discussed the King's praise at length, while your account of the sources was frequently erroneous and misrepresenting, esp where it came to Chernow's and Taylor's accounts. Mention of praise coming from Washington's adversary is a historical fact and revealing, and is no more "hagiographic" than mention of Jefferson's praise, Father of the Country, etc. This was also explained for you. You say you don't want edit–warring or arguing, yet this is exactly what you were and are doing. We are down to 85k so please drop the page length stick as you excuse to remove major details and biographical context. Your words about "hagiography" at this point are difficult to believe. If you want friendlier words form me please make efforts to report things accurately and make you former words consistent with your current ones. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
All Cloudless Glory: The Life of George Washington : Making a Nation Harrison Clark (1996) pages 349-350 This reference was taken out of the article. This source was taken out of the article. It directly contradicts the quote found in Chernow (2010). It is difficult to argue when a source I have given is taken out of the article. That only contributes to edit warring. It is reported praise from George III. Where is the letter from George the III praising Washington. It was something said, possibly said, in his bed chambers. Why this big push for George III ?Cmguy777 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The statement about King George is a simple statement with no quote included, and considering how your claims about sources have been in error on several occasions I'm not even going to inquire any further, nor even address any further questions, as we have multiple reliable sources that more than support reports about King George's praise, letter or no letter. You're in effect saying that they're all wrong, and you're right. Sorry. If there is a 'contradiction', you should spell it out and substantiate it with sources and page numbers. You say you don't want to argue. Now this. There was no "big push" for King George's praise until you turned it into a big issue with your fuzzy, argumentative and endless talk. Q. Why the big push against King George? A. because it demonstrates that praise for Washington was far reaching. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Why was the All Cloudless Glory: The Life of George Washington : Making a Nation Harrison Clark (1996) source taken out ? It is not about me being right. I provided this source. Chernow (2010) and Ferling (2002) are directly contradicted by this source. At least you admit George III is being pushed in the article. The same King who did everything he could to defeat Washington and the Revolution.Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Insert : No one has pushed anymore than you have. Yes, the very same King that was Washington's adversary praised Washington for stepping down. Let's not leave that bit of context out of your parting shots here. Once again, you misrepresent matters. If you really wanted to demonstrate any 'contradiction' you would have done so by now. All we have are more of your claims, and in the face of multiple reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is wasted effort at this point, you guys. There are other, more worthy battles that await you. Move on. Hoppyh (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've been more than fair and patient with this individual. It's a wasted effort because Cmguy777 has yet to outline any 'contradiction', after being asked to place the statements in question side by side, with citations, so we can see any validity of this claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I added the Clark (1996) source who referenced the Rufus King letter. Rufus King May 3, 1797 letter says, "the greatest character of the age," while Chernow says, "the greatest man in the world." There is a difference. The latter is more of a compliment and the Rufus King letter contradicts Chernow. A member of Parliament, not the King, said Washington was the greatest man in the world. The two phrases must have got mixed up. There is a strong push for King George III in this article. George III never corresponded with Washington. There is no record of Benjamin West meeting with King George III.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've been more than fair and patient with this individual. It's a wasted effort because Cmguy777 has yet to outline any 'contradiction', after being asked to place the statements in question side by side, with citations, so we can see any validity of this claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction, and multiple sources support the simple claim we have made, without using any particular quote, and have placed it in a footnote, at your insistence — yet you're still not happy, apparently. I'm no big fan of King George, but, once again, there was no "big push" until you made a monumental case about it, misrepresenting sources, etc. What's really disappointing is your attempts to tell us what we can read for ourselves, here in Talk, and in the sources. We've covered this several times now, and are trying to move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Society of the Cincinnati formed in Washington's honor?
I don't see any support in the sources I can access for the statement that the Society of the Cincinnati was formed "in honor" of GW. Of the sources provided to support the statement:
- Ferling references GW's self-perception as Cincinnatus at the time of his presidency, which began six years after the society was established, so is not relevant to the statement being made in the article.
- Parsons only quotes Byron's Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte, which refers to GW as "The Cincinnatus of the West", and is therefore equally irrelevant in this context.
- Honouring GW is not included in the aims of the society as listed by Chernow on p. 444.
- Chernow does write the society's "very name paid homage to George Washington", but that refers only to the naming of the society, not the reasons why the society was established. It's also ambiguous as to whether that homage is Chernow's opinion or something Knox intended when he chose the name.
