Talk:George Washington/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Nomination

Hoppyh, I remain adamant about removing context for the sole purpose of reducing page length. This, imo, is an affront to good writing. However, I had settled on 97k, and to get there I had to restore context on several occasions in this effort to reduce page length, just as I've had to do recently. Cmguy777 is insisting on 95k, as if this is some magic number that will not cause page length issues by some reviewer that happens along. I am willing to compromise and settle at 96k, which is where the article prose level is now. We have been editing this article for several months since the failed FA nomination. The article has gone through numerous so called "rewrites" and thousands of tweaks. I would say at this point, let someone inspect the sources and citations once more, and aside from corrections in spelling and grammar, leave the narrative alone. If we can get over that hurdle I hope Cm' and myself can jointly nominate the article. Ideally, we need reviewers with above average subject knowledge who have an appreciation for history with no axe to grind concerning Washington. I too would ask @Rjensen and TheVirginiaHistorian: and/or @Coemgenus: to review the article. They have been uninvolved here and possess above average subject knowledge. It would be much easier to live with any opinions they had in a review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am willing to get along with other editors and have presented a friendlier tone. I think that has helped alot. Part of the problem is that there needed to be more feedback from other editors. That is what is needed now. I believe the article could contain content at 95k. It is not that 95k is set in stone or some "magic number." It also had to do with ensuring the article would not be rejected for FA merely because of size. That had been a previous FA review issue. This is where other editors input would help. I say "let bygones be bygones." I have no anymosities towards any editors. The next step is a Pier Review. I believe that editors who have not worked on the article can get a better sense of the article. I am not sure how to start a Pier Review. But I would invite Coemgenus and Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion section 8.9 on Benedict Arnold weakens the article significantly--it is mostly not about Washington and is better covered in its proper articles. The liberated space can be used for much more relevant history. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. That sounds like a good idea. Maybe it can be resummarized. From what I have read, it seems the main reason Arnold defected was the money. Maybe the information why Arnold was a traitor to Washington could be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I trimmed some secondary details, upgraded the source listing, etc. Almost all remaining text involves Washington, save a few important points of context. We still mention historians note several possible reasons for Arnold's treachery, including being passed over for promotion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is now down to 95k of readable prose. -- I'm hoping improvements will involve more than just trimming text. This main article should have a healthy amount of overlap with other Washington articles, not to mention plenty of context, per FA criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Another suggestion I have, stems from the endless efforts of all invested here. Care must be taken to avoid proprietorial urges to challenge good faith recommendations from the reviewer(s). If the nom is made, the objective must be to get all legitimate votes in order to achieve promotion. Post promotion tweaking to address stylistic preferences will not be forfeited. In terms of getting our work promoted, we had better be willing to let go of it to a degree if we are to have any chance of holding onto it in the form of an FA.Hoppyh (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hoppyh's advice is well received. We did the same thing when we got the Ulysses S. Grant article to FA. Don't remember the exact prose level when it was approved, but it was lower than 90k — now it's at 102k and there are no issues because no one has made it an issue. I suppose with the FA nomination in front of us, rather than behind, it's an issue, unfortunately. We can only hope we don't get a reviewer who is obsessed with page length and is aloof about the quality of the actual narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The next step

At this point hopefully everyone concerned is more or less content with the narrative, we've been tweaking it to death for months now. As there's always room for improvement, we should, if there are no glaring issues, let the narrative rest and get on with ironing out any sources and citations that need attention. It seems there are a few still lurking out there. After that, as I am in agreement with Hoppyh's advice, Cmguy777 and myself should jointly nominate the article. Hope this is an acceptable approach to all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, oh, on the joint nom. This article, like all the others, is a work in progress, and the nomination, as well as the promotion, does not change that fact. If a reviewer wants 95.672kb, then we’ll give them the best 95.672kb they can hope for. Does anyone think that kb number won’t change in any case? We need to keep eyes on the prize. Hoppyh (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree, but at this point we need to show signs of serious article stability, so, imo, we should keeps edits to a minimum, and only in cases of citation/source fixes, and grammar tweaks where really needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Was there a Pier Review? How do you nominate jointly ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems we've already have had plenty of peers that have reviewed the article. Peer ((not people form 'Mars') reviews, it would seem, should be conducted by editors with above average subject knowledge. Don't want any web-page hack to review the article. Nominate jointly? I'm not sure how that works, I've never been a big fan of the FA review process, considering. Hoppyh? Anyone? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I don't want to become an active editor of this article, but since you've tagged me, I'll give you my two cents. A few issues jump out at me. The Revolutionary War section has too many sub-sections. you should combine (and possibly condense) some of them, especially those that are just one paragraph long. The Slavery section is too long, considering that there is an entire sub-article on the issue. It reads as though it were the subject of many compromises, as opposed to a true synthesis. "Monuments and memorials" could be combined with "Postage and currency". For once, I don't think there are too many stamp and coin pictures--Washington is on so many, it's justified here. But the "family" portrait gallery should go, since they all have their own articles.

More specifically: look at the FA review and fix what they pointed out. The prose, referenced in the first oppose, is still clunky. Shorter sentences and simpler words are almost always better. Making things more complex is not the sign of better writing. There are also syntax and punctuation errors throughout, which perhaps someone from the Guild of Copyeditors might help you with. Peer review is also a good idea. Contrary to the objection voiced above, having someone unfamiliar with the subject reading the article is a good thing, because that is who the vast majority of the readers will be. If you need specialized knowledge to read this article, it's not well-written. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I will not be adding this article to my watchlist, so tag me if you have any more questions. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

________________________

This article is in serious need of a grammar and syntax edit. I have refrained from doing that because of the rabid frenzy of combative editing over the last few months. If that frenzy is past, I will begin cleaning up the writing throughout the article. There are other like-minded editors who have expressed this same frustration, and perhaps they will also resume involvement. But this is unlikely unless the massive tweaking and counter-tweaking has ceased. —Dilidor (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also planning on reviewing, but when I started before, there seemed to be other things going on. I've held off since for similar reasons as Dilidor. So I'm going to wait until a FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I have combined sections in the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) section and removed the Family portraits photos. I combined sections in the Historical reputation and legacy section. There needs to be work on the prose and reducing the Slavery section mentioned by Coemgenus. We probably should delay FA nomination until these improvements are implemented. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Yes, I was the one who pinged you, and indeed Cm' has called for your advice, which is welcomed, but I have to mostly disagree on one major issue here regarding the number of sections. This article is much shorter than the Ulysses S. Grant article. The Grant TOC runs par with the Washington TOC. It's Civil War sections run par with the Revolutionary War sections here. With maybe one exception, (Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War section, i.e.very short) there is really no pressing need to combine any more sections. Hope we don't get carried away here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Major changes all over again?

Before we start in with the major changes, a discussion regarding specific major changes would be in order so we are not using edit history to have such discussions. Combining the Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War section, which was indeed very short, seemed okay, but that's about it. Reminder, this is the main Washington article, the only WP article that comes in Google search results when one types in George Washington. As such, each section should be full, and comprehensive. The Washington biography is not simply a glorified Table of Contents for other Washington articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agreed with Coemgenus. I thought there were too many sections in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) section. That is why I made the edits. Coemgenus did disuss the issue in the talk page. The content information was kept. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, one of the sections was very short and was better included in with an other section. However, I'm hoping we don't start lumping in too many major topics under a one size fits all section. Thanks for your edits here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted "slavery" and "religion" edits

I propose to restore @Gwillhickers: edits relative to the following two items deleted by @Hoppyh: without discussion:

(1) slavery in the “Slavery” subsection, first paragraph, critiqued in the revert history as “not important”, “He often spoke of ending slavery, but never publicly, lest the issue threaten the unity of the new nation” (ref Ferling), — because (a) it was characteristic of his landowning Virginia Piedmont class 1770-1810, believing it was a necessary evil for union and it would wither away in the American Republic (after the Constitution allowed legislating on slavery after 1808 and --- before the cotton gin, after all), and (b) he acted on that belief personally by manumitting his slaves at his death.

