Talk:George Washington/Archive 27

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 20

←

Archive 25

Delaware crossing and Trenton

Without getting into specifics, I think the Delaware crossing and Trenton section needs more clarification before submitting to FA. Length of the battle, troops strengths, and casualties should be emphasized. Washington, Ewing, and Calawader crossed the Delaware. The article sounds as if Washington were the only one to cross the Delaware. The Hessians were outnumbered. Feel free to agree or disagree. I thought the matter needed attention. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were present during the crossing also. I'd like to mention them, but don't want to simply inject mention of them as stand along statements in the section. The Delaware crossing, Trenton, and Princeton section is a bit long, and rightfully so, given the several topics covered here. Am thinking about dividing this section into specific topics/sub sections. Henry Knox's use of artillery is what made victory possible at both battles, (Trenton and Princeton) and is what convinced Congress, previously more concerned about budget concerns than the realities of war, to fund Knox's ideas for constructing cannon foundries (in Springfield, Mass) and creating several artillery battalions. Along with Washington's letter of approval to Congress, (dated Feb.11, 1777) the two of them procured adequate funding for this prospect, much to the disapproval of John Hancock (then president of the Continental Congress). Without getting too involved with battle tactics, mention is due that Washington's and Knox's involvement here is what made Congress look at matters more realistically. As Rjensen once mentioned, we need to cover Washington's relationship with various individuals, like Knox, in proportion with battle tactics and such. I've no objections about any clarity added to the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am for a summary style that gives specific details. The section is too long. That is why I took out narration. We can't have paragraphs that are 200 words + . I don't think the section needs to be longer. But I don't want to fight in the editing either.I suggest using Taylor, Chernow, and Mays. None of this matters when editors work against each other in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Hessians were outnumbered." And they already knew that. Our article on the Battle of Trenton mentions that Johann Rall, their commander at the time, had send a request for reinforcements prior to the Battle. His request was denied by superior officer James Grant.

Due to Washington's failure to maintain secrecy, Rall had advanced warnings for the attack.: "As Christmas approached, Loyalists came to Trenton to report the Americans were planning action. American deserters told the Hessians that rations were being prepared for an advance across the river. Rall publicly dismissed such talk as nonsense, but privately in letters to his superiors, he said he was worried about an imminent attack. He wrote to Donop that he was "liable to be attacked at any moment". Rall said that Trenton was "indefensible" and asked that British troops establish a garrison in Maidenhead (now Lawrenceville). Close to Trenton, this would help defend the roads from Americans. His request was denied. As the Americans disrupted Hessian supply lines, the officers started to share Rall's fears. One wrote, "We have not slept one night in peace since we came to this place." On December 22, 1776, a spy reported to Grant that Washington had called a council of war; Grant told Rall to "be on your guard". " Dimadick (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting points that history enthusiasts and the serious student will of course appreciate. The section is obviously still missing some important details. I'm a little puzzled, however. The Hessians were obviously surprised when Washington showed up at Trenton. Apparently they didn't take the warning very seriously(?) From what source(s) were you referring? —— Washington had planted a spy, John Honeyman, posing as a Tory, in Trenton. Honeyman was a butcher and bartender, who traded with the British and Hessians, enabling him to gather intelligence while he helped to convince Rall that the Continental Army was suffering from low morale, and in the face of nasty winter weather, would not attack Trenton.<Kilmeade, Yaeger, 2013, pp.29-30> Fischer, p.423 however claims the Honeyman account is somewhat questionable because the event was shrouded in secrecy with no primary sources other than claims from Honeyman's family to confirm the event. Yet such an event is not at all unlikely and certainly can't be dismissed out of hand -- and indeed, the Hessians were caught completely off guard.
Currently the Delaware crossing, Trenton, and Princeton section has its topics all run together. I'd recommend a separate section for the Delaware crossing, and another for the Battles of Trenton and Princeton. As mentioned above, it was these battles, per Washington's and Knox's urging, that changed Congress' attitude about funding the war effort, which needs to be mentioned also . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I recommend tighten this section up and then submit the article for FA. The casualties clearly show the Hessians were taken by surprise. We need to put the casualties in the section. No fortifications were put up by the Hessians. Probably it was the weather that caught them off gaurd, more than Christmas, but the two mixed together would create confusion. It is similar to Washington attacking the French in the first battle of the French and Indian War. I am not sure the modern reader will understand what stay by your officers means. We don't want to get bogged down in negative talk. We can get this section improved and then submit for FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I divided the section into two, as the topics were all strung together. The Delaware crossing is its own landmark subject and merits its own section. I mentioned the number of Hessian casualties and added a few points of context and clarity, without including a large amount of text. We are down to 94k of readable prose. I'm ready to nominate if you are. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"From what source(s) were you referring?":

Ketchum, Richard (1999). The Winter Soldiers: The Battles for Trenton and Princeton
Fischer, David Hackett (2006). Washington's Crossing. Dimadick (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"No fortifications were put up by the Hessians." This is already explained in the main article on the battle.

Trenton lacked city walls or fortifications, which was typical of American settlements. Some Hessian officers advised Rall to fortify the town, and two of his engineers advised that a redoubt be constructed at the upper end of town, and fortifications be built along the river. The engineers went so far as to draw up plans, but Rall disagreed with them. When Rall was again urged to fortify the town, he replied, "Let them come ... We will go at them with the bayonet." "

Since Rall took control of Trenton on December 22, 1776, it is not even certain whether they had enough time to build fortifications. Dimadick (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick — We're about ready to nominate, so I'm hoping. If there's anything you'd like to add to the section, now is the time to do it, keeping in mind that this is a biography about Washington. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can forget about the nomination for awhile. Same ol, same ol. The Delaware crossing section wasn't long at all, so there was no need to start chopping away context again, esp since the article is at 94k readable prose. I restored the section to its former comprehensive state. Much context, once again, was removed in this apparent obsession to reduce narration, including mention that Washington first crossed the Delaware ahead of his men to stake out a safe landing zone, along with mention of Ewing and Cadwalader, two colonels that Washington personally assigned to make separate crossings, at specific locations, which were also removed. Restored mention of the 60 mile search, giving the reader a comprehensive idea of the scope of the operation. This would be at least the second time this was restored, with an explanation that apparently just gets ignored. Kept some of the new details that were added, including the code name for the crossing, etc, along with the added source. Good luck with the nomination. Maybe someday it will happen. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington's council of war was at least on December 22, 1776 for the attack on Trenton. What source says Christmas Eve ? Washington got to the Delaware River on Christmas Eve behind schedule. It is unlikely he had a council of war before the crossing. Where ? It was storming. My edit did say two other regiments were unable to cross the Delaware River. This article is on Washington, not Ewing or Calawader and none of those persons contributed to Washington's victory at Trenton. And my main contention in my edit was that Washington faced the Hessians on his own. He was in command. He would not accept defeat, thus, "Victory or Death", campaign name. Why was that editing objected too ? It was Washington's finest hour. Should not the editing emphasis this ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Also the current edits say Washington was in despair. He may have been, but he trudged on to take on the Hessians, despite his "despair". The editing sounds like Washington gave up. He did not. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You've deleted several major points of context, on two separate occasions, including mention of sleet and snow, and now here you are asking for more context and clarity. The section doesn't say anything the sources haven't said, and does so generally and clearly, while the biography is filled with names of other individuals closely involved with Washington. Ewing and Calawader should at least be mentioned in the coverage of this landmark event. No one has written anything more than a general sentence for each of these commanders, so I really fail to see your issue. FA criteria says we present the coverage in context and in a comprehensive manner, so once again, along with the endless talk, issues are being created by you where there really are none. Along with the instability, these are the reasons the article hasn't been nominated yet, nor will be in the foreseeable future. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Editors need to work together to get the article to FA. Not tear each other apart. I don't see any instability in this article. Editors should be allowed to edit freely. It is common practice to improve the narration, make it more lively, or jump out at the reader. Trenton is very important. It is Washington against all odds, fighting the British on his own, mono on mono. He won. This is the tough guy Washington. He was away from Mount Vernon. He may or may not have had slaves with him. I am not sure. But Trenton was all Washington. It is the turning point of the revolution. Just listing facts does not make exciting reading. As I said, let's clean up Trenton, and then nominate for FA. I was being comprehensive in my editing. Should one editor be the judge of what is comprehensive and what is not ? Washington may have been briefly afraid, but he kept on. That is what needs to be conveyed. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"Just listing facts does not make exciting reading."? This is what I've always said to you, in so many words, every time you remove context. Now listen to you. "He may not have had slaves with him. I am not sure."?? This recital is disjointed and wandering. In any case, 'working together' usually means not chopping away large portions of context without any discussion. It's really less than sincere to say you are trying to "improve" the comprehensiveness in the process. Anyone can plainly see you were diminishing the content. No "judge" is needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the section looks a lot better. I won't make any comments on my sincerity or whether I was diminishing the content. Its not about me. It's about Washington. I could make a few comments of my own, but I won't. Content can always be readded. I don't have any problems with how the article looks now. All we want to do is nominate for FA. Let the FA reviewers make comments. Those are the comments that count. Hopefully this article will pass FA or at least get a thourough review. Thanks. I say go ahead and nominate for FA and see what happens. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, after your last few edits the already good section has improved. I would like to nominate, but after the last couple of months every time 'nomination' is mentioned, other issues, supposed, or completely imagined, hit the fan — right at that point. Now we have another hit piece that has emerged in the Indian affairs section, with one author's opinion in the opening paragraph to deal with, (Calloway, the only author mentioned by name, no less) and as usual, some of the items have been cherry picked and taken out of context. I was going to revert the entire edit, as the important points are already covered. Was, and still am, hoping someone else besides myself was concerned, but apparently not, with one exception. Perhaps by 2019 the article will be nominated. Trying to maintain optimism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

best biography is online free

D S Freeman wrote the best bio of Washington in 7 LONG volumes VERY good for precise daily details; vol 1-2-3 (covering birth to age 27) are online free as is vol 7 https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%28douglas%20%20freeman%29%20washington Rjensen (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Have downloaded the four volumes available on line. Unfortunately they are not searchable PDF files (when off line), but with a TOC and an index it shouldn't be too difficult to look for material the "old fashioned" way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

you can download also into "full text" (ascii) and read easily but ocr is medicore. Rjensen (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian affairs

The Indian World of George Washington: The First President, the First Americans, and the Birth of a Nation Colin G. Calloway (2018) This book could be added to the biography. I don't have a copy of it. It could be used in the article. I had removed information from a blog webpage. The book was cited but did not have a page number. I think it would be good for future reference(s). Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your last round of edits. Great improvement to the section. I added an important perspective to the section, per Taylor and Chernow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the edits Gwillhickers. When and where were the Indians given peace offers by Americans for their lands ? Is Wikipedia assuming Indians had no rights to or right to fight for their lands in Ohio ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We only say what the sources say. If you would like exact dates and locations peace offerings were made there are plenty of sources we can look into. I completely agree - context is important. It helps to dispel some of the modern day notions some people have been saddled with since the mid 20th century. It's nice to know you and I are part of that progressive effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I am all for a progressive effort. What source says Indians were given peace offerings ? The sentence did not have a source or reference. I take the peace offerings were offerings of money, possibly, but when the Indians refused then there was a war ? More clarification is needed. Chernow (2010) does not mention peace offerings prior to Fallen Timbers. When Indians attacked settlers, were they defending there lands ? Both Americans and Indians were hostile. That is what a war is. I don't think calling Indians hostile is neccessary. Do we say the hostile Americans attacked the Hessians at Trenton ? No. Back to FA. In my opinion nomination is the best to do ASAP. Let's let the FA reviewers make their opinions of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The Indians initiated slaughters, numerous times, often prompted by the British, and were clearly hostile. Of course, the response was hostile. We don't sweep important context under the rug in the name of "neutrality". Subverting important facts is the affront to neutrality. Also, the idea that Indians were protecting "their" lands is a misnomer entirely. Indians were fighting other Indians for land, long before settlers arrived. Which "their" owned the land? Are you saying settlers didn't also have the right to fight for the same land? Also, Flexner, 1969, p.304, clearly conveys the idea that peace offerings were made on numerous occasions:

Washington undertook what was probably the most extensive effort to conciliate hostile tribes ever engaged by any U.S. Government. Council fires glowed in countless forest shades. belts of wampum were flung to the endless droning of oratory the Indians so enjoyed.

Flexner's statement, "the most extensive effort to conciliate hostile tribes" easily translates into the statement you deleted.