I don't have access to p. 461 in Chernow's work, or to Brumwell's work, so maybe they do support the statement that the society was established in honour of GW. If they don't, then that part of the statement is unsupported and should be removed. Factotem (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Does the article say the Society was formed to honor Washington ? It was formed before Washington's resignation. It did make Washington President for life. It is difficult to interpret Chernow. His statement seems to allow the reader to make their own conclusions. It is obvious Chernow beleives Cincinnatus was a noble historical person and so was Washington. I am not sure how Cincinnatus name can pay homage to Washington when Cincinnatus lived in the 4th Century B.C.. The Society was started in May 1783. Washington resigned in December 1783. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
A Short History of the Society of the CincinnatiCmguy777 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we would need a source that specifically says the society was 'formed' in his honor. No doubt Washington largely inspired the creation of the society, but again, if we are going to say it was formed in his honor we need a source that makes this statement in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Taylor, 2016, p. 320, maintains — "In early 1783, Continental officers formed the society to preserve social bonds and exercise political influence." This no doubt was much of the reason why Jefferson and others opposed the society. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Does the article say the Society was formed to honor Washington ? It was formed before Washington's resignation. It did make Washington President for life. It is difficult to interpret Chernow. His statement seems to allow the reader to make their own conclusions. It is obvious Chernow beleives Cincinnatus was a noble historical person and so was Washington. I am not sure how Cincinnatus name can pay homage to Washington when Cincinnatus lived in the 4th Century B.C.. The Society was started in May 1783. Washington resigned in December 1783. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think that "paid homage to" is the same as "formed in his honor".
- Using of Chernow's Washington: A Life in the 2010 Penguin paperback edition (p. 444), it seems the use of the name "Cincinnati" was taken for a fraternal order of military men who, for the most part, left uniform to take up elective office in their home states rather than overthrow the sitting Continental Congress at the Newburgh Conspiracy, -- and associating for the express purpose of preserving the Union and liberty, wartime comradery and to assist fallen officer's widows and orphans. Because of Washington's republican principles and nationalism, his affection for the Continental Army officer corps and care for their families, Knox chose the name, as it "paid homage" to Washington as he was known among his fellow officers. --
- In Chernow’s view (p. 498), Washington was “jealous of his reputation for republican purity”, and he acknowledged the “genuine kernel of discontent” with the Society voiced by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and others in a national "storm" of protest. Washington in his inaugural speech as secretary general, proposed (a) remove all political references, (b) discontinue hereditary connections, (c) admit no additional honorary members, (d) reject subscriptions or donations from foreigners, and (e) suspend national meetings, leaving them to state chapters alone.
- At page 499-500, “Had it not been for his deep sense of solidarity with American and French officers and a respect for the group’s laudable work for widows and orphans, Washington would have probably severed his own ties with the Cincinnati and proposed its abolition. The intransigence of the state societies in contesting [his reforms] only hardened his resolve to insulate himself from them. He devised a compromise whereby he remained a figurehead . . .” -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- This seems quite likely, esp since Washington didn't like formality and pomp, and esp when it took on any semblance of royalty, as would be the case by allowing only members with hereditary connections. Currently we only have a simple statement about the Society in the main text. Perhaps we should mention that Washington took exception to it in some of the ways mentioned here, with Chernow and any other notable RS for the citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
British subject
For the majority of his life (45 out of 67 years) he was a British subject yet the lede only states he was an American. I have noticed this in a lot of other US bios as well where the subject's identity is not objectively stated. I feel there is a very strong US centric bias at play here. How about ... George Washington (February 22, 1732[b][c] – December 14, 1799) was a British revolutionary in the Americas who became .... Unibond (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Washington was a British Colonial Subject. None of the colonies had representation in Parliament. British Regular Officers of lower rank outranked Washington. It was a type of second class citizenship.Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not that long ago we endured an accusation of eurocentrism - see Talk Archive 22. IMO, the article does and should remain as is—“Washington-centric”. Hoppyh (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this article has had a dozen opinions aimed at it by editors and some reviewers. In any case, I don't see the harm in mentioning British subject somewhere in the lede if done in passing. For example, in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph we might at least say, in an existing sentence, (outlined in bold here),
Washington was born a British subject into a prosperous family of slaveholding planters in colonial Virginia.