(2) religion in the article introduction, fourth paragraph, critiqued in the revert history as “excess detail”, that I propose to be amended FROM “He is renowned for his religious toleration while his religious beliefs have been debated.” with WP:PUFFERY "renowned" -- TO -- “He was tolerant of the various Christian sects and Judaism, and though he publicly promoted religion as important to civil society, he personally avoided theological disputes.” (ref Mary V. Thompson, "In the Hands of a Good Providence: Religion in the Life of George Washington" (UVA Press 2008) — because as a Virginian Burgess, in the Continental Congress, presiding over the Constitutional Convention, and as a national leader, Washington threw in with the Enlightenment lawyers faction of the General Assembly, promoting the advance from religious toleration to religious liberty by following the lead of George Wythe (Judge after 1777), Edmund Pendleton (Judge after 1777) and Thomas Jefferson (Governor 1779, 1780). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a point. I don't think they were manumitted on his death. If I recall correctly, they were to be manumitted upon Martha's death, per George's will.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
My perspective is that this article is to keep a historical perspective. I have trouble with the term "necessary evil" applied to Washington and slavery. That would make Washington an evildoer since he was a slave owner. Washington enjoyed the material benefits of slavery. He viewed blacks as inferior. There is no evidence Washington morally opposed slavery until his 1799 will. His slaves were eventually freed by his wife. The slaves were mandated by Washington to be free, educated, and taken care of. Washington's faith is the subject of debate whether he was a Christian or non Christian. What is not in debate is his religious toleration. The reader should be given information in the article to make their own opinions of Washington and slavery or his religion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
These were and are major details, one of which is so general it belongs in the lede, so I restored them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again?

For the last several months many editors have made improvements in grammar, have trimmed and condensed text, ad infinitum, and now after all this work we're being told in effect that we've all been sitting on our hands all this time, as the article is still in "serious" need of improvement. Reminder -- encyclopedic prose, though not written like an outline, is not written like poetry or a story either. Unfortunately, some editor's idea of improvement in grammar is simply chopping away text. Easy to do. Often some of those same editors rarely if ever treat their own writing the same way. We should be mindful of that tendency. Now, what I feared would happen is indeed happening, and it looks like this article won't be nominated until we go through more trials and tribulations on what to remove and what to add, perceived issues of neutrality, etc, etc. We just threw article stability out the window, btw. I suspect that this article won't be nominated for another year, if ever. It seems we are going around in the same circle we were a couple of months ago. Let's see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I personally would not say we are at the "fear" stage, yet. I don't think that the article is unstable either. However, I have gone through the prose. I don't think it is bad. Can it be improved ? Yes. Also, we will never get a perfect article. We are not trying to win the Pulitzer Prize either. That should not stop us from nominating the article for FA. I don't mind changes in the prose. We could reduce the information in the slavery section since there is a dedicated article on the subject. I would not use prose as an excuse not to nominate the article for FA in the near future. I have not found any overwhelming mistakes in the grammar. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I trimmed the slavery section--readers interested in the topic are guided to the GW and slavery article.Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. I think the edits look great. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
IMO, the Peer Review should be the next step, but only if you are resolved to follow recommendations. Start fishing, enough bait has been cut. Hoppyh (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777, yes, the prose is fine overall, not perfect in everyone's eyes, of course, but very good, thanks to the efforts of several editors. Thanks for your encouraging words and voice of moderation.
  • Rjensen, in spite of the major reduction in the slavery section it appears okay and still has enough context. I restored one important detail however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hoppyh, the best peer review is accomplished by editors with above average subject knowledge. It seems we have plenty of those editors right here. I have reservations about any reviewer whose knowledge of Washington goes no further than he was a general and was the first president, and who tend to look at the article in mathematical terms. Imo, the lot of us here are more than adequate for a preliminary review before we nominate. As far as sources and citations go, however, any competent help is welcomed there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I quite disagree. IMO, above you are displaying clear proprietorship over the article to which I strongly object. To wit, you “have reservations about any reviewer.” As long as you persist, it will be your favorite article, but no one else’s, my friend. See my reverts. I will, again, take my leave here. Hoppyh (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I have "proprietorship" for is a reviewer that knows the history involved and can appreciate the amount of text involved. I am not seeking preferential treatment for the article. In fact, if reviewers have 'some' subject knowledge, chances are they are going to be more discerning, and perhaps more strict, in their review, as we just saw recently. Presently there are virtually no requirements for FA reviewers. IMO, that's sort of ridiculous. Sorry we disagree on that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation issue

Cmguy777, your last edit, only involving a change in grammar, brought a citation issue to my attention. (The citation issue isn't necessarily of your doing, or mine, btw.) In the Delaware crossing, Trenton and Princeton section, the two sentences that make up the last paragraph are poorly cited as they only cover parts of sentences there. i.e.Fischer, 2004, p.367, (citation 181) While covering how the American victories at Trenton had devastating effects on British and Hessian morale, he says nothing about "the Americans refused to negotiate for anything but complete independence." Washington wasn't even trying to negotiate at this point. After the victory at Trenton he bided his time and retreated back across the Delaware River to Pennsylvania and regrouped before returning to N.J. and setting up Head Quarters.(Chernow, pp.276-277)  Also, on p.151, (citation 182), Fischer says nothing about "...the British Army controlled New York...", even though we know they did. Am inclined to tag these sentences but will look for proper cites first. Could you (and anyone) see what comes up on your end also? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I cited Taylor (2016) on page 172. Howe retreated to New York after Trenton and Princeton and was inactive until Spring. I assumed the British were in control of New York until the end of the war. I took the information out of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I rephrased the sentence, using Taylor for the cite. I made a few other edits. There are still some other issues to iron out, however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Who was in charge 1789 ?