Washington had made numerous attempts to conciliate relations with Indians, with numerous peace offers made to them in an effort to co-exist with settlers.<Flexner, 1969, p.304>

Flexner's account was restored. It's important context regarding Washington's dealings with Indians. However, most of your other edits were improvements here, with mention of Knox, etc, and the term "hostile" is used in the proper place. We should be careful about what we're considering to be "neutrality". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Then why not put in the article "hostile Americans", who attacked and killed Loyalists, Indians, Hessians and the British ? Wasn't it the colonists who started the Revolutionary War ? But it is okay to single out Indians as being hostile in the article ? It can be assumed both Americans and Indians were hostile forces. There is no need to single out Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The Indians in question never wanted peace. They were mostly racist and xenophobic and even prejudiced towards other tribes to the point where they went to war over hunting grounds. Responding to hostility, oppression, etc is defensive. That's the distinction you're attempting to gloss over. The loyalists sided with the British, who were oppressive and sent troops and war ships clear across the ocean. Responding to this could be said to be "hostile", so if it you like, you can add the term in a given section. We say "hostile Indians" to differentiate from those who were not, and to make the point that Washington, et al, just didn't up and go after these Indians for no good reason, just as the sources have. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It is true Washington did not want to appear as some Cortez conquistador and his administation made efforts for a peaceful land transition. Flexner (1969) assumed Indians did not have a right to their lands. American historians assumed the British did not have a right to their colonies. Maybe it depends on who is authoring the history. But. I am getting off topic. I will not dispute the term "hostile Indians" in the article. I suggest nominating the article for FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Insert : You're suggesting that Washington's only concern was appearances, which is somewhat contrary to his prolonged efforts to achieve peace. Where are you getting the notion that Flexner "assumed Indians did not have a right to their lands."? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it quite yet, as the Indian Affairs section still needs work. The Calloway material appears to be lifted word-for-word from the source, and there are a few sentences that sound repetitive ("conciliate" sentences should be merged, e.g.). Incidentally, I would not dispute the use of "hostile" either, to distinguish between Nat Am groups friendly to US Americans and those who were not at the time. However, the fact that Flexner wrote in 1969 and the fact that he assumed Indians did not have rights to their land signals, to me at least, that we should reinforce most uses of Flexner in this section with other sources as well (which is done quite well here, actually with Taylor and Cooke.--MattMauler (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the Calloway text was supposed to be a direct quotation, so I fixed the punctuation to reflect that. One question still, though. Is this first sentence of the section directly quoted from Calloway's book? It is not accessible online, so there is no way for me to check. Since there's a quotation mark at the end, I assume it's supposed to be quoted text, but there is no beginning quotation mark. Is it the whole sentence?
If so, punctuation should be fixed, but the beginning of the section should probably be rephrased slightly, instead of beginning with a direct quote.--MattMauler (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We should not be using a blog information in the Indian affairs article. I don't know if it is direct quote from the book. The information was readded. I think it is apparent Americans were conquering the continent starting with Washington. No Indians, French, British, Spanish, were going to get in the way. Calloway is a "this year 2018" book. I am not sure whether editors have had time to read it. Did Washington profit from Treaty of Greenville ? I am against putting generalizations in the aritcle. Any generalizations can be misinterpreted. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I checked the removed blog source quoting Calloway, and the first sentence of the Indian Affairs section (which I have now removed) was a direct quote from the blog/interview, NOT from the book, page 38, as the citation said. There is a preview of the 2018 book on Google Books, and page 38 does use the term "obsession," but in a slightly different context. I am in favor of incorporating Calloway's work into the section as he's a prominent scholar on Native American issues and early American history (would supersede or at least surpass in level of detail some of the reference works currently cited in the article), but you are right that it will take time, not a matter of dropping in a quote here or there.--MattMauler (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and insights MattMauler. Originally material from Calloway was cherry picked and used in a rather POV fashion. "Washington's "obsession", etc. Used in an appropriate manner, Calloway is a welcomed source. Half the problem involves the modern day distortion, or notion, that Indians were these helpless people that settlers completely and unmercifully took advantage of, and as if they came along and were just shooting fish in a barrel. Also, as mentioned, we seem to be giving a bit too much weight to this topic, as compared to the Foreign Affairs section, involving factors that impacted the fate of the young and still unstable nation more so than hostile Indians and the fur trade did. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Calloway (2018) source is reliable. I believe any critisism Calloway may have concerning Washington should be from his book, not a blog source. Did Washington profit from the Treaty of Greenville in any manner, since Washington speculated or invested in land ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We should be interested in any insights that Calloway has to offer, not just criticisms. The idea of "justice" is a very subjective concept, per your last edit. It could easily be argued, considering the numerous slaughters at the hands of racist Indians, that they got more than they deserved, esp since they were given many opportunities, along with tools and livestock, to assimilate. Re: Treaty of Greenville, we should be more interested in any integral role that Washington played in the treaty, not just criticism about any profit Washington 'may' have made. In the Treaty of Greenville article, Washington is only mentioned once, in conjunction with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There is not even a suggestion about an underlying scheme to make profit. You seem to be reaching, wishing, for criticism, once again. As mentioned, we are beginning to give the section more weight than is really necessary. I don't see anything important that's really missing here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the critique is needed, and was lost when we removed the hastily added Calloway blog stuff at the beginning of the section, so I support Calloway's (re)incorporation (his book, btw, contains both critique and admiration). I do think that it is better when clearly attributed to Calloway (as it is now).--MattMauler (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, critique, along with objectivity, is always needed. We now mention the Indian's brutality and their refusal to assimilate, etc, along with Washington's failure, bearing in mind we are advancing a POV from one historian, the only one mentioned by name in the section. However, it's not an outlandish pov, so I can live with it, in this case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation Bot

Citation Bot ran on the article early in the day on October 14 with this edit. I think getting the isbns all in order is awesome but in at least one case the bot changed specific pages to page ranges. The bot changed the page parameter for the Estes/"Shaping the Politics of Public Opinion: Federalists and the Jay Treaty Debate" citation from page 393 to a page range of 393-422 and that is not correct. The cite is not the whole article, it's to a specific page. The bot also deleted the publishers info from at least 2 cites (the Breen/Distillery article, the Kohn/"Inside history of the Newburgh Conspiracy"/William and Mary Quarterly article) and it mangled the Daniel Egber/Slate/What's Ben Franklin's Birthday? cite. And are all the changed ISBNs now actually correct?... Shearonink (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the ISBNs are all now correct in their present state? The Bot changed quite a few of them in its last two passes... I restored the linkage/name of the publisher for Breen/Distillery, restored the name of the publisher for Kohn/William & Mary Quarterly, restored the specific page number for Estes/Shaping the Politics of Public Opinion: Federalists and the Jay Treaty Debate, and restored the Wikilinkage for "Slate" magazine in the Engber/What's Benjamin Franklin's Birthday? cite. Shearonink (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, with URL links to each of the books, the ISBN numbers are sort of redundant and not really needed. If the bot can't handle the matter entirely it would mean we would have to go back on line for each and every book and check its ISBN number with ours. Anyone up for that task? (!) If the ISBN numbers persist in presenting problems I'd recommend that we just eliminate them and be done with the issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I went through and spot-checked multiple book cites with their ISBNs (where the bot changed the #s from the ISBN-10 to the ISBN-13) and they line up. Went to Abebooks and used their "Search by ISBN" feature to check that the ISBNs are correct.

But. Citation Bot changed some cites back to their incorrect form (again) with this edit. I am going ahead and reporting this particular issue to the bot owner. Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If anyone here is interested in participating in a discussion re: Citation bot I did post about the issues I saw with the bot at User talk: Citation bot in this section: Publishers being deleted & specific pages being changed to page ranges.... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Calloway's opinion

On retrospect it seems we should remove Calloways's singular opinion as a closing statement in the Indian affairs section, and just stick to the facts, letting readers decide on subjective matters such as "Justice". Mentioning one historian by name, and then quoting his highly opinionated statement raises serious POV issues, while giving more weight to this one individual over all the others. It also could prove to be an issue when the article is nominated, if that should ever happen. At this rate, it would appear not. Also, saying that Calloway "claimed" is perfectly neutral. Saying that Calloway "said" sounds like we're agreeing with his opinion and comes off like a 'Simon says' statement. Now the article simply says "Calloway is of the opinion...", which is more neutral than saying "Calloway claimed..." We can let the statement stand for now, but we need to give second thoughts about asserting one person's opinion about highly subjective matters concerning "Justice". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Calloway authored a book devoted to Washington's Indian policy. That makes Calloway a reliable authority, at least for now. Why not add an opinion different than Calloway, but keep Calloway's opinion. Isn't the montra "We just say what the sources say"...how many times have I been told that. And "said" is not statement of fact. It is just a statement. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Insert : We say what the sources say, of course, but when it comes to one opinion among many, we must use discretion, esp when it involves subjective and possibly controversial matters. Also, saying "said" is like saying Simon says. Best to use the neutral phrase claimed, which you changed. Now it says "is of the opinion". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think "of the opinion" introduces a few too many words, but I understand where you're coming from. Still, I am against the complete removal of Calloway. I agree that naming him and him alone seems strange, as other historians have made evaluative claims about Washington's policy (most of them noting the same mixture: Washington familiar and friendly with many Nat Americans, but also determined to do what he saw as best for the U.S.: Expand, whether or not they were willing to assimilate). I think broad characterizations of Washington's approach are useful and appropriate for the article, including the ones offered by Calloway, but paraphrasing (instead of quoting him) might be better . . . Perhaps steering around/leaving out the word "justice" since not all historians of this period even address the "justice" of his policy or lack thereof. Indeed, if we leave aside the moral element of the single quote now in the article, Calloway's characterization isn't really that contentious sec. other historians (I still don't have complete access to the source, so just weighing in based on the 30 or so pages I've read so far). I think, ideally, Calloway's ideas/statements/claims should be placed alongside others if he is named/attributed, and if it's decided differently (i.e., we decide not to name him), his ideas can be paraphrased and incorporated into the section.--MattMauler (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Out of compromise I didn't remove the statement. I agree that more than one opinion is certainly called for here. It could just as easily be asserted that justice was denied settlers when men, women and children were slaughtered. Where was the sense of justice when prisoners were executed? If the phrase "of the opinion" is too wordy I'll change it back to the previous wording, and simply use "claimed". In any case, saying "failed to balance expansion onto Indian lands, with justice to Indian people.", is not an absolute fact, it's clearly an opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We can't throw out Calloway because of one opinion or exclude the opinion. That would not be neutral. Wikipedia should not take sides on Washington's Indian policy. This is an issue of war over land. Indians were denied citizenship to the United States. What were the Indians suppose to do, just give up their lands to the white people. When are we going to face the facts that American Revolution was about land. What battles were "men, women and children" were slaughtered? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Chernow (2010) said Washington was ambivalent towards Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

George Washington and the Indians Ojibwa (September 22, 2011) Cmguy777 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Native American Policy Richard Harless George Mason University 2018 Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association Cmguy777 (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans 2008 Lillian Goldman Law Library Yale Law School Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't wish to enter the NPOV debate, but I have to say that the Calloway quotation is a hand grenade tossed at the end of that section. There is nothing in that section addressing the question of whether the Indians were given justice, and if that quotation is used it needs to be explained. In what way were the Indians deprived of justice? In what sense was there an imbalance? Unless these questions are answered, at least briefly, that quotation is more problematic than helpful. —Dilidor (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The imbalance would be the 2/3rds of the Indian land was ceded to the America. It was done by NorthWestern War. Does Wikipedia assume that Indians had no rights to their lands ? Again. We put in what the sources say. I would not call Calloway quotation a "hand grenade tossed at the end of the section." I am willing to work things out. We should not have an edit war because of an author's opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dilidore. Closing the section with the Calloway quote more than suggests that everything covered in the section leads up to the conclusion/opinion of Calloway, regardless if the statement begins with "According to...". As mentioned, the idea of Justice is a very subjective concept, esp when it is attributed to only one group of people. Given the modern day stigmas that were cultivated by the media, activists, pressure groups and the 'friends of America' crowd, in the mid to late 20th century, many naive readers automatically assume that Indians were all good — white men were all bad. Using the Calloway opinion by itself tends to promote that distortion. I'm still leaning toward the idea of removing this one lone opinion from the section entirely and just sticking to the facts, again, letting the readers decide what's what here. Also, the loaded question, "Does Wikipedia assume that Indians had no rights to their lands?" is not appreciated. Evidently this is your notion, considering that this is the second time you've asked it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Anglo-American focus Wikipedia editors have a right to ask questions in talk pages. It is not neutral to throw out one opinion from a reliable source. Chernow (2010) says Washington was ambivalent to Native Americans. Please, find a source that Washington had a great relations with Native Americans. Remember Loyalists properties too were confiscated. Taylor has a whole section in his book how land was a motivator for the Revolutionary War. I don't claim ownership of this article. I edit as I believe is neutrally as possible. That is a requirement for FA. Whatever disagreement you have with Calloway is none of my business. I don't speak for Calloway. His opinion was in his book. I just put it in the article, in part quoted, as neutrally as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

edit break

I removed this out of compromise from the article : According to historian Colin Calloway, the Washington's Indian policy was intended to ensure the survival, assimilation, and civilization of the Indians, but he "failed to balance expansion onto Indian lands with justice to Indian people."<Calloway, 2018, pp.484-486> Cmguy777 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

My disagreement was made rather clear. i.e.One opinion, from one author, concerning one group of people about a wholly subjective idea: Justice. Calloway is a good source, so long as we don't cherry pick items and present them as stand alone statements with no other context, along with your overture about what WP is assuming, as I've indicated several times before, and very recently. Remembering recent discussions helps. Also, the fact that Washington made numerous attempts at peace with the Indians sort of indicates he desired a good relationship with them, unlike the Indians themselves who were acutely xenophobic, to the point where they refused farm tools, livestock, etc. Of course this was not true of all Indians, just for the record. It's unfortunate that Calloway didn't qualify his claim in that it was the Indians who believed they were denied Justice, as compared to many settlers who could have cared less, all things considered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Off topic stuff

Re: Anglo-American focus. History was not my major subject in college, but I did take two classes in world history. Our history professor once asserted that history is written mostly by the winners, so we should be objective and careful as to how we interpret various events. Another student replied, "How objective would history be if it was written mostly by the losers?" — At this late date the Revolutionary, Civil and World Wars have been written about by so many historians it's a little difficult for anyone to re-invent the wheel, regardless of ethnicity. Facts have a way of over-riding and putting the opinions in their proper perspective. Calloway, a British historian, might not agree in this instance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Our history professor once asserted that history is written mostly by the winners"

My history teacher in lyceum emphasized that history is written by literate people, who had access to decent writing materials, and enough luck to have somebody else preserve their work for later generations. And that this meant that we have relatively few voices from the past, and the biases of this hand full of people are our only guide to their era.