While we're at it, we should mention this in the Early years section, that is, if we're going to say anything at all, per consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)- It is already there: "George Washington was born February 22, 1732 in Wakefield in the Colony of Virginia" We already have an entire article explaining that the Colony "was the first enduring English colony in North America". Stating the obvious is not going to enlighten the readers. Dimadick (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this article has had a dozen opinions aimed at it by editors and some reviewers. In any case, I don't see the harm in mentioning British subject somewhere in the lede if done in passing. For example, in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph we might at least say, in an existing sentence, (outlined in bold here),
- Not that long ago we endured an accusation of eurocentrism - see Talk Archive 22. IMO, the article does and should remain as is—“Washington-centric”. Hoppyh (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Washington's iffy public persona as a British subject, muddled as it was by the frought Fort Necessity episode and his subsequent resignation from active British colonial service -- after subsequently acquitting himself without further catastrophe on the remote western frontier of North American empire. The year after his resignation from service to the British Empire, he married widow Martha Dandridge to some social success and financial gain in net worth in the Virginia colonial context, but his plantations were indebted to British tobacco merchants to the point of near financial insolvency and that motivated a complete conversion to wheat as a commodity crop in 1765.
- His career as a colonial Burgess, promoting Virginia colonial interests against the Proclamations of King and Acts of Parliament -- was pursued along with more notable men in Virginia and among the other colonies.
- I am not sure that if we were to weigh Washington's career as a "British" subject in any English-centric way -- versus his career as a Virginian patriot -- that the arc of his life to 1759 at age 27 as a loyal Britain-first subject, would meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. For instance, there is no WP article on "Soldier" John Grigsby, Jr., raised on a plantation adjacent to Lawrence Washington, who served in the Virginia militia and also received land grants for his service (the "Seven Hills" of Rockbridge County, Virginia), and then relocated there.
- The article on George Washington should remain as it is, Virginia-centric and Washington-centric. The reference to Washington's birth in the Colony of Virginia suffices. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The issue with saying British subject, is technically accurate. But the colonists had no representation in the Parliament. The British courts may have deemed Americans as foreigners when traveling to England. Washington was refused a commission in the Regular Army. Colonial militias were supplements for the British Regular Army. I don't know whether there is enough information on the legal status of British American colonists. In fact, I would call Washington a British-American. That would be a good compromise.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In this case Somerset v Stewart, although it is about slavery, its judge magistrate, makes a distinction between America and Britain. The American is treated as a foreigner. The laws in America did not apply in England, or the American colonies were not the same as England and Wales. I am not trying to bring slavery into this discussion, or any justification of slavery, but by 1772, America was basically a foriegn country in the British courts. So the colonists, including George Washington, were foreigners.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Whatever is decided should be backed by sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely everybody in America was a British subject in 1776, if we discount the various Indian tribes. I mean, that was the whole point of the Revolutionary War, wasn't it? It seems rather unnecessary to refer to Washington as such, and I can't help but suspect an agenda in the insistence upon it. —Dilidor (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with the Cmguy777 reasoning above, but his last conciliatory main space copy-edit merits (re)consideration.
- Let us inspect the referenced article in WP Somerset v Stewart. a) The case did not infer that the American colonies were "foreign to Great Britain", only that a slave could not be transported out of England and Wales without his permission. -- A later court case held that an abandoned slave after her master's death was not eligible for support under England's Poor Laws. -- b) Ireland had been a part of Great Britain since 1702, and the ruling did not apply there, until a 1778 case which went further than Somerset v Stewart to say that slavey had no existence in Scottish Common Law. -- c) Subsequently to Somerset v Stewart in several slave freedom suits 1773-1774, the Massachusetts General Court held for each slave’s freedom. But it was vetoed not by reasoning of law, but by the fiat of the sitting British subject royal governor. -- d) Slave trade was abolished for British subjects in 1807, and slave possession by British subjects was abolished only in 1833.
- -- So, the unsupported assertion, — that “by 1772, America was basically a foreign country in British Courts” — should not be taken by editors as justification for a copy edit.
- — On the other hand, the use of British American as a demographic descriptor of George Washington in the Intro first sentence is supported in the text by a body-of-the-article factoid found at the second sentence of the Early years section specifying, “The family was descended primarily from the gentry of Sulgrave England."