From March 4, 1789 to April 30, 1789 there was no President. Who was in charge ? Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. That is a period of 58 days the United States did not have a President under the Constitution. Was the president of the Continental Congress in charge ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, the Congress of the Confederation officially disbanded on March 4. It took a long time to certify the election results and with some initial confusion Congress did not have a quorum until early April. Adams and then Washington did not arrive until weeks after that. Really nobody was in charge. Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. That is true. I think more clarification is needed on that in the article. I can't find any sources that even cover the subject. I thought it would be worth mentioning in the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
While it's true that no one individual was in charge, the Congress of the Confederation made important decisions by means of a vote among its delegates. I agree, more clarification is needed here. This is context, (albeit important) not involving Washington directly, so we should make any such statement brief. Perhaps a footnote? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems historians gloss over this. Why was the country leaderless for 58 days ? Why did Congress fail to get the government running in a timely matter ? Was there any opposition from John Hancock ? It seems Washington and Hancock were at odds with each other. Why were the delegates late ? I can't find much on the matter. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The USA had always been leaderless--the presiding officers in Congress had little or no power. That all continued until the day GW took charge. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I found a book: History of Congress. That appears to be the case Rjensen. I am not sure it explains the lack of punctuality. Does that mean Americans did not care about government at all ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Bordewich's book on the First Congress blames "bad weather, bad roads, bad health, and bad luck" for the delays. Traveling in winter, especially overland, at that time was chancy at best and many congressmen-elect had to settle their own local affairs (such as the spring planting) before going to New York, which was far from a trivial trip. Some elections hadn't wound up yet, for example New York was having trouble choosing its senators due to internal factions. Setting up a federal government wasn't an urgent task. And until Congress had a quorum they could not count the electoral vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say Americans didn't want a government. They were weary of authority, given their 'Parliamentary' treatment previous, naturally. This was a transitional, unstable and brief period. It would seem that the country needed, and wanted, a strong and stable leader that all could aspire to, and Washington, given his track record, before the Revolution, and in the field of battle during, the ultimate test of loyalty and commitment, fit the bill. The 'leaderless' country, overwhelmingly, longed for the likes of Washington. This may seem liked biased talk, but consider the facts. After Washington relinquished his command after the war, he had to be prodded by Madison and others into running for prez, much to his reluctance. Realizing this need, Washington, feeling duty bound, accepted the prospect, just as he did when he ran for his second term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Most of this is covered in "Congress under the Articles". I would be wary of adding ideas about Americans longing for a leader. They had their independent state governments, and the Articles had gotten them through the war. Many were leery of a strong central government. (That's what the Federalist Papers were about.) YoPienso (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The above article does not cover why there was a 58 delay in Washington's inauguration or who was in charge. Chernow (2010) discussed the matter. Chernow (2010), page 551, said the delayed start made "America look like a backward nation of rude bumpkins derided by British Tories." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a suggested sentence: "The new government began with a shaky start, as Congress failed to reach a quorum on their first March 4 meeting." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"shaky" implies unstable. Better to quote: According to Bordewich, assembling the new Congress was delayed for six weeks by "bad weather, bad roads, bad health, and bad luck" Rjensen (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a two sentence modification: "Congress reached a quorum on April 6, and was officially able to count the votes for the presidency. After a count of the votes, Washington was announced President of the United States." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Or, "Congress reached a quorum on April 5, and on April 6 counted the votes. Charles Thomson was sent to Mount Vernon to tell Washington he had been elected President of the United States."
I don't see Bordewich in the bibliography. He makes clear the delay was a great embarrassment. Not sure that should be suppressed. The First Congress, pp. 27-29, YoPienso (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Modification: Delayed by bad weather and roads, an embarrased Congress finally reached a quorum on April 5, and on April 6 counted the votes. Charles Thomson was sent to Mount Vernon to tell Washington he had been elected President of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
We should perhaps keep it as brief as possible. Maybe we should simply state, with no official leader in place during this time, an anxious Congress hoped and waited for other members to arrive to finalize the voting.. Congress' "embarrassment", seems rather inconsequential to Washington and this transition, esp since there were a number of legitimate factors involved in the delay. I would think Congress was more anxious than embarrassed during this uncertain period, however brief. — Such anxieties nagged relentlessly at the members of Congress, as day after day, they trooped to Federal Hall hoping for the sight of new faces. Bordewich, p.29 —   Also, and perhaps more importantly, the biography should mention Washington's state of mind upon receiving news of the election, esp at the time he left Mt. Vernon and departed for New York, returning to the public life of which he had long hoped he could leave behind. I made an edit to this effect, using brief quotes, a few words, from Washington, using an existing citation, per Ferling, 2009. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation issue

Did some C/E - there were two "cites-needed" type tags that needed dealing with. Shearonink (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Thanks for your efforts but the sentences in question were already well cited by Chernow, and by D Felisati & G Sperati. Two consecutive sentences were cited by a single citation set. No need to cite each and every individual sentence. i.e.There was no call for tagging the first sentence by an editor on Sept.28. See edit history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I agree about overciting in general, not every sentence must be cited multiple times. However, that being said,...
The reason - yes, there was an actual reason I cited the fact with two sources after I looked into the matter today - the reason the amount of blood should be specifically cited is that other sources have different figures for the blood-letting/bloodloss and say that it was around 62 ounces or whatever. There's quite a difference between 62 & 82 so it would appear important enough to give more than one definitive source for the about 80 ounces/82 ounces/80+ ounces/"about five pints" statement because of that discrepancy in the various references that might be available to people. The Morens reference you deleted from that sentence is acknowledged by Dr. Howard Markel, the director of the Center for the History of Medicine (& the George E. Wantz Distinguished Professor of the History of Medicine at U of Michigan), as being one of the definitive sources on the medical facts about Washington's death here. The Wallenborn reference that you deleted was written by Dr. White McKenzie Wallenborn a past Clinical Professor at the Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery in the University of Virginia's School of Medicine and is published within the GW Papers held at UVa. In this matter I do not understand why a popular biography written by a layman (yes yes Chernow is a fantastic historian - I love his work to bits myself - but he is not an MD that is all) has been given more weight than two articles written by medical doctors, one of whom is 1)a leading epidemiologist as well as 2)the Senior Advisor to the Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), whose work was 3)published in the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the most well-regarded/vetted medical publications in the world & with incredible editorial oversight).
Also, there is nothing in the cited sources specifically characterizing Washington's breathing (as being labored or being shallow or being whatever) at the time that Dr. Dick proposed the tracheotomy. Washington was being slowly suffocated to death - during this last day, at some moments he was still able to speak and to speak quite clearly, at other times he was barely able to whisper - if his breathing was "labored" when Dr. Dick proposed the tracheotomy that fact does not appear in the sources that are cited for this article. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, all we need say is that a tracheotomy was considered and declined. Chernow p. 807 says a tracheotomy was considered for the purpose of "easing his breathing". Our section says labored breathing. I don't believe we have to cut it any finer than that, per existing sources. IMO, the text and original sources are fine. However, if you would like to modify the wording and cite this using Wallenborn I've no objections just as long as we're not committing a lot of text/details to a practice that wasn't even used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Two term presidency concept ?

Technically Washington did not serve two full terms. He was Inaugurated on April 30, 1789. Due to Congress not having a quorum, the election count on April 6, and travel time, the United States did not have President for 58 days. The first President to serve two full terms in office was Thomas Jefferson. Washington was the first President to be elected President twice consecutively. Jefferson then would be the first President to establish a two term presidential concept. Maybe more clarification could be used on the two term presidency concept ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington served 7 years, 10 months, and 2 days, or 2865 days in office. Jefferson served 8 years, 0 months, 0 days, or 2922 days in office. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Sentence suggestion: Although Washington did not serve a complete two terms of office, his retirement on March 4, 1789 prompted the concept of a two term presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
leave this out--it is OR and not based on discussions in major biographies. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The Presidential terms, span of time, of Washington and Jefferson, are not original research. There was no leader for 58 days. I had thought the subject worthy of discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This book covers term limit concepts. It says Jefferson declined 3rd term for political reasons. Washington declined 3rd term for personal reasons. The Developement of the Two-term Tradition Michael J. Korzi (2011) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Korzi says pages 45-46 that Washington was not for term limits. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
"term limits" is an entirely different concept --Korzi says GW is "misinterpreted" as founder of 2 term tradition, which Korzi says began with Jefferson in 1808. to avoid the OR problem see Bruce G. Peabody, "George Washington, presidential term limits, and the problem of reluctant political leadership." Presidential Studies Quarterly 31.3 (2001): 439-453. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The opening contention here was "Technically Washington did not serve two full terms". Being elected marks the beginning of a term. Being elected again marks the beginning of the second term and the end of the first term, regardless of the number of days spent in any given term. If Washington had died in the middle of his second term, we would still refer to him as a two-term president. "Technically"?  What are we supposed to say here?  i.e.Washington served 1.9 terms? At this late date I was hoping we'd only be discussing pressing issues that might compromise the nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers is quite right. Rjensen (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
A presidential term is four years in the Constitution. Korzi is a source that I cited. There is no OR. Korzi is the research. Not me. Should we put in the article that Washington was for term limits when in fact he was not, according to Korzi ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Washington didn't even want to run for a second term. Had he died during his second term, he still, once again, would have been a two-term president, regardless of what the Constitution says about a full term. Are you saying Washington was advocating unlimited terms? Our biography doesn't even suggest this, only that Washington's legacy had established that tradition long before it became official in 1947. Does Korzi say a reluctant Washington was advocating two+ terms for presidents, in no uncertain terms? Since we know he didn't and there is no issue to this effect in the narrative, I'm hoping we can move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Korzi said Washington retired in 1797 for personal reasons, not political. Shouldn't the article say this ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the note that cites Unger who devotes one sentence to the issue (in an unfootnoted caption to a picture) that GW "refused to run for a third term, setting a precedent that all his successors observed until 1940" [ Unger p 203]. Unger is wrong--Grant in 1880 and TR in 1912 did not "observe" that "tradition." In fact it was Jefferson who made it a political principle. Jefferson strongly disagreed with the Constitution on this issue as soon as he read the draft--He privately told Madison (& others) in 1787 "I dislike, and strongly dislike... the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be re-elected if he may be re-elected. He is then an officer for life." He went public while president. See https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1230.htm Here's the recent scholarship quoting David A Crockett, "'An Excess of Refinement]: Lame Duck Presidents in Constitutional and Historical Context " Presidential Studies Quarterly 38 no4 707-21 Crocket writes: "the argument for term limits has a solid and respectable pedigree. Contrary to popular belief, however, that pedigree does not begin with George Washington. The first president did not intentionally establish the so-called two-term tradition; his departure was motivated by a desire to demonstrate that the country could function without him and to retire to Mount Vernon. He made no principled argument for limiting presidents to two terms, and in fact disagreed with Thomas Jefferson on this point (Peabody 2001; Milkis and Nelson 2003, 84; Corwin 1957, 333). While Jefferson made use of Washington's voluntary retirement, calling it "the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor," it was Jefferson himself who gave philosophical justification to the two-term limit (Jefferson 2004, 64). In his 1807 letter to the Vermont Legislature, Jefferson outlined two major concerns behind his belief in some sort of fixed limit of terms." [bold added] Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't this information be put in the article, especially going into FA. Something like this: "It is traditionally believed Washington started the two-term limit presidential concept, but Washington departed office for personal reasons, rather than political." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes I agree. How about "Washington felt fatigued and used up in 1796. He yearned to retire to Mount Vernon and insisted on not running again. He was not opposed to third terms in principle--that was Jefferson's position that sometimes is mistakenly applied to Washington." cite = Bruce G. Peabody, "George Washington, presidential term limits, and the problem of reluctant political leadership.2001. Presidential Studies Quarterly (2001) 31#3: 439-53. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This Talk section started out with contentions of Washington not serving two full terms, but has taken on a different aspect. Yes, agree with Cm', this is important context, the clarity of which belongs in a FA. Without intending to do so, Washington had established the two-term limit simply by declining a third nomination. He never was a proponent of a Presidency lasting longer than two terms. We should simply restore the below foot note, slightly modified in bold, already cited, and include it as a general statement at the end of the Second term sub-section.