Try spending a few months studying Thucydides at school, and you get that the narrative is colored by the historian's own views on political topics. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is why it's always best to consider all the accounts. Any 'coloring' that may exist can either distort or give credit to the account, which, again, is why all things must be considered. However, I would think a biography about and written by e.g.Thomas Jefferson would have much more insights than one written by 'Joe Smith' more than 200 years later. Primary accounts have a more direct reflection of the customs, beliefs, etc of the day, which in of themselves can offer great insights into how matters of history have unfolded. Having said that, there are of course no guarantees. Btw, My "at school" days were more than 30 years ago, but in any event, I try to scrutinize everything objectively. e.g.Re: the Civil War, I have a strong Union bias, i.e.The south fired upon the American Flag and sought to divide the Union, but this has not blinded me to the southern perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What I referred to in Anglo-American focus was that there should be a source that was specifically concerned with the Native American perspective or history. I added Waldman & Braun (2009) Atlas of the North American Indian Third edition. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Back to article improvement

Are there other issues that need attention before we go forward with the nomination? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The slavery section mentions Washington not being involved in the slave-trade after the war. Is this accurate? During the 1780's Washington sold nine slaves for almost $1,000 and acquired three slaves. That information may need to be corrected. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I made what I believe are improvements to the slavery section. I removed disputed content and added to neutrality. There is nothing that I know of that Washington operated on a loss. He broke even, but not at a loss. I think it is time to nominate. We need to allow FA reviewers to make comments on the article and hopefully pass the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1895: From the Colonial Period to the Age of Frederick Douglass (2006), edited by Paul Finkleman, is a source on slavery, but I don't have complete access to the content on George Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are far too many changes occurring at this time to even think about nomination. As usual, when nomination is suggested lots of editing occurs, context is chopped away and new issues hit the fan, right at that time, including the ones you just started in, of all sections, the slavery section, while you continue your effort to remove important context in the Indian affairs section. My initial statement to this section was made with the hopes that we had achieved a level of stability. With all this rewriting it'll never happen, and I'm assuming you're fully aware of this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What you call nonsense I call practical editing. The slavery section will never be perfect. But we can't put disputed information the section. Washington sold nine slaves and acquired three slaves during the 1780's. We can't say Washington was out of the slave business. The Indian section looks great. Washington looks like a progressive concerning Indian affairs and for his times he was. I have limited my editing on this article. I am not here to cause trouble. I don't desire to argue with other editors. The article will never be perfect. We can't use that as an excuse not to nominate. I think the article is stable enough for nomination. The slavery section will always be controversial. But we must let FA reviewers make comments. That won't happen unless the article is nominated. The only thing is possibly to ask Graham Beards, Rjensen, of Coemgenus their opinions as to FA. I want to limit my edits on this article. I don't want to be ridiculed in the talk pages either. I don't see major areas of concerns for the article. You have a right to your opinions Gwillhickers. I believe I have a right to my opinions. I respect your work as an editor Gwillhickers. We don't have to oppose each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please make efforts to read what is written, not what you wish was written to give pretext to presumptuous responses. What was clearly said, in plain English, was that the idea of nomination at this point is nonsense due to all the continuous changes. You spoke of nomination and turned around and began removing context and adding things that were already covered. Meanwhile, the article is still being fixed in various areas by an editor who recently arrived. After that the article needs to remain in a relatively stable state, without its context disappearing at every other turn, with other material emerging, and while the lede is routinely altered. Meanwhile, I will do all I can to preserve context in the hopes that the narrative iremains comprehensive and engaging rather than like an outline with B-class and truncated statements throughout. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I reduced narration not content. I removed disputed information. I followed what the sources said in summary fashion. I added content that Indian policy was a high priority with the Washington administration. I had added content that Washington smoked the peace pipe. I had added information on two successful Indian treaties in the southwest that stopped war. There is no appointed content supervisor editor on wikipedia. I mentioned I want to limit my edits on this page. The article should settle down. It does no good to continue a hostile talk, rather than work together to get Washington to FA. We can't add too much content. That would balloon the article. I don't want to continue to defend myself in the talk page. I have to drop the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You added mention of the peace pipe, etc, before you spoke of nomination, after which you began removing other context, etc. We spent much time trimming and getting prose down to a level you felt comfortable with, now you're adding it again. Aside from spell fixes, grammar tweaks, linking issues, cite-fixes, the article needs to remain stable if nomination is going to occur. Again, a couple of fellow editors have made numerous and needed fixes. When this activity has tapered off and, most importantly, the narrative is finally stable, we can give serious thought to nomination. We can't continue speaking of nomination when context is removed and the narrative keeps changing. Please understand, this is not meant to rush the nomination, but only as a reminder that speaking of nomination while constant changes to the narrative are occurring is sort of pointless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1792

The issue of whether GW was a Federalist when he was reelected in 1792 or during his second 2nd term is an issue in the above article. Comments at the article are welcome. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that amounts to the idea that Washington was anything other than a Federalist while President, esp since he was always on the same page with Alexander Hamilton, the proverbial Federalist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The closeness of the views of Washington and Hamilton is not, in my mind, relevant, I would think calling him a Federalist would require an actual reliable source that says he was a Federalist -- something I don't remember ever seeing. This article in the infobox lists "none" for political party and the body of the article doesn't say otherwise (although it hints at otherwise after he left office). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreeing with Hamilton, in of itself, is not grounds to refer to Washington as a Federalist, even though it more than suggests he was. Will look to the sources to see if we can nail this one down in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The Federalist Era in American history ran from roughly 1788-1800, through both terms of Washington's presidency. During this period, Federalists generally controlled Congress with the support of President Washington. The two party system was not very well defined until the ongoing feuds between Jefferson and Hamilton became acute. While commander in chief of the Continental Army, Washington saw the need for and desired a strong centralized government, a basic Federalist tenet, to fund his army. However, while Washington was mostly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained officially non-partisan during his entire presidency.<Chambers, 1963, Political Parties in a New Nation> Washington never saw himself as the leader of the Federalist party. <Chernow, 2010, p.698> Our info box here is correct, in that it says "None" for Political party.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is my two cents. I think Washington could be labeled a Federalist his second administration, but not his first. That could be a compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The cite calls Washington a Federalist Political Parties of the Presidents Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This book listed Washington under Federalist Presidents: Presidents Above Party: The First American Presidency, 1789-1829 Ralph Ketcham (1984) page 89 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't argue about the title of the chapter, but the chapter itself is much less conclusive. It mentions the same thing other sources say -- he moved toward Federalist positions but still decried factional politics. What it doesn't say is that he ever joined the party or considered himself a party leader. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Chernow and Chambers say that Washington did not officially ascribe to any party, regardless of his political sympathies — esp since Washington had grave reservations about dividing the political union, the likes of which were strong at the end of the Revolution, but soon became seriously compromised by the political differences of his top cabinet members, Jefferson and Hamilton. Also, I'm not seeing anything by Ketchum, p.89, that says Washington was a bonafide Federalist. Ketcham points out that Washington lived up to his own convictions and was above any political "faction". It seems this needs to be discussed further. Perhaps we should call in @Rjensen and TheVirginiaHistorian: for further insights. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ketcham

Ketcham (1984) page 89 said,
"Washington's determination to be the patriot leader was frustrated in
practice, however, by unyielding partisanship around him. In 1792-1793
Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson refused to leave the president any "mid-
dle ground" between them, and in 1775-1776 he felt forced to move to-
ward a more Federalist position when it seemed his Republican colleagues
had deserted or betrayed him."
Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: "Political party division in his cabinet forced Washington to take a more Federalist position." I personally would have no issue to label Washington a "Federalist" in the infobox. But it should be done by editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

At |Britannica, “Federalist Party”, we have,

Parties were generally deplored as inimical to republican government, and President George Washington was able to exercise nonpartisan leadership during the first few years of the new government (begun in 1789). Strong division, however, developed over the fiscal program of the secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, whom Washington supported. Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government formed the Federalist Party in 1791. Differences with the opposition were intensified by ideological attitudes toward the French Revolution, and by 1795 administration supporters had hardened into a regular party, which succeeded in electing John Adams to the presidency in 1796.

“Regular party” as a British term applied at the time to the U.S. Congress because there was a self-named caucus in the national legislature formed at first to advance Hamilton’s financial programs there, supported nationally by a network of newspapers subsidized by Hamilton, including notably the Gazette of the United States (1789-1793), published in the U.S. capitals of New York (1789-1790), and then Philadelphia (1790-1800).

Senators are denominated in the Congressional Biographical Dictionary as “pro-administration” and “anti-administration” until the 4th Congress (March 4, 1795-March 4, 1797), when they are denominated “Federalist” and “Democratic-Republican” — See List of United States Senators from New York. (Parenthetical aside: “Democratic” alone became politically incorrect, as it came to connote the French Jacobin radicalism of the Reign of Terror, 1792-1794).

So I’d say Washington was -- for the info-box -- “Pro-administration [1]” note: nonpartisan in the first term, and “Pro-administration [2]” note: leaning Federalist in the second term. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Senators are denominated in the Congressional Biographical Dictionary as “pro-administration” and “anti-administration” :We already have individual articles for the Anti-Administration party (1789-1794) under James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and the Pro-Administration party/Federalist Party (1789-1824) under Alexander Hamilton. This is not new information for Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you concur with denominating Washington's "Political party" in the Info-box as "Pro-Administration", since doing so would not be a stylistic innovation for WP, and it aligns with the substance of two more existing Wikipedia articles for the use of the term in historical context. --- I would like to add the nuance of the footnotes documenting Washington's partisan shift relative to the establishing of opposing partisan caucuses in the Congress -- so as to include the input of @Cmguy777:, @Gwillhickers:, and @North Shoreman:.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A problem is a lack of consistency across wikipedia articles and even within the same article. In United States presidential election, 1792 Washington is listed in the infobox as a Federalist (recently changed from nonpartisan), was listed as a Federalist under party nominations, and then as "none" under the electoral vote results (Adams here was listed as a Federalist).

In Federalist Party the lede says, "The only Federalist President was John Adams. George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, but he remained officially non-partisan during his entire presidency." However in the electoral history section of the Federalist party,the ticket of Washington and Adams is included w/o clarification regarding Washington as a non-Federalist. The article in its first sentence equates Federalist and Pro-Administration when it says, "The Federalist Party, referred to as the Pro-Administration party until the 3rd United States Congress (as opposed to their opponents in the Anti-Administration party), was the first American political party." Calling Washington Pro-Administration is still a contradiction of those claims that he was unaffiliated with any party.

In List of Presidents of the United States Washington is listed as "Unaffiliated."

In the lede of First Party System it says, "President George Washington, while officially nonpartisan, generally supported the Federalists and that party made Washington their iconic hero."

It seems a better solution for infoboxes is listing Washington as "Unaffiliated" with a note explaining the close political ties between him and the Federalist Party. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I have read Federalists supported the Constitution ratification. Washington, Hamilton, and Madison supported the ratification of the Constitution. Washington sided with Hamilton over Jefferson in almost every disagreement. Washington did not formerly proclaim to be a Federalist. Washington wanted to be viewed as a Patriot. How about "Patriot/Federalist" ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Has it been settled Washington did not belong to a political party ? Gwillhickers already put in that Washington did not belong to a Party in the lede section. That makes Washington non-partisan. I did not know there was editor concensus on this. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Washington wanted to be viewed as a Patriot. How about "Patriot/Federalist" "

It would be meaningless here. Patriots/"American Whigs" were the political faction in the Thirteen Colonies which rejected British colonial rule, embraced republicanism, and supported the American Revolution. Most leaders of the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans belonged to the Patriot faction, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.