- — I propose to @GoodDay: and others that we should admit the good faith @Cmguy777: copy edit to add “British American” in the introductory sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Jeepers, there's been loads of activity on this article's talkpage, these last few weeks. If British American is used in this article's intro? it would have to be used in the intros of presidential articles John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Q. Adams, Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison. Then the vice presidential articles Adams, Jefferson, Aaron Burr, George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry and Daniel D. Tompkins. That's just to name a few pre-independence born Americans. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aside from sounding like a politically correct, 'please-everyone-all-the time' phrase, there was no such thing as a "British-American" before the revolution. The colonists didn't refer to themselves as "British American", and certainly the King, Parliament, et al, didn't refer to the colonists as such. What sources refer to Washington as a "British-American"? I suspect none do. At this point I agree with the points raised by Hoppyh, Dilidor, GoodDay and TVH's first position -- i.e.we should leave the article alone, unless there are RS's that use "British-American" as a convention of modern literature where history is concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Washington's British heritage goes back to the riegn or Charles I. The sources are rather open on Washington's heritage, so I believe that would give editors some allowance on the subject and there is a British American article that has information on the Colonial Period. One of the reasons the colonists chose to rebel against the King was Somerset v Stewart. The colonial laws did not apply to British laws. The slave would not be returned. The British did not recognize their own colonies laws. I would say that is treating the colonies like a foreign country. Nobody represented the colonists in Parliament.Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aside from sounding like a politically correct, 'please-everyone-all-the time' phrase, there was no such thing as a "British-American" before the revolution. The colonists didn't refer to themselves as "British American", and certainly the King, Parliament, et al, didn't refer to the colonists as such. What sources refer to Washington as a "British-American"? I suspect none do. At this point I agree with the points raised by Hoppyh, Dilidor, GoodDay and TVH's first position -- i.e.we should leave the article alone, unless there are RS's that use "British-American" as a convention of modern literature where history is concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The colonies were viewed as British corporation and the Parliament had supreme control over the laws of the colonies Declaratory Act. I am not ill-advised to say Washington was British American. Washington's heritage goes back to Britain to the 17th Century. His ancestry is by his paternal father is traced directly back to Britain. Are you saying that Washington was of another nationality or race? There was no United States when Washington was born. What then was the nationality of Washington ?Cmguy777 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)- A. British. As in the British Empire. In any event, if we're going to add or substitute another qualifying term to the lede, and narrative, it should be based on what the sources say. After a cursory search, neither Chernow, Ferling, Randall nor Flexner use "British-American". Best to leave things as the are. i.e.Colonial Virginia should pose no confusion, esp in the context used here in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree on this one. The sources don't say much on Washington's nationality by birth. The British viewed the colonies were corporations. I think there is some room for editor discretion. The sources seem to leave it an open question or have no opinion on the matter. I put in British American because there is an article on the subject. Washington's heritage goes back directly to England. His ancestor was a minister in the Church of England under Charles I. How much more British can you get ? I am not pushing British American, but believed it was the reasonable alternative to British subject.Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- A. British. As in the British Empire. In any event, if we're going to add or substitute another qualifying term to the lede, and narrative, it should be based on what the sources say. After a cursory search, neither Chernow, Ferling, Randall nor Flexner use "British-American". Best to leave things as the are. i.e.Colonial Virginia should pose no confusion, esp in the context used here in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Be it as it may, given Colonial Virginia, we should say what the sources say. Colonial Virginia covers all the bases as needed here. This was a transitional period. Attempting to put an exacting label on Washington's 'nationality' at this brief point in time would seem to invite more confusion, and debate, than would if we just left the narrative to state that Washington was sim[ply born in Colonial Virginia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I made some changes. I called Washington an American but linked to British American. I matched what the lede says. I think the legal status of colonists really was not set in stone. I also added Virginia was a Crown colony. It would seem a British subject would have representation and be allowed to be part of the British Regular military. Maybe American is the best description of Washingtons nationality.Cmguy777 (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- There are no sources that say Washington was born an "American" or "British American". This has already been addressed. There was no America before the revolution, and saying Washington was born an American (or British American) is misrepresenting the facts. "Americans are nationals and citizens of the United States of America". Please read the articles about Americans and British Americans. Once again, we indicate that Washington was born in Colonial Virginia and matters about nationality are understood without trying to use any particular label, esp ones that are erroneous. Please abide by consensus. Why do you even bother with debate when you ignore other editors and edit as you please anyways? Once again, you need to drop the stick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Jeepers, there's been loads of activity on this article's talkpage, these last few weeks. If British American is used in this article's intro? it would have to be used in the intros of presidential articles John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Q. Adams, Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison. Then the vice presidential articles Adams, Jefferson, Aaron Burr, George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry and Daniel D. Tompkins. That's just to name a few pre-independence born Americans. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I note that GW and Queen Elizabeth II share common ancestors in his great grandparents (hers, times 8), Augustine Warner, Jr. and Mildred Reade. I don’t think that makes him any more British than it makes her American. Hoppyh (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