  • Washington refused to run for a third term in 1796, unofficially establishing the tradition of two term limitation for a president which was solidified by Jefferson and Madison, and which finally became a Constitutional Amendment in 1947.<Unger, 2013, p.237>

We should also restore the clause in the lede, which only said that Washington set the precedence of two-term limit, though it should be slightly reworded for clarity.

  • He set precedents still in use today, such as the Cabinet advisory system, the inaugural address, the title "Mr. President", and unintentionally, the concept of a two-term office limit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Well no--let's NOT give "informal" support to what Korzi, Peabody and Crockett & other scholars say is a false myth. Unger is a very poor RS on the topic (his one sentence is unaware of the large scholarly literature.) The scholars agree that GW did NOT intend to set any such precedent. GW explicitly rejected putting term limits in the Constitution. He never said he opposed a third terms for himself --he instead said he personally did not want to continue. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Considering Washington had relinquished command after the war it would seem that he would have likewise stepped down for the same reasons after his second term. Otoh, we know Martha was certainly a factor in his decision. Not familiar with Unger's credentials. Okay, RJ, I'll leave matters in your hands here. Cm'? Whatever is said, we should include this topic at the end of the Second term section, with a summary statement in the lede, imo. Seems this topic deserves more than one or two sentences at the end of the Second term section. Enough talk. Just go ahead and make the edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Term limits

{e/c}

And yet, for whatever reason, Washington did set a precedent.
Although Korzi does say Washington's action has been "misinterpreted," he also wrote, p. 41: "Indeed, notwithstanding the founders' clear provision of unlimited reeligibility, the constitutional view would be modified almost immediately by the actions of Presidents Washington and Jefferson, and these actions would be reinforced by successors Madison, Monroe, and, later, Jackson." I see no reason to completely scuttle the traditional interpretation, or misinterpretation, per Korzi. Who's Korzi, anyway? He's still teaching and trying to make a name for himself. Not a renowned scholar at this point.
Chernow, on the other hand, wrote, "Though it was not his main intention, Washington inaugurated a custom of presidents serving only two terms, a precedent honored until the time of Franklin Roosevelt."
Research by CQ Press indicates that, strengthened by succeeding presidents' examples, the idea of a third term was controversial in Grant's day.
Burns wrote in Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox 1882-1940 (1956) that T. Roosevelt was shot by "an anti-third-term fanatic." This is based on a letter written by the shooter. See also here and here.
Seems to me there's ample evidence that Washington set a precedent. YoPienso (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
(Good leg work!) Washington no doubt established the impetus for a two term limit, which is why I suggested we indicate so above. We should include in our passage how "the constitutional view would be modified almost immediately by the actions of Presidents *Washington* and Jefferson." Seems this topic deserves a paragraph at the end of the Second term section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I think Rjensen's version is good. Maybe change the term "used up." I am not sure what unintentional means. Washington resigned for personal reasons, not political. That is all that is being said. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Washington felt fatigued and burdened by office in 1796. He yearned to retire to Mount Vernon and insisted on not running again. He was not politically opposed to third terms in principle--that was Jefferson's position that sometimes is mistakenly applied to Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks okay, but we should also mention that it was Washington who, without intentionally trying to do so, established the idea of a two-term limit, his later actions in that "the constitutional view was modified by Washington" (and Jefferson), per Yopienso's findings, and that the two-term limit didn't become Constitutionally official until 1947. Yes, we need a fair sized paragraph that covers this well, per FA coverage. Not a two-dimensional topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Cmguy. The misinterpretation = the false statement that GW initiated a POLICY or somehow ENDORSED term limits. His actual policy was always to oppose term limits. This false view of GW's policy first appeared years after his death (and Jefferson was probably the chief misinterpreter). We should NOT encourage that misinterpretation. (I suggest a link to the article on Term limits in the United States. Unger gets lots of facts wrong say the scholars. He's a journalist praised for very lively biographies of many famous people, but based on weak research and unfamiliarity with the scholarship. We have multiple scholarly studies --eg Korzi and Bailey, Harry A. "Presidential Tenure and the Two-Term Tradition." Publius 2.2 (1972): 95-106. online and Crockett, David A. "'An Excess of Refinement]: Lame Duck Presidents in Constitutional and Historical Context " Presidential Studies Quarterly (2008) 38#4 pp. 707-21. Chernow p 755-7 esp note 35 --emphasizes that GW' "Farewell" made explicit what were his reasons to retire & also stated very clearly his position on many major issues--there was no mention of term limits. Chernow does mention the term limit precedent in one sentence (bottom p 757) but gets it wrong, saying it was honored until FDR. It was not honored by Grant (1880) or TR in 1912. Rjensen (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of his reasons, Washington set the precedent of serving two terms and retiring. I'm not sure how important it is to make the distinction between act and motive.
I assume that by "honored" Chernow meant no one else actually had a third term until FDR, using the definition of honor as "to keep an agreement." I interpret his statement as "Washington inaugurated a custom of presidents serving only two terms, a precedent kept until the time of Franklin Roosevelt." YoPienso (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, to honor a principle means you avoid making a huge effort to defeat it. If you run hard and try to win --as Grant and TR did--then you do not "honor" the principle of not running. I suggest it's the people who voted them down who were honoring the principle. Rjensen (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
It is true Washington did not want to serve a third term, but that was for personal reasons, not political. Washington did not oppose term limits politically. We should not link term limits to Washington, even unintentionally. FDR was the primary factor for instituting term limits, who served four terms of office. And that was political, because Republicans opposed the New Deal. The tradition of two terms was broken by Grant, who ran for a third term Republican presidential nomination in 1880. Ironically Washington would not have opposed Grant's third term bid, but Thomas Jefferson would have. The bottom line is that in my opinion this article should not promote Washington supported term limits. That is false. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
How FDR’s Presidency Inspired Term Limits Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington's reasons for not running for a third term were more than just personal. According to Flexner, vol.4, p.5-6, Washington declined a third term for the same reasons he declined power after the war. His biggest fear was not encroachments from the British, as Jefferson feared, nor the designs of the French, as Hamilton believe existed, but rather the diametrically opposing political factions within America itself. Having a president, from one party, ruling with unlimited terms, without the possibility of a new election, would have fanned the flames of division, already at dangerous proportions. Washington was acutely aware of the situation.