Several of these people previously identified with the Whigs and what they stood for: opposition to absolute monarchy, supremacy of parliament over the monarch, support for free trade, toleration for nonconformist Protestants. Dimadick (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Editbreak2

I added the statement (in the Presidency section) after discussion and because two notable sources clearly say this. At this point it seems rather clear that although Washington indeed had Federalist leanings he remained non-partisan for the sake of national and political stability. However, I have reservations about using terms like "pro-administration", esp for use in an encyclopedia for the student and history buff. There are clearly enough sources now to support the premise that Washington was non-partisan throughout his presidency, per Chernow, Chambers, etc, (regardless of any criticism from Jefferson and others during his second term). Yes, it would seem "Unaffiliated" would be the proper way to designate Political party in the info-box(s), as it's more definitive. Though the biography here makes it clear that Washington desired a strong central government and lent his political support to Hamilton's Federalist ideas, it wouldn't hurt, however, to make the general statement that Washington had strong Federalist leanings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's remember also that in George Washington's Farewell Address he warned against political parties as being divisive to the Union.<Elkins & McKitrick, 1995,The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800, pp. 489–492>. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is clear Washington did not publically associate himself with any political party, but he had federalist sympathies. The reality was Washington was a Federalist, in how he ran the government. I think it would be appropriate to call him a Federalist in the infobox, although that is optional. Although Washington remained a patriot and did not publically associate with any political party, he had strong Federalist leanings. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Since there are sources that say Washington was non-patrisan, and since he explicitly warned against divisive political parties, it would be a little absurd to refer to him as a member of the Federalist party, which, btw, didn't take on official proportions until Adams ran for president. Also, though Washington went along with Hamilton's financial ideas, he also favored Jefferson's ideas of a self contained U.S. market, (grain, tobacco, cotton and lumber, badly needed by the British industry and market) used as a tool to keep the price of British goods in check.<Randall, 1997, p.478> Jefferson was the first one to use the idea of sanctions against less than friendly countries. The proposed general statement is okay in part, (though we don't have to mention Washington was a patriot at this juncture -- the idea is already well established several times throughout the biography) We also might want to present the statement with a little more context while being mindful where we include it in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Although Washington was opposed to divisive political parties in the young and still unstable Union and officially remained non-partisan throughout his presidency, he favored a strong central government and ~~possessed strong Federalist leanings.~~ was largely sympathetic to a Federalist form of government.<Chernow, 2010, pp.696–698; Randall, 1997, p.478> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I Mean Some People Question That Was Washington An Independent Or A Federalist Though I Believe he Was Independent In His First Term And Federalist In His Second Term I’m Not A Reliable Source Jed Mek 25 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington learned more towards the Federalist side in his second term, largely because of indifferences with Jefferson and his followers. As stated in his Farewell Address, Washington was opposed to separate political parties. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Although Washington tended to side with the Federalists on most of the major issues during his presidency, he refused to tie himself to them, as he believed that the creation of political parties was a divisive step for the American government and people. In fact, in his famous Farewell Address after the conclusion of his second presidential term, Washington warned the United States citizens and politicians of divisive effect of political parties. Therefore, Washington can be referred to today as an Independent, or a non-partisan." – GeorgeWashington.org -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"Years of partisan controversy, 1797-1799.
Elections held in 1796 and 1797 to select a new president and Congress took place in a very different atmosphere than had existed in earlier years. ... The retirement of Washington, who tried to keep politics on a nonpartisan plane, also tened to raise the level of partisanship.<Hoadley, (2015) Origins of American Political Parties: 1789--1803, p.141 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are no further issues, I'll add the last proposal shortly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This site (UC Santa Barbara) lists Washington as a Federalist George Washington. Since Washington had strong Federalist leanings, why not call him a Federalist ? The one book listed Washington under Federalist Presidents. Another website listed Washington as a Federalist. Have editors made concensus ? The Presidency Project calls him a Federalist. I think Wikipedia should too. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You've provided two websites that provide no context and a book in which the context, which you quote, does not support that Washington or his contemporaries considered him to be a Federalist. The wikipedia articles on Washington should not throw out a label w/o strong evidence. The weight of the sources discussed so far certainly do not support labeling him a Federalist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

PS As far as consensus, going back as far as this [1] early 2016 version of the article, Washington's political party in the infobox says "none" and the first sentence in the "Domestic Issues" section ("Washington was not aligned with a political party and opposed their formation, fearing that conflict that would undermine republicanism.") has hardly changed. This seems like it is a longstanding consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I am all for concensus. I just wanted to make my opinion known. UC Santa Barbara is a reliable source. Why would that cite list Washington as a Federalist ? I don't know if modern research is going toward saying Washington was a Federalist. The source that says Washington was not a Federalist was from the 1960s. A Federalist was anyone who supported the Constitution...i.e. the Federalist Papers. Washington supported the Constitution to be ratified. But I don't want to go around in circles. On this matter I would not make any other changes unless there was concensus to do so. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We have several notable sources, including Chernow, Randall, Hoadley and Chambers, that mention Washington was not an official member of any party, and/or opposed to political parties. Since Washington himself was opposed to separate political parties it would be highly inappropriate to list him as a Federalist in the info–box, esp when the readers will find out that Washington was opposed to political parties. We should say what noted historians say, not what websites with no names mentioned say. The proposal mentions that he was non-partisan while providing the context that he was mostly a Federalist in practice. This theme is reflected in several places throughout the article, including the Domestic issues and Farewell Address sections. Not being a member of any political party is a distinction that only Washington holds, so on that note, also, we should reflect this consistently throughout the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

“Political party: None” or “Unaffiliated” makes sense for George Washington 1789-1797, even though it may not apply to Hamilton and Adams, or Jefferson and Madison, after 1793.

— Also, recall that “Federalist[1]” as a supporter of the Constitution during the state ratification debates 1787-1790 is not the same “Federalist[2]” as the subsequent generally pro-administration Congressional caucus and the allied coalition of state parties from 1794-1816.

I do think that the discussion here supports changing “None” here to “Unaffiliated”, and aligning the “party” designation in related WP articles elsewhere to “Unaffiliated”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that changing Washington's party affiliation from "none" to "unaffiliated" throughout Wikipedia would be a good idea. Orser67 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TVH. I'll go ahead and make the change and add the proposal hoping that everyone is more or less settled on the issue here. Also, thanks go to Tom (North Shoreman) for bringing clarity and attention to the issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Done Note : When adding the above proposal an existing phrase was used at the end of it instead, which in no way changed the meaning of the statement. See above :-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the above is the perfect way of putting it. He was formally unaffiliated, but sympathized with the Federalists. I think it would be worth adding something to that effect in the lead and (via a note) the infobox. The current lead states that he was impartial between Hamilton and Jefferson, which might have been true in 1790, but clearly wasn't by 1796. Orser67 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that UC Santa Barbara saying Washington was a Federalist was inappropriate. The Presidency Project is a reliable source. It is not an unnamed source either. Two names are listed: John Woolley and Gerhard Peters on the website. It is not accurate to say Washington was a non partisan, when he sided with Hamilton most of the time over Jefferson. The Party system began with the election of 1792. Technically there were no parties in the Election of 1788-1789. Ketchum (1984) listed Washington and Adams Federalist presidents. Since Washington sided with the Federalists, would not that make him a Federalist. On this I am for editor concensus. I am not settled on the issue, but, I won't object to the proposal. As for party affiliation; patriotic and Federalist sympathies, in my opinion, would be accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As was explained, the proposal says Washington officially remained non-partisan, while we mention that he had strong Federalist sympathies, with numerous sources that support that idea. Ketchum is wrong to say Washington belonged to the Federalist party, esp in light of the fact that Washington frowned on the party system. As also explained, Washington's patriotism is understood and already well established in the lede and in other sections, esp in the two major sections involving the Revolution. Washington's party sympathies have little to do with his patriotism. He would have remained a patriot regardless if he had chosen to join any given party. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree Ketchum (1984) was wrong to list Washington under the Federalist presidents. That is Ketchum's historical opinion. It is not up to editors to say this source is wrong or this source is right. I believe Ketchum inferred patriotism was above politics. Washington's patriotism kept him from offically joining the Federalist party, although he had strong federalist sympathies. There were no political parties among the Patriots during the Revolutionary War. The Patriots were united to fight the Loyalists, Indians, and British. Washington said he frowned on the party system but was strongly allied with Hamilton. Maybe Washington was ambivalent concerning a party system. The reader still is left with the question: Was Washington a Federalist ? Again. I am not fighting any of your edits Gwillhickers. But I feel I have a right to disagree as an editor. I am more interested in getting Washington to FA nomination. There is no point in editing warring in the talk page or the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Ketcham doesn't say Washington was an actual Federalist. In the quote you provided above he simply says that Washington was in the "middle ground" and that he only "moved toward a more Federalist position". He doesn't say Washington became a complete, or an official, Federalist. This also has to be taken in context with the other sources and, most importantly, the fact that Washington didn't approve of divisive political parties and went so far as to warn against their effects on the Union in his Farewell Address. Yes, I realize you are not fighting my edits, but since we are contesting sources this should be ironed out. Also, edit wars don't occur on Talk pages. We've never deleted one another's words in this forum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In his book, Ketcham (1984) lists Washington as a Federalist president along with John Adams. UC Santa Barbara does something interesting. The 1789 Election and the 1792 Election Washington is labeled "unofficially Federalist". I suggest we do that for the article. That makes the most sense to me. That would be a compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Another Source I Found is EnchantedLearning.com The Presidents Of The United States Of America Jed Mek 25 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Edibreak3

Ketcham doesn't list Washington as a Federalist. As pointed out, he mentions a middle ground between Jefferson and Hamilton and only says Washington "moved toward a more Federalist position". Saying "unofficially Federalist" is sort of fuzzy and negates the idea that Washington was his own man and was strongly opposed to political parties. The "Unaffiliated" designation in the info-box is most appropriate, and allows for the idea that Washington agreed with Jefferson on some ideas. And after all, in spite of the fact that Jefferson later resigned, Washington did chose him for his Secretary of State. He wouldn't have done so if he was mostly opposed to Jefferson's ideas. Four notable sources were presented above (aside from the website sources I also provided) that support this premise, and Ketcham only says Washington "moved towards". A "compromise" would be to ignore most of the sources. The article already explains Washington's political involvements, esp with Hamilton. Let's also remember that Washington gave up power, and later refused a third term, not wanting to rule as a monarch and during his terms the army was greatly reduced, both of which pleased Jefferson who was strongly opposed to monarchs and standing armies. These actions are politically opposite to the idea of a strong central government. IOW, Washington was not completely Federalist in practice. "Unaffilated" allows for this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Washington clearly saw that both Jefferson and Hamilton both had the same "ultimate goal" in mind concerning the welfare of the nation. He wrote to both of these men and said, "I will frankly and solemnly declare that I believe the views of both of you are pure and well meant, and that experience alone will decide with respect to the salubrity of measures which are the subject of dispute."<Flexner, 1969, p.412> (emphasis added) IOW, Washington was open to both of their ideas and was willing to let "experience" ultimately determine matters, and hence was not a complete federalist at heart, or in practice, regardless if Washington moved towards the federalist side during the heated debates over the Jay Treaty, etc, that erupted during his second term. It seems some have assumed that Washington was a Federalist because he approved of Hamilton's financial ideas and because he was criticized by Jefferson, Freneau and others during his second term. If there was a 1 to 10 scale between Republican and Federalist, 10 being a complete federalist, Washington would have factored in at about 7. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ketcham's (1984) book Presidents Above Party: The First American Presidency, 1789-1829 Chapter 5 "Federalist Presidents" George Washington (page 89) Right under the Chapter title Federalist Presidents is listed George Washington. U.C. Santa Barbara called Washington an unoffical Federalist. So should this article, in my opinion. Unaffiliated is not accurate or could be misleading. Washington was affiliated with the Federalist party unofficially. I don't want an edit war. I have not changed the term "Unaffiliated" in the article. I prefer the specific term "unofficial Federalist" because it sourced. What source says Washington was "Unaffiliated"? I don't want to go around in circles either. Your contention is not with me, it is with U.C. Santa Barbara. I believe there is undue wieght on the Flexner (1969) source. Maybe the best thing is for editors to choose between "Unaffiliated" and "unofficially Federalist". I don't want to continue argueing in the talk page. I respect your opinions Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't know why you keep bringing up "edit war". This is a discussion. Imo, the term "unofficial Federalist" is more misleading because Washington embraced some central Republican tenets when he relinquished power after the war, reduced the standing army while president and then later declined a third term. Again, Washington frowned on divisive political parties, so to refer to him as an "unofficial Federalist" is to ignore his own opinion, that he subscribed to major Republican tenets, not to mention the several other sources. Chambers and Chernow said Washington was non-partisan and did not see himself as the leader of the Federalists, respectively. "Unaffiliated" best encompasses all of these ideas, not just Federalist ideas, and doesn't ignore what several sources explicitly say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Chernow, Chambers, or Flexner and/or any other source(s) use the term "Unaffiliated" ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Chernow, Chambers, Flexner, Randall or any recognized historian/source with a name, use "unofficial Federalist"? Different words and terms can reflect the same idea. It's a little odd that you have to have this recited for you. Washington chose not to join any party. i.e.Unaffiliated. The narrative qualifies the idea at several junctures, per Hamilton, Jefferson, etc. Instead of belaboring and ignoring points of the discussion, just conduct a survey if you're really that opposed to "unaffiliated", but you'll still be going against what the notable sources say, while ignoring Washington's middle ground and his words about political parties. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My question was not answered. I was going by what U.C. Santa Barbara said "unoffically Federalist" I did not make up that term. We should not summarize sources by one word that the sources never used. I disagree that Chernow meant that Washington was unaffiliated. That is your interpretation. Since this talk is going nowhere fast I am going to drop the stick. No. I don't want to do a survey. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There has been no stretch employed in our biography as to any interpretation. Washington never consigned to any political party, embraced several major Republican tenets, sought a middle ground between Jefferson and Hamilton, and was strongly opposed to political parties, so much so that he made it a point in his Farewell Address. Hence, he was unaffiliated, regardless if any source doesn't employ that exact term. Our biography delineates this, in the info-box and in conjunction with the narrative, just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