American The word America was first used in the 1507 for South America. Naming of the Americas When was it first used for North America ?Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
IMO, employing the term British American is not supported by RS for Washington, or his contemporaries, apparently; the use of it is arguably original research. I recommend we return to the status quo ante, which appropriately indicates his English ancestry. This is consistent with similarly situated FA’s, specifically John Adams and others. Hoppyh (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. Once again, there are no RS's that refer to Washington as an "American", or "British-American", at the time of his birth. Once again, before the revolution the colonists didn't refer to themselves as "American", or "British Americans". Once again, the King nor Parliament referred to their subjects as such. In terms of nationality and ancestry, well covered, the article poses no confusion to readers, save some grade-schoolers, by simply referring to Washington as born in Colonial Virginia. No one can debate that Washington was born in Colonial Virginia. . As Wehwalt mentioned, readers/editors would no doubt be inclined to change any reference to Washington as a British-American at the time of his birth. That there are no RS's that refer to Washington as a "British-American" at the time of his birth should put an end to this belabored and argumentative debate. We should move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Washington's nationality at birth is important. What then is a British subject ? The colonies were corporations. It is not original research. We are not proposing any new ideas. There really is no definition of what a British subject is. There is no agreement on what to call Washington by editors. The Colonies seemed to be only to enrich the mother country England. Did Washington have any nationality at all ?Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)- Wrong, once again, there is agreement to leave the article as is. Once again, Colonial-Virginia covers any notions of nationality. Several times you were asked to provide sources regarding "British-American". Here you are, still talking. Please stop insulting the talk page process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers, there is no need to make this personal. The sources are provided in the British American article. I gave the link. Please stop insulting me. I asked a legitimate question. What then is Washington's nationality at birth ? I did not start this talk page. Another editor did and the person believed British American was a reasonable compromise. I could make personal attacks, but I won't. I am not insulting the talk page process. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
History of Colonial AmericaCmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Chapter 3: The Road To IndependenceCmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787: A Collective View Richard D. Brown The William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 33, No. 3 (Jul., 1976), pp. 465-480Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers, there is no need to make this personal. The sources are provided in the British American article. I gave the link. Please stop insulting me. I asked a legitimate question. What then is Washington's nationality at birth ? I did not start this talk page. Another editor did and the person believed British American was a reasonable compromise. I could make personal attacks, but I won't. I am not insulting the talk page process. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wrong, once again, there is agreement to leave the article as is. Once again, Colonial-Virginia covers any notions of nationality. Several times you were asked to provide sources regarding "British-American". Here you are, still talking. Please stop insulting the talk page process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. Once again, there are no RS's that refer to Washington as an "American", or "British-American", at the time of his birth. Once again, before the revolution the colonists didn't refer to themselves as "American", or "British Americans". Once again, the King nor Parliament referred to their subjects as such. In terms of nationality and ancestry, well covered, the article poses no confusion to readers, save some grade-schoolers, by simply referring to Washington as born in Colonial Virginia. No one can debate that Washington was born in Colonial Virginia. . As Wehwalt mentioned, readers/editors would no doubt be inclined to change any reference to Washington as a British-American at the time of his birth. That there are no RS's that refer to Washington as a "British-American" at the time of his birth should put an end to this belabored and argumentative debate. We should move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I removed British American from the article. There is no editor concensus. More clarification is needed to define Washington's nationality at birth. I am more than happy to move on to other things.Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Washington's "nationality" at this brief and transitional point in time is well explained by simply stating that he was born in colonial Virginia, and by coverage of his ancestry. Also, none of the web-site sources you linked to, two of which don't even mention Washington, say anything in regards to Washington's nationality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"If British American is used in this article's intro? it would have to be used in the intros of presidential articles ... Andrew Jackson" Better not in Jackson's case. He was a second-generation Scotch-Irish American, and his parents were from County Antrim. What other President is more famous for his Irish heritage? Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)