Flexner :  "Washington himself believed that the American experiment needed to complete its demonstration that humanity could rule itself, the orderly relinquishment of power by one elected representative to his elected successor. This would be a prodigy in a world of kings."

If we're going to assert that Washington opposed term limits, that he "explicitly rejected putting term limits in the Constitution", as claimed above, then it seems we'll need specific RS sources, notable sources, that outline Washington's 'advocacy' for unlimited terms, like that of a King, holding power until death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

to respond to Gwillhickers request, here's Peabody (2001) p 442: "After all, Washington presided over the constitutional proceedings that endorsed a perpetually reeligible president: "The matter was fairly discussed in the Convention," Washington wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette in 1788, "and to my full convictions ... I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally, most capable of serving the Public" even after serving two terms (Washington 1997, 679; see also Corwin 1948, 389). The Constitution, Washington explained, retained sufficient checks against political corruption and stagnant leadership without a presidential term limits provision (Washington 1997, 679; Phelps 1993, 105-6)." Peabody on p 443 then says GW was asked to run in 1799 and refused. "there is little evidence that he opposed reeligibility or saw himself as establishing a precedent of limited presidential tenure (see, e.g., Milkis and Nelson 1994, 90; Rossiter 1960, 229; Koenig, 1964, 64)." [from Peabody, Bruce G. "George Washington, presidential term limits, and the problem of reluctant political leadership." Presidential Studies Quarterly 31.3 (2001): 439-453.] Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The two-term limit was a custom, not a law. That custom was broken in 1880 by Grant. What political statement did Washington make that supported term limits ? It was Jefferson who declined to run on political reasons. Washington did not support term limits. It is true he resigned after his second term. The two events don't exclude each other. Washington wanted to get back to Mount Vernon, that was not being run good. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as pointed out above , the two-term limitit didn't become law until 1947. I had added the below quote previously, listing it under Flexner, above, but was called away from my desk before I saved it out:
  • Peabody : "Prominent among the numerous legacies ascribed to Washington is his association with a custom of limited presidential service. The conventional account of this tradition, provided by political scholars, and pundits, describes Washington's refusal to seek the presidency following his second elected term as giving birth to a convention restricting the chief executive to two terms in office. Washington, wary of the designs posed by an individual's becoming entrenched in the presidency, created a "two-term tradition" that remained intact until Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third consecutive election in 1940.<Bruce G. Peabody, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp.438-439>
It seems we have opposing signals here. While Washington declined a third term for political reasons, as well as personal, he was weary of a long lived presidency by one individual, from one party, as both Flexner and Peabody point out. However, as Rjensen points out, per Peabody, Washington didn't want to exclude the process of the ballot box, allowing a third term if elected. In any event, Washington did establish the  sentiment  behind term limits and declined a third nomination for reasons mentioned, relinquishing power as he had done after the war. Obviously we're going to have to come up with a proposal that accurately covers all aspects of Washington's thinking here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
It was Jefferson who established the tradition. He spent enormous energy for decades warning against monarchy and demanding term limits. Jeffersonians picked up the flag. Grant and T Roosevelt never accepted the policy -- TR hated Jefferson and all he stood for. The Washington role is another cherry tree. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen. Washington did not decline a third term for political reasons. Jefferson did. There is/are no statements from Washington that says he was for term limits. Jefferson made political statements for declining a third term. The only compromise I could think of would be to leave term limits out of the article. The Constitution did not have any term limits for the Presidency until 1947. It was FDR who prompted that law, not Washington. We can't put in the article Washington was for term limits. Washington said nothing about supporting term limits. Jefferson started the custom of a two-term presidency. Grant broke that in 1880. TR and FDR broke the custom too. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, we have sources that say Washington started the two-term tradition, albeit unintentionally, while Jefferson made efforts to make it official. We also have sources that say Washington's reasons were more than just personal, as outlined above. i.e.The relinquishing of power, diametrically opposed parties, etc. Here's a proposal:
Washington declined running for a third term for political and personal reasons, which unofficially established the two-term tradition. While he was wary of a continuing presidency under one individual, he didn't want to oppose the election process, allowing a third term if a candidate was duly elected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
drop the " which unofficially established the two-term tradition." Add: He strongly endorsed the absence of term limits in the Constitution." Jefferson deserves the credit. The people who support this misunderstanding did not do one-tenth the research we have on this page. They just assumed it was true. Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a rather broad claim, an indictment even, about a lot of sources, including Flexner and Peabody, who say Washington started the tradition. However, it still holds that Jefferson perpetuated it. Washington, largely admired, established a number of precedents. It would seem foolish to assume Washington's declining of a third term added no impetus to the idea of a two-term limit, imo. He had reservations about thwarting the Constitutional process of election, which could allow for a third term if a body was duly elected. We should come up with something that makes all of this clear. I thought I had. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
to mention unknown unspecified "political reasons" is inadequate--we should follow Flexner (p 351-2, 360-61) who explains the "political" reasons: 1 = he was very angry at the abuse he was taking from opponents --we can quote GW saying it made retirement much more attractive; 2 = he wanted to demonstrate that republican institutions would work--that elections would really act to reflect the nation's will in choosing the president--he made sure he did not use his influence on the voters so he remained silent in the 1796 election. I think we should quote his line to Lafayette on why explicit term limits are bad. It is the job of the editors to evaluate the quality of sources--and in this case Unger and Chernow did not do the needed research. To repeat their misinterpretation would be a serious flaw. Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Peabody is very good and we should follow his lead: he writes: The tradition of limited presidential service was not simply an extension of Washington's preferences gradually adopted as a norm of American politics. Instead, a variety of factors--and none of them arising from his opposition to continued service per se--combined to induce the president to retire. Thus, the two-term tradition was only partly and somewhat indirectly given life by the specific example of Washington. Indeed, the two-term tradition was actually born out of deep-seated American anxieties about centralized governing power (and specifically executive power--worries in considerable conflict with the strongly federalist views of governance that Washington favored and that are embodied in our constitutional text. Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I had said Washington never made statements supporting term limits. Jefferson did. In agreement with Rjensen, it should not be stated Washington started or unofficially started the custom or tradition, I think custom a better word, of a two-term presidency. Jefferson started that. Revision: Washington declined running for a third term for personal reasons. While he was wary of a continuing presidency under one individual, he didn't want to oppose the election process, allowing a third term when a candidate was duly elected. Is this a compromise ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