(a) Ron Chernow, In Washington: A Life, p. 671: “By 1792 Washington’s cabinet was split down the middle; Knox typically leaned toward Hamilton, and Randolph toward Jefferson. Washington never openly identified with the Federalists and steadfastly hewed to his nonpartisan self-image, though he sided more often with Hamilton and Knox.”

(b) Dictionaries defines “unaffiliated” as 1. not officially attached or connected with an organization or group.” Synonyms: uncommitted—

(c) "Unaffiliated", or uncommitted, as in Chernow's expression, “Split down the middle”. Washington kept his geographically and philosophically diverse cabinet in tact as long as he could. He didn't purge those who were not “team players”, they, Madison, then Jefferson, removed themselves from him. See “Ron Chernow: Hamilton and Washington (Full Length)”. Washington abhorred parties as unthinking factions of personality cliques setting themselves up apart from the liberties of the people and the long term interests of the political community — he preferred encouraging and tolerating diverse viewpoints openly exchanged, as he had among his generals in war councils of the Continental Army. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Washington was not known for his 'political philosophy', as was Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison, and was something of an idealist when it came to government policy, always keeping 'national unity' in the forefront of his thinking. He subscribed to various Federal tenets, not because he was a Federalist partisan, but simply because he evaluated issues on a per item basis. In his writings he typically spoke in terms of factual events, always seeking practical solutions in the face of existing issues. e.g. He approved of Hamilton's financial ideas largely from his experience at Valley Forge, when the Continental Congress failed to provide funding for badly needed supplies, as the various states were largely reluctant to do so. i.e.His political subscriptions were always the product of what he felt were eminent needs. The Jeffersonians had reservations of a central government making such determinations because they feared it placed too much authority in the hands of the few. Had Jefferson been in the field of battle as was Washington, where actual life and limb hung in the balance, perhaps he would have been more partial to Washington's sentiments. Washington the pragmatist v Jefferson the philosopher. <The 'Non-Partisan' Political Leader, — Bradley, The Political Thinking of George Washington, @ JUSTOR> — “I was no Party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if Parties did exist, to reconcile them.” — G. Washington -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Article size

This article has increased to 100k. Is FA no longer a goal for this article ? Was it ever ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As a bold move, I have removed much of the text in the Monuments and memorials section, since many of the items there came well after Washington's life and are covered in other articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Other secondary content was removed which was not that important to coverage of Washington's life. However, I remain strongly opposed to the removal of context that reflects on Washington's person and his involvement with other important persons in his life, just for the sake of the page length concerns of a (very) few editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
As the result of some secondary trims and putting some items in a foot note the article size is now down to 97k of readable prose. As a reminder, page length is a guideline and allows for editor discretion when it comes to exceptional articles. Given Washington's very involved life and prominent place in history, his biography is among the foremost exceptional articles here at WP and is due such considerations when it comes to a page length number. As editors whose primary concern are for the readers, and a well written and comprehensive article, we should stand together if any individual attempts to make a pressing issue over the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the reduction in article size. I am only concerned with FA nomination. FA editors have a right to comment on article size. I respectfully disagree we should "stand together" against any "individual" FA reviewer that mentions article size. That was an issue in the last FA review. We need to comply with FA reviewers, not fight them. I have limited editing on this article to let it settle down for FA review nomination. I am all for a neutral well written comprehensive article on George Washington. A solid FA review that pertains to sourcing, neutrality, referencing, photos, and narration is needed. I suggest nominating the article for FA to get the FA review process started. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections concerning an FA review that concentrates on the quality of the narrative, context, sourcing, neutrality, etc. However, what do we plan on doing if some reviewer decides to hold up a page length guideline as a condition for FA approval and insists we get the size down to 90 or 80k, or less, with little or no regard for the loss of context? Will we point out that 'guidelines' has provisions for highly involved and exceptional articles, or will we roll over? A good number of other opinions are needed before we even think about a nomination and embarking on what could turn out to be a crash course for this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to their opinions. I believe 95 K is a good size for the article. But we should not fight the FA reviewers. I certainly don't have to agree with FA reviewers, but there is a difference in challenging opinions, versus disagreement. There should be quality communication with the FA reviewers. I suggest requesting that FA reviewers not reject, out of hand, soley that the article is too large and request a review that has content. It is good to have good communications with FA reviewers. We can start at 97 % but reduce areas of content that an FA reviewer specifically requests to be reduced. To me it is unlikely an FA reviewer would request 80% or 90 %. It could be that somewhere between 92-97 % is optimal. But we need to ask FA reviewers what size the article should be. Regardless I believe it is important to get the FA review process started. It is important to establish an "Era of Good Feelings" with FA Reviewers. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not my intention to "fight" with anyone, only that we make appeals and assert reasonable opinions if need be. I am not really interested in reducing any more text down to 95k, all over again, as if this number is not going to cause issues anymore than 97k will. (the current level). I suggest that upon nomination we point out that the Washington article is very involved in early American history, that to present a contextual and comprehensive summary much space was required, and that we simply express our hopes that the review will concentrate on the quality of the narrative, sources, etc, while pointing out that page-length guidelines allows for editor discretion for exceptional articles. Also, before nomination is submitted, we have to demonstrate that the article is stable, and one big way of doing this is that major contributors come to reasonable terms here in Talk, as we seem to be doing now, hopefully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I would request something like this: "Article size is a consideration, but it is requested that content, neutrality, and narration be addressed. It would be helpful to specifically mention an article size goal, to allow editors to reduce the article size and keep content." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's probably best to simply mention that the Washington biography is very involved in early American history, with much to tell. Asking a reviewer, esp one not familiar with Washington, other than he was the first president, etc, to set a specific size, could very well backfire. Perhaps it's to best to just submit the nomination, and if 'page length' comes up, we simply appeal as to the circumstances involved with comprehensive coverage. If enough editors chimed in on that note, the prospect could fly, assuming we receive a reasonable reviewer. High hopes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That is fine. I mentioned "article size goal" so as not to dismiss the article outright, because of size. Just to let the FA reviewers know size is signifigant and that size reduction may be needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I know that my editing of the article has been limited, but FWIW, I agree with Gwillhickers: It wouldn't make sense to mention article size at all upon requesting a review unless it is to emphasize Washington's importance, warranting an article of such significant length. I would definitely avoid suggesting to a reviewer that "size reduction may be needed." If we were to truly decide it was needed, we would do it ourselves rather than requesting a review first. If they have an issue with the size, they'll tell us. --MattMauler (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Article size was an issue in the last FA review. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Size was mentioned, but only in a superficial sense. The nomination failed primarily because of sourcing and citation issues. Upon our next nomination we can mention size in that the biography is very involved, and to bring it up to comprehensive and FA standards much space was needed — but to suggest that "size reduction may be needed" is to suggest that the narrative is redundant or superfluous in some respects, and that we have no qualms about removing context just to satisfy a page length guideline number. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

cite needed

(edit conflict) Btw, there is still a 'citation needed' tag at the end of the Foreign affairs section. This seems like an important item of context at the end of Washington's presidency, reflecting France's outrage over the Jay Treaty and foreshadowing the resulting Quasi War with France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Context does not have to be removed to reduce narration size. The narration can be reduced without removing context. I disagree that size was mentioned in any "superficial sense" by the FA reviewer. Should the article be nominated set in stone ? There are some parts of this article, in my opinion, that are overly wordy, and set in a defense narrative tone. I reduced editing on the article in part, because I did not want to have my edits challenged on every edit. It is not good to fight FA reviewers either. on the article. Let the FA reviewers decide whether there needs to be size reduction. That should not be decided in advance. Since this conversation is going around in circles, you can nominate the article in any manner you deem appropriate Gwillhickers. Maybe it is best to nominate without any statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You were just advising that we get on with the nomination. Now you want to start with the same business all over again and begin the process of removing and rewriting text over a guideline number. And now you're dragging in yet another issue: "set in a defense narrative tone". So now we have neutrality issues to deal with as well?? I thought you were ready to nominate. Some of your other comments are also inappropriate. "Fighting", "every edit challenged", "FA reviewers should be free to express their opinions"? Who said they were not? Well, nomination was a nice thought, but you are clearly out to create multiple issues, right after you said you were ready to nominate. It seems you are the only one going around in circles. How do you expect anyone to nominate when you just dumped that load on to the Talk page? Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I am all for nomination. I don't think the article is perfect. I am not for editing any further on the article's narration. That would create instability. This is a talk page, not the article. I only mentioned my view of the article i.e. "overly wordy" and "defensive tone". For the most part the article has undergone vast improvement and I believe solidly edited. I am not an FA reviewer. No I don't want to start all over. I want the FA review to get started. The discussion here concerned a clarifying statement prior to FA nomination. It might help to create a clarifying statement, that editors can agree upon, or agree to have no clarifying statement. I also said that you Gwillhickers can nominate the article with any statement you deem appropriate.Cmguy777 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

My comments in the talk page are only my views and are not inappropriate. I don't want edit warring and I don't want my every edit challenged. It is difficult to continue conversation when even my commentary is challenged in the talk page. Editors should have a right to disagree with each other and express their opinions in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You more than inferred with some rather derogatory opinions. Of course they are challenged. Likewise, I have opinions. This is Talk. This is not the place where we pat each other on the back, but to iron out differences of opinion. The article will never be 'perfect', anymore than Pulitzer prize works are so in everyone's eyes. It was my hope that you and I, almost always opposed, could come up with a nomination statement that we could both settle on. Instead, you dragged in numerous issues, right after you expressed that we should get on with the nomination. There was a ray of light in your prior statements. Now this. Would like to get back on track and move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Critical is a better word. My opinions don't matter. Only the opinions of those who review the article for FA. I did not drag in any issues. Giving my opinions in the talk page does not negate article nomination. I respect other editors opinions including yours Gwillhickers. All I ask is the freedom of my own opinions. I favor nominating the article as is. I am all in favor of a nomination statement that is acceptable to editors. Possibly on the lines of what you said "upon nomination we point out that the Washington article is very involved in early American history, that to present a contextual and comprehensive summary much space was required, and that we simply express our hopes that the review will concentrate on the quality of the narrative, sources, etc, while pointing out that page-length guidelines allows for editor discretion for exceptional articles." I believe a full article review is needed: narration; neutrality; and content. Maybe a seperate talk section on nomination statement is the best thing. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As an experienced and learned editor, your opinions do matter. Why do you think I even respond? Am open to a section for a nomination statement, but it's late here in California, so tomorrow is another day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Thanks for saying my opinions matter. Yes. A nomination statement would be great. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Grammar has been thoroughly gone over by @Hoppyh, Dilidor, Shearonink, Yopienso, and Rjensen: and others, not to mention you and I, so I'd like to think the grammar overall is as good as it's ever going to get. Before we get to a nomination statement we have one item to cite, regarding the withdrawal from their embassy by the French. This seems important enough to keep for reasons stated above. On the surface it would seem like an easy statement to cite, but I've had no luck, not even on-line, with only generic stuff turning up. If we can't get over this seemingly small hurdle in a day or so we'll have to drop the statement from the text and get on with the nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just tried to find a specific ref for that statement ("Two days before...") and have been unsuccessful - doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just means I couldn't find it. If we can't find a ref for that statement, it needs to go. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Source/reference: Charles W. Akers (2002) The Presidents A Reference History, page 27 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I added the source and cite reference to the article along with clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Good additions, but no mention of withdrawing from the embassy? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears that non recognition of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney in France by the French Directory, was the withdrawal of recognition of the United States. Michel Ange Bernard Mangourit served as Ambassador of France to the United States from 1796-1800. So, apparently, in the United States there was no withdrawal from the French Embassy. The French must have really supported Monroe, who was pro French, and that was why Pinckney was not recognized. Between December 9, 1796 to December 6, 1801 there was no recognized Minister to France from the United States. That is a period of 5 years and 4 days. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. It seems your last edits have summarized and cited the event more than adequately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Washington had no recognized Minister to France from December 9, 1796 to March 4, 1797, or 88 days. That could be mentioned in the article for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

@Wehwalt: It seems the article is finally ready to be nominated. We are about to come up with an opening nomination statement and I was wondering if you are still interested in reviewing the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I will once it is at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed nomination statement

After months of dealing with grammar, context, citations, sources, etc, the George Washington main article (biography) seems ready for nomination. As the Washington biography is an exceptional article, very involved in early American history, with numerous topics to cover, a well written, comprehensive and self contained summary has turned out to be rather long. We hope this by itself will not pose any issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible addition: "Any article length issues can be addressed in the FA nomination. We request that in the interest of the article a full review (context, neutrality, and quality of narration), will be included in the FA review. We acknowledge and thank all or any FA reviewers for their time and consideration of the George Washington article." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Cmguy's statement could stand alone but how about this adjustment (feel free to disregard)...

An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington article. In the interest of the article and improving Wikipedia we ask that a full and complete review - including context, neutrality, and quality of narration - be included in the reviewers' remarks. We acknowledge article-length as a possible issue but are asking for a comprehensive analysis of the article's content. We wish to thank any and all FA reviewers for their time and consideration of the George Washington article. Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's understood that a FA review involves a full review with a comprehensive analysis. I wouldn't open the nomination statement with the idea of article size right off. Imo, it's best to simply mention first that the Washington biography is the main article, that it encompasses many topics, and that to cover them all in one comprehensive article it required a somewhat lengthy narrative. I believe the first proposal says this well. Also, if we are all on the same page with this, which it seems we are, that by itself would be a compelling and appealing reason for any reasonable reviewer to forego concerns of length and to concentrate on the narrative, which is what the readers are most concerned about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think these ideas could be melded together. I the interest of compromise I could drop mentioning article size. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Melded compromise: An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington article. Since the last FA nomination, grammar, context, citations, sources, etc, have been improved in the George Washington main article (biography). As the Washington biography is an exceptional article, very involved in early American history, with numerous topics to cover, a well written, comprehensive and self contained summary has turned out to be rather long. We hope this by itself will not pose any issues. In the interest of the article and improving Wikipedia we ask that context, neutrality, and quality of narration - be included in the reviewers' remarks. George Washington was a central figure to the formation of the United States, it's Constitution, and Presidency, worthy of FA on Wikipedia, and a world wide Wikipedia audience. The subject of slavery, controversial today, has been addressed with a modern reader perspective and sensitivity, and adequately sourced. We wish to thank any and all FA reviewers for their time and consideration of the George Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

We should keep the opening statement more brief. The reviewer will know enough to make comments where needed without our asking. Also, it's understood that the article is written with a modern perspective, esp since most of the sources were published in the 21st century. Last, I wouldn't direct attention to any one topic in particular. Imo, we should just mention that the article is the main article, covers many topics, etc.

An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington (main) article, after months of dealing with grammar, context, citations, sources, etc. As the Washington biography is an exceptional article, very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, a well written, comprehensive and self contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long. We hope this will be taken into consideration and by itself will not pose any issues.

Since the three of us have been working on this statement it would be perhaps appropriate that all three of our user names appear in the nomination. Shall we do this? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You should. Nominators get "credit" for the article, see WP:WBFAN.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If by tomorrow there are no other issues to address we can submit the nomination. I'm not sure how more than one editor makes a nomination, but I suspect additional nominators can add their names once the nomination template is initiated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Just cut and paste the formatting from another nomination with multiple editors, substituting names as appropriate. That's what I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the nomination should be a little more in depth. Shouldn't we promote Washington ? The promotion sentence and thank you sentence was taken out. Yes. By all means put three names on the nomination. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative I: An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington (main) article, after months of dealing with grammar, context, citations, sources, etc. As the Washington biography is an exceptional article, very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, a well written, comprehensive and self contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long. We hope this will be taken into consideration and by itself will not pose any issues. George Washington was a central figure to the formation of the United States, it's Constitution, and Presidency. We wish to thank any and all FA reviewers for their time and consideration of the George Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative II:This article is about George Washington, who was considered the central figure to the formation of the United States Independence from Great Britain, the United States Constitution, and United States Presidency. The article includes information on the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and Slavery. The Washington biography is an exceptional article, very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, a well written, comprehensive and self contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long. We hope this will be taken into consideration and by itself will not pose any issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion...George Washington is an extraordinary subject for an encyclopedic biography, very envolved etc. Another suggestion...Washington has, expectedly, also elicited intense interest from accomplished, bona fide, editors with sometimes-conflicting views, which has resulted in occasional disruptive exchanges. However, these difficulties have been collaboratively overcome, and the article editing remains stable. Hoppyh (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

By all means use the multiple nominators, and state this is being done to demonstrate the collaboration achieved....maybe say one is nominating on behalf of the others and at their request, and ping them in the nom.Hoppyh (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Alt1 by Cmguy777 includes various important topics involved in the article, so these items should be included. Will incorporate text from multiple editors in the nomination statement, reserving thanks until after the review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington (main) article, after months of dealing with grammar, context, citations, sources, etc, and is now stable. The Washington biography is an exceptional article and very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, including his early life, the American Revolution, the Constitution, two terms as president, and more. Hence a well written, comprehensive and self contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long. We hope this will be taken into consideration and by itself will not pose any issues.

@Shearonink: are you on board with the nomination? Also, since @Hoppyh: has done extensive work with grammar, etc, it seems appropriate that he be included in the nomination also, if he would like. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been dealing with a family emergency, am trying to get caught up - I am on-board and would be honored to be included as one of the nominators but request that "after months of dealing" be removed and that something close to the following be used instead:

An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington (main) article. Various editors have worked in collaboration on the issues mentioned in the previous FA nomination including the article's grammar, context, citations, sources, etc.; the article is now stable. The Washington biography is an exceptional article and very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, including his early life, the American Revolution, the Constitution, two terms as president, and more. Hence a well written, comprehensive and self contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long. We hope that the quality of the overall article will be taken into consideration and that length by itself will not pose any issues.

Shearonink (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the nomination has been made and that is awesome. Nevermind about my suggestions above. Shearonink (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Citation/source work

@Shearonink: I took the liberty of removing the 'In Use' tag from the article so others could help out with the cites and sources. Though obviously well intended it's a little over-kill for purposes of dealing with and removing a few sources and gives the impression that the article remains unstable. If an edit conflict occurs we can back up and try again as we always do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I was in the middle of taking it off myself as soon as I was done. Trying to get references fixed while other editors are all under the hood working on stuff engenders lots of Edit conflicts which then creates more work for the reference-fixer. When I looked at the recent edit history before I started there seemed to be a lot of grammar tweaks, so I was unaware that anyone else was fixing refs. Have at it. Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to be judicious with grammar fixes. I'm not aware of a ref problem; by all means let me know if I create any. Hoppyh (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cite issues

Ok. When you are editing this article please be careful when adding cites or adding information or recrafting cites or working on references etc., etc. In light of Graham Beards' recent post at the present FA nom page, I just took a look at the article. There are now THIRTEEN RED/BOLD warnings about broken cites. Check your work before you hit "Publish". Please. Shearonink (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the mentioned unused sources. Also, I haven't see any red bold anywhere. Didn't see any before I began work today either. Sometimes that can occur when you are only previewing one section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections to those refs. I think maybe when I fixed the Ferling 2002/2000 refs that took care of the RED/BOLD... Yay. Shearonink (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cmguy777, Gwillhickers, and Hoppyh: Nope, just checked. Some still remain - Ref 52 (French & Indian War), 106 (Washington & Slavery), 352 (Ten Facts...), 365 (MVLA), 383 (Parry 1991), & 392 (Five Star Generals) are still broken. Some of the syntax is quite tricky but I'm pretty sure they were all fine when I was working intensively on the article earlier this month. Let me take a look & try to fix them. They should not be removed. Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed #352. Even though this ref visually differs from most other refs it does follow the WP MOS guide for online sources that do not have a clear/verifiable publication date and are lacking authorship, etc etc. I went over all this a while back and the reasons for the coding and can dig up the MOS guideline for this type of situation if we need it (don't have time atm, life is interfering). Will try to get back to fixing the other broken cites tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed #365. I know it visually "looks" different but it does follow the guidelines for online sources. Shearonink (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the visual appearance of these various online sources, I have been using Template:Sfn#Citation has multiple authors and no date as my guide. Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed – Cite 52 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed – Cite 392 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed – Cite 383 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears the unmentioned sources have been removed and the cite links fixed. There is the Ferling (2000) vs. Ferling (2002). It is apperently the same book but published and republished. My version is 2000. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Google link is Ferling (2002), but the article is Ferling (2000). Should the Google link be removed or should all the Ferling 2000's be changed to 2000 ? Why not just remove the Google link page ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

My version is also 2000, however, since booth publications are identical from page to page we can simply change the 2000 to 2002, which I just finished doing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Looks good. Thanks Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. All of those "Harv error"/"Harv warning" red flags with the refs that I am aware of have now been fixed. In the future, if text-content is removed, please also delete the supporting/attendant refs. The last several I fixed were stranded refs that weren't supporting any article-text. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination submitted

Done — The Nomination has been submitted. @Cmguy777, Shearonink, and Hoppyh:, when and if you're ready, you can add your names to the nomination, simply by adding ~~~~ at the bottom of the opening statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added my name. We need you to join us, @Cmguy777:. Hoppyh (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Name has been added. Nomination looks great. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Stability

@Hoppyh and Cmguy777: Unless there is a serious error with the facts, citations or in grammar, we should leave the narrative rest so we can demonstrate article stability. Looking at recent edit history, it doesn't look very stable. At this point we should confine our edits to the directives of reviewers, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I do appreciate the point, but in reviewing the Presidency section I have encountered clear disqualifying grammar problems. Glad to cease, but I fear at the risk of an abrupt fail.Hoppyh (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

My last edit was 21:31, 15 November 2018. What disqualifying grammar problems are there in the Presidency section ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you feel an item is such that it will disqualify the nomination, okay, but I was looking at a whole lot of simple grammar tweaks and such. Will leave matters up to your discretion with a general piece of friendly advice that we all tread softly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

John Jay

@Hoppyh: After thanking you for your recent edit I double checked the facts. Your edit summary says "Jay did not sign in capacity as CJ" (Chief Justice). The Treaty was signed in November 1794. John Jay was Chief Justice from September 26, 1789 – June 29, 1795. If he did not sign the treaty in the capacity of CJ, then in what capacity? Since John Jay was indeed Chief Justice at this time it seems we should restore the edit as it was and address him as such, as this is a critical point of context concerning Jay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point, but just off the cuff, I’m not aware of this being a function of the Court. I suspect he was acting at the request of POTUS. I leave it to you. That said, I clearly went beyond my copy edit role and will reign it in. Nevertheless, if you look at the previous reading of the section you will find numerous grammatical problems. Hoppyh (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I restored Chief Justice but left out Supreme Court, as together it does tend to suggest that the Treaty was presented to the Supreme Court for signing. Will look into matters further to see why Jay in particular was chosen to negotiate and sign the treaty. Though the treaty was submitted to the Senate for ratification after Jay signed, it would seem his being Chief Justice had something to do with the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Again unless there are glaring errors in grammar, it would seem we are okay in that dept. If a grammatical error is that bad I suspect a reviewer will bring it to our attention. In any event, your concern and efforts are sincerely appreciated. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

At least let the FA review defeat the article. We don't have to do it ourselves. Respectfully. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

We were not planning on "defeat" but being cautious . It's also important that we keep an upbeat attitude and walk softly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There will always be room for improvement and it is a work in progress. That’s no different than a spirit and willingness to take issue with suggested changes or criticism with the work to-date.Hoppyh (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Just concerned about multiple and constant changes occurring in the middle of a review. Reviewers might see things differently than we do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am personally am going to back off from editing the article very much until we have some clear suggestions for possible improvements & corrections from any FA Reviewers. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

All I meant for clarification is not to jump to any problems that may not exist or that can be corrected. Let's give the FA review a chance. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the way I took it Cmguy777. I am going to try very hard to be hands-off (except for reverting the usual ongoing murmur of OHSOFUNNY vandalism) while the FA Nom is underway. Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I will try to behave. Hoppyh (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Me too...but I dunno if I can doooo it. Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Good luck… I have to pack a lunch because it’s an all-day job. Hoppyh (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Will look into matters further to see why Jay in particular was chosen to negotiate and sign the treaty."