editbreak

Again, Washington, not intentionally, began the tradition, with numerous proponents citing his example of relinquishing power. It was Washington that gave (much) momentum to the idea of term limits. He declined for both political (in terms of stability and national unity) and personal reasons, and ideological reasons, not wanting to rule as some king, until death. Washington in several cases put off personal interests in the face of national interest and out of a deep sense of duty, much to Martha's dismay in most if not all cases. This needs to be better reflected in any proposal, esp since there are sources that support this rather obvious advent. Cm's above proposal is okay but the second sentence sort of contradicts the first. The first sentence should mention political reasons, as reflected in Cm's second sentence. i.e. "continuing presidency under one individual," This is a political reason. Washington's had strong sentiments about relinquishing power, as he did when he gave up command of the entire US Army.
While Washington didn't advocate a two-term limit to the presidency, he declined running for a third term for both political and personal reasons, giving much impetus to the tradition of a two-term limit for presidents. While he was wary of a continuing presidency under one individual, he didn't want to oppose the election process, allowing a third term when an incumbent candidate was duly elected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
the tradition = a POLICY of term limits, such as we have in the 22nd amendment. GW did not inaugurate that policy. He did not support that policy. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Tradition and policy aren't synonyms. YoPienso (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
my point is that the "tradition" being mentioned is the tradition of having a policy, informally set by Jefferson until it was put into the Constitution in 1951. GW opposed that policy. If you dishonor a policy lots of people get very upset (as happened with Grant, TR and FDR when they insisted on trying for another term. People were also upset in 1876 when rumor had it that Grant would go for reelection that year. Lots of people esp his wife wanted that but he refused.) Rjensen (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Our proposal mentions that Washington opposed two-term limits on Constitutional grounds, per the elective process. However, his sentiment about unlimited terms for any one individual is ingrained in his legacy of relinquishing power. Regardless of his feelings about the Constitution, he was still wary of any individual remaining in office for more than two terms, and without trying to, he established a tradition of a two-term presidency.

"Two hundred years after his death, George Washington continues to hold a privileged place in crowded iconography of American politics- - revered as soldier, stateman, and purported founder of a number of vernerable traditions. Prominent among the numerous legacies acribed to Washington is his association with a custom of limited presidential service. The conventional account of this tradition, provided by politicians, scholars, and pundits, describes Washington's refusal to seek the presidency following his second elected term as giving birth to a convention restricting the chief executive to two terms in office. Washington, wary of the dangers posed by an individual's becoming entrenched in the presidency, created a "two-term tradition" that remained intact until Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third consecutive election in 1940." <Peabody, pp.439-440>

The latest proposal outlines the essence of these ideas well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington did not create a two-term tradition. He retired to Mount Vernon. Washington said nothing that said he supported term limits. Are we making up history ? Again. Are there any statements from Washington that says he was for term limits ? The tradition ended in 1880 when Grant tried to be nominated for a third term. The Constitution had no term limits until 1947. There were no restrictions on how many terms a President could have before 1947. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The sources say Washington started the tradition, whether he said words to this effect or not. Tradition is not policy. It didn't become policy until FDR's terms. We say what the sources say. Here is another source, Mt. Vernon, used extensively in this biography. It says:
"In 1796, as his second term in office drew to a close, President George Washington chose not to seek re-election. Mindful of the precedent his conduct set for future presidents, Washington feared that if he were to die while in office, Americans would view the presidency as a lifetime appointment. Instead, he decided to step down from power, providing the standard of a two-term limit that would eventually be enshrined in the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution." (bold added)
Washington stepped down with the expressed idea that he didn't want to establish unlimited terms. Like with Peabody, we can't use a source when we want and then ignore it when we want. Jefferson was for term limits, but he didn't initiate the idea — Washington did by example. Though the Constitution allowed for a third term, there was a tradition that was followed, and that tradition was initiated by Washington, the first president. The discussion seems to be digressing into endless argumentative talk, blurring the distinction between tradition and policy, etc. We say what the sources say. Is there a source that says Washington did not start this tradition? Is there a source that says Washington's reasons were strictly personal? Several sources have been presented that say Washington started the tradition and that his reasons were also political. We have a proposal, drafted by Cm, and myself. It only says Washington gave impetus to the tradition, not policy, and that his reasons for declining the third term were also political.

editbreak2

While Washington didn't advocate a two-term limit to the presidency, he declined running for a third term for both political and personal reasons, giving much impetus to the tradition of a two-term limit for presidents. While he was wary of a continuing presidency under one individual, he didn't want to oppose the election process, allowing a third term when an incumbent candidate was duly elected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Washington was not against term limits. He did not decline running for political reasons, but rather personal reasons. He gave no impetus to the tradition of a two-term limit for future Presidents. Rjensen is right about that. Jefferson gave political reasons for not running a third term. That is when the custom started, not with Washington. Jefferson falsely stated that it did. Why keep spreading the myth. It gives a false representation that Washington was for term limits. It does matter that Washington did not write anything political concerning term limits. There is too much emphasis put on the term limits concerning Washington. While Washington did not support term limits, he declined to run for office for personal reasons, rather than political. That is all that needs to be said. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, it appears that you're merely reciting statements that have already been addressed and refuted by several sources, including Mt. Vernon and Peabody, while your truncated proposal ignores these sources and presents the topic very much out of context. Sources have been presented to you that say Washington started the tradition, for both personal and political reasons. Washington also explained in a letter to Jonathan Trumbull (i.e.in his own words) why he was declining a third term, and his reasons are largely political. Again, he did not want the office to be held by one individual for a long period of time, but did not want to oppose the Constitution, among other reasons already explained for you. This is not a two dimensional issue. I had asked you if there were sources that say Washington did not start this tradition, and that his reasons were strictly personal. You chose to ignore this and merely repeat yourself with no sources backing you up. Would you kindly not digress into another argumentative and redundant discussion, acknowledge reliable sources and drop the stick so we can move on? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well no --- years after his death people mistakenly claimed that Washington started the tradition. They did so without knowing what we now know from private letters. They were wrong Wiki should not support and repeat their mistakes. Here's a solution: Wiki can talk about term limit policy. Jefferson was very much a supporter and GW an opponent, but was mistakenly credited with supporting the policy. not RS on this topic. Peabody knows it well and summarizes the mistaken view. you quote that part. Peabody then goes on to explain why it's mistaken Peabody says: This article suggests that this widespread view of the relationship between Washington and the two-term tradition is misconceived. Conventional popular and even scholarly accounts of the two-term tradition confuse both Washington's position on presidential term limits and the historical contours of this practice--muddling our assessment of our first president's political legacy. And no--Mt Vernon website is unaware of the scholarship like Peabody & Crockett--its one sentence statement repeats the old myth that Peabody refutes. Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC).
I agree with Rjensen. The other issue too much weight on tradition. It would be a negative tradition, since not running for a third term, is a non action. Under the Constitution prior to 1947, the Presidency could have been a life long, occupation, as it was for FDR. The reality behind FDR is that the DNC pretty muched forced FDR to run for a fourth term. He clearly was ill at Yalta in 1945 and was weak against Stalin. It really were those issues that got the new amendment to have a two-term presidency. I am not sure Washington was a factor that determined the two-term amendment. We can't put in the article that Washington was for term limits or that he in anyway promoted term limits by leaving office in 1797. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's a proposed draft: Washington wanted to retire when his first term ended but all his advisors begged his to stand for reelection. By 1796 he insisted on retiring, for he felt worn out, and was disgusted with the virulent personal attacks on him. Furthermore if he died in office--he died in 1799 two years into the new term--the vice president would automatically take over and the people would be denied a choice. Politically he felt America needed to elect his successor, and that he should stay absolutely neutral in the 1896 election. He did not feel bound by a two-term limit. In the 1780s, about half the states provided term limits for governors. [ref] Michael J. Korzi, "Changing Views of Executive Tenure in Early American History," White House Studies 8#3 (2009) pp 357-379 at p 365. [/ref] The Constitutional convention of 1787 discussed the issue and decided not to do so. "The matter was fairly discussed in the Convention," Washington wrote in 1788, "and to my full convictions ... I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally, most capable of serving the Public" even after serving two terms. The Constitution, Washington explained, retained sufficient checks against political corruption and stagnant leadership without a presidential term limits provision. [ref] Bruce G. Peabody, "George Washington, Presidential Term Limits, and the Problem of Reluctant Political Leadership," Presidential Studies Quarterly 31.3 (2001): 439-453, at p 442.[/ref] Jefferson, however, strongly endorsed a policy of term limits. He rejected calls from supporters that he run for a third term in 1808, concluding that he needed to support "the sound precedent set by [his] illustrious predecessor." He mentioned George Washington's serving two terms, without mentioning that Washington opposed the policy Jefferson was proposing. Crockett argues that Washington, " did not intentionally establish the so-called two-term tradition; his departure was motivated by a desire to demonstrate that the country could function without him and to retire to Mount Vernon. He made no principled argument for limiting presidents to two terms, and in fact disagreed with Thomas Jefferson on this point." [ref] David A Crockett, "'An Excess of Refinement]: Lame Duck Presidents in Constitutional and Historical Context " Presidential Studies Quarterly (2008) 38#4 pp 707-21 at p. 710 [/ref] Nevertheless the "tradition" was born that Washington had launched the policy. [ref] Peabody 2001. p 446-48.[/ref] Will this do the job? Rjensen (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

compromise edit

Here is a compromise edit: While Washington did not support term limits, in 1796, he declined to run for office for personal reasons, rather than political. Washington also declined to run for office in 1799, convinced, out of prudence, he would "not draw a single vote from the Anti-federal side." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Source: Washington on a proposed third term and political parties, 1799 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
One can infer from what Washington said he would have ran for a 3rd term, had he lived, and had he had the votes to win. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Primary source: George Washington to Jonathan Trumbull (July 21, 1799) Mount Vernon, Virginia Cmguy777 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rjensen — Whatever Peabody said in its entirety he still qualified his account by saying,
— "Instead, he decided to step down from power, providing the standard of a two-term limit".
— "Prominent among the numerous legacies ascribed to Washington is his association with
     a custom of limited presidential service.'
— "Washington, wary of the designs posed by an individual's becoming entrenched in
     the presidency, created a "two-term tradition"
Nothing else Peabody says about Jefferson, et al, negates these ideas. There are just too many sources we must ignore to categorically say Washington had nothing to do with starting, or at least giving impetus to, a two-term presidency. My proposal above only says "...giving much impetus to the tradition of a two-term limit..."  It doesn't say he was soley responsible for it, though it could easily been seen that he gave birth to the idea (not policy), as many scholars have. And yes, as you quote above " Washington wrote in 1788, "and to my full convictions ... I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally, most capable of serving the Public." As mentioned above, he didn't advocate a two term limit on Constitutional grounds, not wanting to oppose the ballot and popular vote process, but he clearly had 'some' reservations about any one individual running for more than two terms, which are among the reasons he stepped down.  Without trying to do so, Washington's example clearly set the precedence for two terms.  This topic is a major issue in Washington's presidency and deserves at least a couple of well written sentences to cover it. Needless to say, it should get in depth coverage in the Presidency article. In any case, many thanks for the attention and leg work both you and Cm' have offered here. I would be interested in your proposal that hopefully reflects the things you pointed out, and those that I have outlined. - Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
the two term "tradition" refers to a policy of not allowing anyone to have a third term. It was vehemently argued that way for 150 years. The "misunderstanding' is the notion that GW supported that policy. He never said any such thin and he obviously left it out of the Farewell Address which was all about his a) stepping down and b) offering lots of advice and warnings. The article should say that he was misinterpreted long after his death., Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. My proposal was meant as a compromise. It supports that Washington did not support term limits. In fact, Washington's words presume he had thought about running again for a third term, but he did not have the votes. He did not want to throw himself in the ring with Anti-federalists. I have read through Washington's letter to Trumbell and could not find anything that mentions term limits. Jefferson started the customary two-term presidency from a political vantage. Washington declined to run because he was not popular anymore, not out of any political reasons. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's my 2nd revised proposed draft: ..... Washington wanted to retire when his first term ended but all his advisors begged him to stand for reelection. By 1796 he insisted on retiring, for he felt worn out, and was disgusted with the virulent personal attacks on his integrity. Politically he felt America needed a contested presidential election with a choice of candidates, which would not happen if he ran again. If he won and then died a vice president would take over who was not elected and his goal would fail. (He in fact did die in 1799 two years into the new term). The election went forward and he was absolutely neutral between Adams and Jefferson. He personally did not feel bound by a two-term limit. In the 1780s, about half the states provided term limits for governors. [ref] Michael J. Korzi, "Changing Views of Executive Tenure in Early American History," White House Studies 8#3 (2009) pp 357-379 at p 365. [/ref] The Constitutional convention of 1787 discussed the issue and decided not to do so. "The matter was fairly discussed in the Convention," Washington wrote in 1788, "and to my full convictions ... I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally, most capable of serving the Public" even after serving two terms. The Constitution, Washington explained, retained sufficient checks against political corruption and stagnant leadership without a presidential term limits provision. [ref] Bruce G. Peabody, "George Washington, Presidential Term Limits, and the Problem of Reluctant Political Leadership," Presidential Studies Quarterly 31.3 (2001): 439-453, at p 442.[/ref] Jefferson, however, strongly endorsed a policy of term limits. He rejected calls from supporters that he run for a third term in 1808, telling several state legislatures that he needed to support "the sound precedent set by [his] illustrious predecessor."[ref] Jeremy D. Bailey (2007). Thomas Jefferson and Executive Power. p. 124. [/ref] Jefferson mentioned George Washington's serving only two terms, without mentioning that Washington opposed the policy Jefferson was proposing. Crockett argues that Washington, "did not intentionally establish the so-called two-term tradition; his departure was motivated by a desire to demonstrate that the country could function without him and to retire to Mount Vernon. He made no principled argument for limiting presidents to two terms, and in fact disagreed with Thomas Jefferson on this point." [ref] David A Crockett, "'An Excess of Refinement]: Lame Duck Presidents in Constitutional and Historical Context " Presidential Studies Quarterly (2008) 38#4 pp 707-21 at p. 710 [/ref] The "two term tradition" was created in 1807 that suggested Washington had launched the policy. [ref] Peabody 2001. p 446-48.[/ref] Will this revision do the job? Rjensen (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. I got started by adding an edit. I used Korzi (2011) as a reference source. Editors are welcome to expand or improve the edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Just for the sake of neutrality, what were the political reasons Thomas Jefferson supported term limits ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777 — A litany of political reasons were outlined as to why Washington declined a third term. Your edit, Per Korzi, said his reasons were more personal than political. That is entirely debatable, given the other sources. We need to make a neutral statement and simply say Washington's reasons were both political and personal. We also should give the readers something more than a B-class statement, with more than just Korzi as a reference. Rjensen came up with a good start on a contextual proposal.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rjensen, let's remember the two-term 'tradition' became so long before it was a 'policy'. The source you introduced, Peabody, clearly says it was Washington who initiated the tradition, not a policy. We need to stop blurring the distinction between the two. Yes, Washington didn't advocate a two-term limit on Constitutional grounds, not wanting to oppose the ballot and popular vote, but, once again, he initiated the 'tradition', or if you prefer, 'precedent', without trying to do so. My above proposal clearly makes this distinction, that Washington didn't support two terms, yet gave impetus to the idea anyway. Your proposal is very good, contextual, and up to FA standards, so I included it in the Second term section, with mention that Washington unofficially set the precedence, per Peabody. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • [Add :] — I also added mention, per Cm's last edit, that Washington has been misinterpreted as the founder of tem limits, which indeed he was not. He just introduced the idea without trying to do so, at least in the eyes of many contemporaries and historians. Hoping this will be acceptable to all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Washington did not introduce any idea of term limits. He declined to run in 1796. That is all. The Trumbell letter showed that Washington was weighing into running for a third term. He commented he would not get any votes from anti-Federalists. Rjensen should be allowed to make improvements too in the edits. I don't want any editing warring over this. I think we are in agreement Washington did not found term limits. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
As explained several times, Washington's example of relinquishing power, and declining a nomination, set the tone for the 'idea' of term limits, per Peabody. i.e.The sentiment being, what was good for Washington should be good for all other presidents. Don't appreciate your retort that Rjensen "should be allowed...". The proposal is mostly of his doing, rich with context, as compared to your reduction of his words. Your edit was included, but evidently you're still not happy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. I apologize. I struck out the statement. There is no need to take this any further. It is better to get Washington to FA than to argue in the talk page. We can "drop the stick". I have tried to be cooperative as possible. Opinions and mistakes are bound to be said in talk pages. It was never meant as a rebuke. Let's just get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate your words. My only contention was that Washington's relinquishing of power and declining of a third nomination did not go unnoticed, to say the very least. His example indeed set the tone. Am wondering if Jefferson referred back to Washington's example when Jefferson officially went forward with the idea of a two–term limit. Seems sort of odd that it took so many years (into the 20th century!) before it actually became law. Evidently it took an 'FDR' to bring the issue to the forefront of political attention .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say Washington's second term ended in 1797 and he did not run in 1796. The Constitution ended Washington's power. Washington would have had to been elected again. Washington did not politically oppose a third term or support term limits. Washington's choice was not to run again. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The info box and the text give us the dates of Washington's terms, accurately. The section mentions that Washington insisted in not running for a third term in 1796. It's understood that the Constitution provides for the laws of the election. I don't see anything else that's less than accurate about Washington's presidency. Not sure what your point was. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The Constitution limited power at four years. Washington did not retire from office. His term ended on March 3, 1797 by the Constitution. Washington chose not to run. Washington relinquished not to run for office again. When Washington ran for a second term, no historians said Washington was a tyrant for running for a second term. These are my opinions. Washington was not for term limits. It should not be said in the article that he did. The conversation is going in circles. Time to get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why you're reciting the obvious, along with issues that have been resolved. There was never any issue with Washington being a "tyrant". Yes, no need to run around in circles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A few very minor issues which should be addressed or considered