Because John Jay was one of the most experience diplomats the United States had at this point, had helped secure loans from the Spanish government to finance the American Revolution, took part in the negotiations for the Treaty of Paris (1783) (where he was playing second fiddle to Benjamin Franklin and studying Franklin's methods), and had served as United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs for 6 years (1784-1790)? Jay is more famous as a diplomat than a judge.

In any case, here is what the main article on Jay explains about the treaty:

"Madison proposed a trade war, "A direct system of commercial hostility with Great Britain," assuming that Britain was so weakened by its war with France that it would agree to American terms and not declare war. Washington rejected that policy and sent Jay as a special envoy to Great Britain to negotiate a new treaty; Jay remained Chief Justice. Washington had Alexander Hamilton write instructions for Jay that were to guide him in the negotiations. In March 1795, the resulting treaty, known as the Jay Treaty, was brought to Philadelphia. When Hamilton, in an attempt to maintain good relations, informed Britain that the United States would not join the Danish and Swedish governments to defend their neutral status, Jay lost most of his leverage. The treaty eliminated Britain's control of northwestern posts and granted the United States "most favored nation" status, and the U.S. agreed to restricted commercial access to the British West Indies."
The treaty did not resolve American grievances about neutral shipping rights and impressment, and the Democratic-Republicans denounced it, but Jay, as Chief Justice, decided not to take part in the debates. The continued British impressment of American ships would lead, in part, to the War of 1812. The failure to get compensation for slaves taken by the British during the Revolution "was a major reason for the bitter Southern opposition". Jefferson and Madison, fearing a commercial alliance with aristocratic Britain might undercut republicanism, led the opposition. However, Washington put his prestige behind the treaty and Hamilton and the Federalists mobilized public opinion. The Senate ratified the treaty by a 20–10 vote (just enough to meet the two-thirds majority requirement). Democratic-Republicans were incensed at what they perceived as a betrayal of American interests, and Jay was denounced by protesters with such graffiti as "Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won't damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won't put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!" One newspaper editor wrote, "John Jay, ah! the arch traitor – seize him, drown him, burn him, flay him alive." Jay himself quipped that he could travel at night from Boston to Philadelphia solely by the light of his burning effigies."

Another unpopular policy by Washington's government. It was not the first, it would not be the last. But since only "about 6% of the population" had voting rights at the time, the American public could not do much about it. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Was Jay authorized by the Secretary of State for the negotiations ? It seems odd that a Supreme Court Chief Justice was making a political treaty. But again this article is under an FA review. Maybe more clarification is needed on Jay, but I believe it is best to wait until the FA review is finished. It is best not to make anymore editing while the FA review is ongoing. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If we have a source that Jay was acting as an envoy, that would do it. I don’t imagine there to be anything to prevent him from acting as such just because he was on the court.If the treaty ever went up to the court on a legal issue, today at least, he would probably need to recuse himself from hearing the case, though that would be up to him. Just my curbstone opinion. That said, I would at this point just leave out the court and CJ title, other than a coincidental ref. Hoppyh (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As concerns the Jay Treaty itself for purposes of the Washington biography, we need not expand on John Jay himself other than to perhaps mention that he was an experienced diplomat, keeping in mind that we are only summarizing the Treaty as it relates to Washington's biography. We retained the context that he was Chief Justice. Perhaps we can simply mention that Jay was an experienced diplomat in a footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. We look at these offices from 230 years of precedent on what they do and on how they are separated. Washington, a good general, was using the resources he had at hand without worrying about the labels on them. Jay was probably the most experienced treaty negotiator the US had, and Washington would have been foolish not to consult him. I wouldn't even refer to him as Chief Justice here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's not a big deal but I would agree with dropping the CJ here. Hoppyh (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, John Jay is only mentioned once in the actual text, so it's appropriate we at least mention/link to his title at that point. However, I edited (indicated here in bold) the statement to read — "Chief Justice John Jay, acting as negotiator, signed the treaty ...", to indicate he was not acting as a Chief Justice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to keep the CJ title, I suggest we state that Washington designated him as a Special Envoy (see above) to negotiate the treaty. I’m assuming there is a ref.Hoppyh (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is a source that mentions this specifically, then yes, that would be and added context, and appropriate, . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Jay was confirmed by the Senate. That should be mentioned. It was not a secret mission. He went to avert war with Britain. It should be mentioned he was Chief Justice, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

1796 Election - GW contradiction

The last paragraph of the Second term section indicates GW was neutral as to the candidates. The next paragraph at the beginning of the farewell address section says he favored Adams. Hoppyh (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral? Per the main article on the United States presidential election, 1796, Washington was one of the Presidential candidates and received 2 electoral votes. One from New York (state), and one from Virginia.

Candidates who received electoral votes in the election included: John Adams (71 votes), Thomas Jefferson (68 votes), Thomas Pinckney (59 votes), Aaron Burr (30 votes), Samuel Adams (15 votes), Oliver Ellsworth (11 votes), George Cinton (7 votes), John Jay (5 votes), James Iredell (3 votes), George Washington (2 votes), John Henry (2 votes), Samuel Johnston (2 votes), and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (1 vote). Dimadick (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what all this data means in terms of Washington's neutral position regarding Adams. The cites used for Washington's support for Adams is Korzi, and Peabody, however, in the second term statement, this seems to mean he didn't campaign for Adams, or give him official support. By the time the election came around, however, he supported Adams. Two different sections with two different items of context to consider. Have no objections of making the statement more clear, if anyone is not comfortable with the existing text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"Not sure what all this data means in terms of Washington's neutral position"

How can you be "neutral" in an an election where you stand for office? Dimadick (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I recommend a clarification. As to the neutrality and standing for office, IMO, the fact that he received votes does not mean he was seeking them, i.e. standing for office. Hoppyh (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As was suggested, a statement of clarity could be in order. Adams was Washington's VP, so it seems a bit odd that he didn't favor him at the end of his second term. Am curious as to what in Washington's Farewell Address that indicated he favored Adams, even though he very well likely did. Don't see anything in Peabody's or Korzi's works that indicates Washington, in his Farewell Address, favored Adams. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Washington sided with Hamilton a majority of the time over Jefferson. Washington was not neutral. Santa Barbarba University label him unofficially Federalist. This article should too, in my opinion. Washington also sided with the South when he signed the Futigive Slave Law. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is Washington's neutrality regarding Adams. During the end of Washington's second term when the campaigning began for the next election, as a standing President, Washington remained neutral, regardless of whom he favored. This doesn't seem like anything amazing and is consistent with the fact that he ascribed to no party, and was vehemently opposed to their divisiveness, as he clearly related in his Farewell Address. Help and clarity with what the sources say in regard to one statement is what we need now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO, in light of GW having “foresaken” TJ, his support for his VP Adams is expected and is not inconsistent with a continued aversion to party identification. Hoppyh (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the GW quote I have added to the Retirement section. This impacts our analysis of the party neutrality topic. Also, please check the ref to make sure it complies in form with the current focus on sources. I have more details on the ref. if needed.Hoppyh (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral is very subjective. Maybe it is best say Washington did not publically support any candidate in 1796. Also in context is the French Revolution that divided this country indirectly. Washington was supported by Louis XVI, who supported the American Revolution. Louis the XVI was executed. The ties with the French were nullified by Louis XVI execution. Washington sided with the British in the Jay Treaty. Hamilton supported the Jay Treaty. Washington sided with Hamilton. Adams did not run an active campaign like Aaron Burr. What divided the nation at that time was the Jay Treaty. Did Adams support Washington's Jay Treaty ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I got the above ref. form correct at this point I think. I adjusted the statement in the second term section to refer to the parties, not the candidates in 1796. The statement in the Farewell address section about the support of Adams is referenced and I assume that is accurate. Other earlier statements of GW’s neutrality are in reference to Hamilton and Jefferson which is a distinction. Other than that, it looks to me like GW was pretty much a Federalist at the end, based on the quote I found. Hoppyh (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Query...whether Cmguy’s last edit in the second term section, i.e GW endorsed neither candidate nor party, which is not sourced, contradicts the sourced statement in the Farewell address section, that GW supported Adams? Hoppyh (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Which Farewell Address the Press or Congress ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I can’t tell—see last sentence of first paragraph of Farewell address section. BTW, Happy Thanksgiving, Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Transcript of President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796) Cmguy777 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything that mentions John Adams. Happy Thanksgiving ! Cmguy777 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

We need access to the Randall reference (#309). Hoppyh (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Randall says Washington supported Adams, but that is all. No reference or evidense of Washignton's support is given. It might be best just to leave out the information. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I still think there needs to be some sort of letter or conversation from Washington that said he supported Adams, but Randall is a source. I tried to put both views in article. I am sure Washington did support Adams, but, I would think Washington would have told someone he supported Adams. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

See change attempting to more accurately reflect what we have. Hoppyh (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem if Washington had officially, or at least publicly, lent Adams his support during Adams' election someone would have made note, at least, of such events. Thanks for ironing the issue out. Section looks good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Double check cites and sources

Starting at the beginning of the Bibliography a couple of errors not mentioned in Nomination Talk, or anywhere, were found involving wrong years and wrong ISBN numbers. Not sure if there are any more, but considering the magnitude of sources there could be others. Could nominators (or anyone) please help in double checking the cites and sources, so we can get past any lingering loose ends and move on? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A handful include the location which I assume is an inconsistency. I will omit those locations if needed. Ping me. Hoppyh (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the FA review has stalled. There are more than cites/sources to the article. Except for the slavery issue, I think this article could be written with five sources, Chernow, Ferling, Fitzpatrick, Cooke, and Banning. It is best to have a book in hand and edit, rather than rely on Google snippets. Hopefully there will be a complete FA review that covers all the FA criteria. We don't want a repeat fail. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, imo, the more sources, the greater the perspective and comprehensiveness of the narrative. Almost all FA articles of widely famous people, worth their salt, have dozens of sources they refer to. Thanks for introducing the dozens of sources you have introduced and/or used in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hoppyh, thanks for removing inconsistent use of locations in the source listing. Will spend my time and energy double checking citations making sure they support the given statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

done Hoppyh (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Images

I was quite surprised to find out in Nomination Talk that so many of the images used in this article had licensing and other issues to deal with. I fixed about ten of these images, but it got to the point where it became a little overwhelming, searching around on line, etc, for information for each image, doing the work the uploading editors should have done in the first place — so I removed a fair number of them, mostly in the Monuments and memorials section. If anyone is inclined to fix a given image and restore it to the article I wish them the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The use of the two galleries has been challenged and IMO they are not justified. I recommend taking a couple from each and placing them as apt. and let’s use the links available to give the readers access to the rest. Hoppyh (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I would remove any photos that have any issues, but can't be resolved. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Imo, the gallery of images of Washington was appropriate for the Washington Biography. Given the issues involved, it's unfortunate that the editors who uploaded these images didn't look into matters more thoroughly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of galleries

IMO the WP standard for the use of galleries is not met here...”if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.” I think the challenge which has been made in the FA NOM is appropriate.Hoppyh (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no objection here, as much as I would like to see these images occurring in the Washington Biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the galleries are an unbalance or undo weight to the article. Is it being proposed to get rid of the monuments, stamps, currency, and portrait photos ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The reviewer has asked for justification of the galleries based on the WP policy and I don’t think there is an argument for them that is going to succeed. I would pick a stamp, a coin, and a portrait for use in the article, and let the links do the rest. Hoppyh (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Since there are already photos in the article, the photo gallery can be taken out. I would keep the Washington Monument, a stamp, quarter, and dollar. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe just one photo of the Washington quarter would be appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to get @Gwillhickers: input on the choices. Hoppyh (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Insert: Yes. I made changes I thought best. Gwhillhickers can assert opinion(s). From what I read, gallery formatting is discouraged on Wikipedia. That was why I removed the gallery formatting. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there are a good number of Washington and related images already I have no strong feelings about an additional photo either way, just as along as any additional image doesn't have issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we did the right thing-I share the lament. Hoppyh (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the article again falls short of the WP standard for the use of galleries. There is now a gallery with no less than 2 each of oversized stamps and currency. This as well detracts from an FA nom. Hoppyh (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

ALT statements

Insert: The photos should have Alt texts per FA review. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It was suggested in Nomination Talk that we add 'alt' statements to the file names. For those who may not know their purpose, 'Alt' statements give a brief description (when audio mode is used) of the image, which aids sight-impaired people. Here is an example ('alt' statement in bold)

[[File:The Night Council At Fort Necessity from the Darlington Collection of Engravings.PNG |thumb |left |Night Council at Fort Necessity |alt=Washington and group of approximately ten officers and Indians in council, standing at night around a lamp, at nearby Fort Necessity]]