Three very minor issues which someone more knowledgeable should address:

Religion and Enlightenment: This section had a couple quotations which did not make clear who was being quoted. I made my best guess, but someone needs to verify that I was correct. Just remember: if we use quotation marks, we need to make it clear who is being quoted. (In one or two other places, I simply removed the quotation marks.)

Revolutionary War: There is a note re: Bunker Hill near the top of this section which I suspect is an orphan of some material that got cut along the way. It's not critically important, yet I think that either the note should be deleted or else a paragraph should be added on Bunker Hill. Leaving it there will draw attention to the fact that we have not touched upon Bunker Hill.

Delaware Crossing, etc.: We mention at least twice that GW broke the army into 3 groups, and in one place we stipulate what he did with 2 of those groups. "Group 1 went this way, Group 2 went that way." Who led the third group (GW personally?) and which way did they go? —Dilidor (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Re: the Delaware crossing: If there were three others, leading three groups, what was Washington doing? I would assume Washington, as commander, led the third group, but am not positive. Have to review the source(s) if we must stipulate here. A general reminder to all. This is a biography so covering battles tactics to the last detail, per dedicated articles for such topics, is not always a paramount issue here. Just the same, will look into this. Been a long day. Tomorrow will come soon enough. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Found the problem. Washington and his army crossed the Delaware divided into three groups, with two groups not making it for more than an hour later. The last two groups did not "fail to make the crossing" as the previous text indicated. Once assembled on the NJ side, Washington this time divided his army into 'two' groups and marched on Trenton taking different roads. Initially Washington was all over the map, on horseback, managing the advance and giving words of encouragement to the men, advancing with Green on the upper road to Trenton. Upon arrival Washington, literally, lead the attack. Once again, thanx for spotting the discrepancy.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Was crossing the Delaware River on Christmas controversial ? Do historians cover this in any detail why Washington crossed the Delaware on Christmas Day ? Were the Hessians Catholic ?Cmguy777 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This article says Hessians were Catholic: Catholic Hessians in the Revolution Cmguy777 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears Washington knew the Hessians were Catholic and would probably take Christmas off, possibly. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
How about this addition ? "Hessian soldiers, many of whom were Catholic and celebrated Christmas mass," It would explain why Washington crossed the Delaware on Christmas. Washington recorded in his papers the 3,000 Hessians were Catholic. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless Washington specifically said he crossed on Christmas because the Hessians were Catholic, and without a specific source outlining this idea, this would amount to original research, esp since virtually all Christians celebrate Christmas, one way or the other -- not just Catholics. Besides, the British were held up in Trenton also. However, Washington assumed both the British and the Hessians would be off their guard not just because of the Christmas holiday, but because it was in the middle of winter during stormy weather. There is no call to be mentioning a particular religion regarding the Hessians, or the British for that matter. Besides, by the time Washington reached Trenton, it was the day after Christmas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Insert: The link I gave says Washington's papers reported that 3,000 Hessians were Catholic. So Washington knew the Hessians were Catholic. This is a discussion, not meant to be original research. Protestants back in Washington's day may not have celebrated Christmas. That was the later 19th Century. Are there any sources that discuss this ? The link I did give said the Hessians were Catholic. I had thought there was a source that said the Hessians celebrated Christmas while Washington crossed the Delaware. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Insert: "During the American Revolution, Patriot General George Washington crosses the Delaware River with 5,400 troops, hoping to surprise a Hessian force celebrating Christmas at their winter quarters in Trenton, New Jersey." Washington crosses the Delaware. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Once again, virtually all Christians celebrated or observed Christmas in one way or another. I restored the section to it's former comprehensive state, per FA criteria. You removed context and coverage of Washington's state of mind, bad weather. You referred to soldiers in boats as being in "columns", removed coverage about two other groups arriving late and you even removed Washington's comment to his soldiers as they marched towards Trenton. Summary style doesn't mean B-class writing. I kept the sentence covering sleeping Hessians after celebrating, and your footnote about a diversionary attack. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Columns can cross a river in boats. The three columns were Washington, Ewing, and Calawader. I gave the number of Washington's troop strength 5,400 soliders. I will disregard your "B-class writing" negative comment. In my opinion the section is confusing to the reader. It reads like a book. I had removed material, that I had believe non essential to the narration. I had streamlined the narrative. What is the point of editing on the article when edits get reverted ? Trenton was a route. The battle lasted about two hours. Washington had 2,400 troops to the Hessians 1,800 troops. That is what the reader wants to know. I hope we can work together in a more collegiate manner. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


Readers 'interested' in history want context and details, esp the major details. Columns are formations that advance with troops side by side -- the term is never used to describe boats or ships. Flotilla is the term used to describe boats or ships in formation. The section is not confusing to the intelligent reader. It's rather simple actually. You've made major deletions without discussion, and then turned around saying you want to "work together in a more collegiate manner". Your "streamlining" of the narrative chopped away several major points of context. You even removed the part about heavy sleet and snow -- a major detail that sets the scene for the entire topic. That is less than B-class coverage. FA criteria maintains that topics should overlook no major details and present the topic in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I was not describing boats and ships. I was describing the army. Soldiers don't cease to be soldiers in boats. This negativity is not helping matters. Readers want to know troop strength, casualties, and who got the victory. I respectfully disagree this it was less than B-class coverage. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: Religion and Enlightenment and quotes: Most of the quotes were self explanatory, however, I italicized three of the terms, as they were general references to God, used by many. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: Bunker Hill. Washington was not at that battle, so I removed the footnote. Even a statement to this effect would be sort of out of place in the opening paragraph to this major section. If we're going to mention that the British were wary of frontal attacks, it should be worked into a paragraph where Washington was confronting the British and they declined a frontal attack. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington/Archive_26&oldid=866379570"