I have just begun adding them, but since there are many images to deal with, we should pool together and put this job behind us, asap, so we can move on with the nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Done — Much thanks to @Hoppyh: for helping out with the task of adding 'alt' statements to the many images here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Narrative issues

@Wehwalt: In nomination Talk you maintained that the statement about the statue was out of place. The toppling of the statue sort of exemplifies the attacks on "symbols of monarchy" with mention of King George. There is also an image of this event. I believe they are appropriate but if you prefer I can remove both statement and image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

My objection is that I don't see the logical jump from the third-to-last sentence to the second-to-last. Why are the final two sentences at that particular point? Why the departure from chronological order?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt — I'm not seeing any chronological issues here:
— 3rd to last sentence mentions First Virginia convention, which met on August 1, 1774, (I added the day of the month for clarity here).
— 2nd to last sentence mentions: "July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence.
— Last sentence says " Five days later, Patriots openly attacked symbols of monarchy—toppling an equestrian statue of King George III in New York City."
It would seem mention of the toppling of the statue captures the spirit here, but if you still prefer, we can remove any mention of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you jump ahead to mention the Declaration and statue. It's not the statue in particular.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The signing of the Declaration of Independence marks the official break from Britain by the colonies. However I see Cm' has moved the passage in question to a better location. Hope this works for everyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Nomination Talk: Wehwalt : In the House of Burgesses Washington first represented Frederick County beginning in 1758, and then Fairfax County, beginning in 1765, for a total of seven years. The narrative didn't mention Fairfax County, or the time he served representing it, so the claim of "seven years" would have been lacking this context. I added mention of Fairfax County, per Ellis, p.288. Added mention of Washington's assumption of seat in the House on his twenty-seventh birthday, for biographical context, per Chernow, p.99. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

At least according to the Mount Vernon site, he was elected for Fairfax County in 1761. The rules allowed you to run anyplace you met the property qualifications.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, since you have reviewed the narration, does this article pass the "well-written" FA criteria ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There are certainly awkward passages, that I'm trying to eliminate as I go along.I'm hoping it will by the time the nomination ends. If enough things get fixed. Prose can be fixed, but I'm worried about the spot-checks of whether the refs say the the article says they say. That's more difficult to deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Any improvements in grammar, etc are always welcomed. Much work has been done on grammar by various editors and it would seem most of the bases have been covered. However, if there are any remaining issues I for one will get right on it and fix them. I'm hoping you will make any changes you feel are warranted also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed the King George III statue toppled photo and moved information on the DOI to the appropriate section. More context information was added. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cm'. Context is always welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

FA nomination by Hoppyh withdrawn

I am withdrawing my support of the FA nomination. I am uncomfortable with the degree of ownership of the article which IMO is on display in violation of WP:OWN. Hoppyh (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hopphy. Who has ownership of the article ? The FA nomination is sluggish. No FA reviewers have commented on whether the article is comprehensive, well-written, or neutral. I personally believe the article needs to be trimmed and sources need to be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I will answer your initial question by reacting to your final comment. I agree with your assessment that the article needs trimming, and sources reduced. Having said that, I rhetorically ask you, “To what extent do you think such trimming and reduction would be successful?” Also I ask, “Who do you expect would be the source of your futility?” Finally, I ask, “Why are FA reviewer comments being responded to on this talk page?” See below. I apologize for being so oblique. Hoppyh (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We nominated the article with many sources and at its present length (+ -), which was stated to be "appropriate". Reviewers have brought numerous things to our attention, so we might do well with addressing those issues first before trying to create new ones here in the middle of the nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

“We”, hell! Note the retraction of my FA nomination, and of my support of the promotion of this article to FA. Hoppyh (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Am unclear here. You changed the words of the opening statement of the nomination as to say "appropriate". Don't want to argue now. Thought your signature as nominator was an endorsement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh, your withdrawal comes as a disappointment. I can only repeat what I sincerely stated before that I did not mean to accuse you or extend any offense to you. I am hoping you rejoin us, as we need workhorse editors like your self. Once again, I apologize for my inappropriate comments on your Talk page. We still have work to do, as pointed out by reviewers. Am trying to do what I can and hope you will get back into the game. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That is another of your very artful but disingenuous apologies. I should take a break here, and will, with a couple simple requests, that you not attempt as you have expressed, to place any limit on good faith, appropriately referenced edits to the article, be they reductions or additions. No one has that authority at any time, FA nom notwithstanding. Also disingenuous is your use of the need for “context“ to bloat the article with more detail than is acceptable for an FA nom. It is for that reason that I now oppose. I shall return. Hoppyh (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Please don’t submit further to your urge to unilaterally archive discussions here which you don’t wish to remain in the light of day because of your FA nom. Hoppyh (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The nomination was made on Nov. 17 with article prose size at 98 kB / 15785 words. It was you who changed the opening statement to specifically read that the size was "appropriate". Since then the article has grown to 15940 words. That's only a 155 word increase over three weeks. If anything is "disingenuous" it's your "bloated" account here and rampant indignation over words of caution regarding a nomination in progress. As for your notions of "ownership", obviously directed at me in a disgruntled and vindictive capacity, I have gone along with all reviewers requests, with only a warranted discussion about the inclusion or omission of ISBN's and URL's, with the reviewer saying "Retain the GBook URLs by all means, but if you do the information they provide really needs to be consistent... ". As to our original discussion here, complete with personal attacks, yes, Wehwalt rightfully closed that discussion and I removed what proved to be a royal embarrassment among fellow nominators from the Talk page. Just for the record. Thanks for your professional mannerism and towering good faith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What I have termed appropriate, you deem inviolable in the name of context—there is a difference. This article is destined to remain rated GA, and the G stands for Gwillhicker’s. I therefore oppose the FA nom. Hoppyh (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

More nonsense. The context was present when you made your reference to "appropriate", and has only increased by a few sentences since, while your opposition is obviously motivated for personal and peevish reasons — and thanks for your good wishes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In response, it is rather more than nonsense and peevishness, when an editor such as Gwillhickers, with almost 40% of the edits to the article, tells other editors at any time that no significant changes should be made to the article. It is also improper for an editor to unilaterally archive a talk page discussion. Again, I believe this conduct is in violation of WP:OWN. The article is also overweighted with detail—which Gwillhickers excuses in the name of “context”, rather than using subarticles as intended. My previous nomination was a mistake. It is for this reason that I have retracted my FA nomination and also oppose its promotion. Hoppyh (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Question: I've only started looking at the article in the past few days so am unaware of current disputes, etc., but I am seeing some issues that will need to be addressed before it passes FA, and am wondering whether you think it nomination should be withdrawn? If there's discord and quite a lot of work to be done, that might be the best way forward. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, and have said all I need to. I am going to take a break, and it is not my plan to create further discord, so by all means give the others an opportunity to address your concerns; also, please be mindful of the issues above and call it out when you see it. Hoppyh (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Victoriaearle — It would seem at this point any remaining issues can easily be dealt with, given the number of knowledgeable editors among us. We have been making steady progress for this exceptionally involved article and have been easily addressing issues as they are brought to our attention. If you see things that need attention simply use your better judgement and make any improvements as needed without concern for personally motivated and pessimistic talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

To all concerned: Please be mindful of what is actually motivating the above comments. A well written and contextual article is required by FA criteria. As mentioned, the narrative was (and is) replete with context when our fellow editor here edited the opening statement to the nomination as to read that the size was "appropriate". We are writing for students and history buffs mostly, hence the narrative is written so it doesn't read like it was authored by a legal clerk, lacking context and historical perspective. The hostile remarks directed at me are obviously little more than disgruntled talk, are disruptive and have no place here, esp during a FA nomination review. The article needs to be stable before it can pass an FA nom review, hence my words of caution regarding major changes, stability, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my last comment; only I can speak for myself. To reiterate, I erred in joining the nomination of the article and have now retracted my nomination, and the misguided statement which I assisted in making. My reversal has been made in good faith, contrary to the motive(s) attributed to me by Gwillhickers. His behavior in attempting to define my motives is a logical extension of his insistence on defining the article’s content, both text and imagery. I repeat my contention that he is in violation of WP:OWN. I have also expressed my view that the article is overweighted with detail, contrary to the 4th criteria for an FA—“Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.” For these reasons I continue to oppose the FA nom. Hoppyh (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your accusations of ownership are not consistent with my working with reviewers requests, and I've never gone against consensus — and offering words of advice or caution, or expressing an opinion about URL's etc, hardly amount to that, thank you. As for your behavior, and personal attacks, they've been rather obvious from the start (1, 2), regardless of your attempts to "rephrase".
Also, staying focused doesn't mean we don't include context, which is also a FA criteria -- and the appropriate context helps to add focus to the narrative. I have no issues with removing completely tangential prose, and at this late date you have yet to speak in terms of specifics, so your personal attacks and reversal here, which began immediately after my simple words of caution, on your Talk page, not in the middle of the 'town square', comes off a little less than convincing. It's unfortunate you have given up on an article you have spent months trying to get off the ground, until our recent misunderstanding, which you have been trying to turn into a federal case since. In spite of our personal situation here, we have been making steady progress from the beginning, with no hostile confrontations other than the one you've initiated, so I can only hope reviewers can see past all the guff here and appreciate that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope the nom makes progress—IMO, it has a lot of ground to cover. I expect this will not happen unless Gwillhickers lets go of it to a greater extent than willing in the past. The endless and heated reactions to my reversal demonstrates an improper ownership perspective of the article, which I therefore continue to oppose as a FA candidate. Hoppyh (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your retraction was obviously made in a "heated" capacity. All I've done is point out this glaring contradiction, with your reference to "appropriate" size, to your complete reversal now. Also, your not so subtle inference that my work has been and is counter productive to the nomination is without basis, given my edit history and overall cooperation with reviewers. Sorry. The main threat to the nomination at this point is your continued personal attacks and hostile attitude which has been quite apparent from the beginning. Would you please drop the stick, lighten up and resume functioning in a constructive capacity like the rest of us? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have pointed out what I believe are genuine problems with the nom, and it is quite unsound for someone to equate my criticism to a threat; an inappropriate ownership perspective of the article would explain it however. Hoppyh (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Above, in plain English, I maintained that it was the hostile and personal guff that was the threat, not criticism, which the rest of us have been addressing and fixing, all along, thank you. Your notion of ownership remains that, unfounded and not consistent with my edit history and continued cooperation with reviewers, thank you again. If you truly "hope the nom makes progress", isn't about time you resume making edits to this effect? It's been more than a week. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Past Article Version

FA reviewer Victoria added a link to an older version. This article could possibly help restructure the current article. Here is the Link: [2] Cmguy777 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Improper manipulation of talk page

I have been pointing out proprietary and covetous behavior by Gwillhickers as to the article, which I believe is in violation of ownership policy. It now appears that this self-anointed “owner” wishes to take control of this talk page; on two occasions he has unilaterally archived and collapsed talk discussions—shameful. Hoppyh (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This, coming from someone who reverted the last paragraph to the section in question? The discussions had nothing to do with article improvement and were nothing but a vehicle to vent your indignation and anger. What is "shameful" is the hypocritical attempt to chide me for something you just did, not to mention your futile attempts to anoint me as the owner, with nothing more to support this notion than a disgruntled opinion that having a difference of opinion with a reviewer is automatically wrong. In the mean time, please use the Talk page for purposes of article improvement and try to refrain from further personal attacks and name calling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope there can be a truce. I am not taking any sides, just think the talk needs to tone down, especially after FA Review. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all! Hoppyh (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please remember

when you remove content make sure you also remove the references that had supported that content. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

On line sources

As pointed out by Victoriaearle the Mt. Vernon (and Ladies Association) source is less than a reliable source. The Mount Vernon source is used a number of times throughout the article. This also begs the question about the usage of the other on line sources – currently there are twenty-seven. This is not to say they are all unreliable, but it seems a discussion about which ones and their usage is warranted at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If editors think that the scholarship of the various essays and articles published by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association is less than reliable, they should have to prove it. For instance, is there anything specific about the "Slave Control" essay that isn't verifiable? Anything about its 8 source documents that isn't encyclopedic? What about "Death Defied"? Should Mary V. Thompson's article be discarded because of its publisher? Ms. Thompson holds a Masters Degree in History, specializing in Early Modern Europe & Colonial America from the University of Virginia. She is a published author of 3 different books and is also the Research Historian on staff at the George Washington Presidential Library and the article is based on 5 different sources. Then there is "Native American Policy" published as part of the Digital Encyclopedia by the GWPL, written by Dr. Richard Harless, PhD, an Adjunct Professor at Saint Mary's Honors College of Maryland. Dr. Harless also holds Master’s degrees from George Washington University, Virginia Tech, and George Mason University, as well as a Ph.D. from George Mason University. His article focuses on the evolution of the attitudes and policies of George Washington as they relate to Native Americans.of George Mason University and is buttressed by 4 sources.

I understand that not all sources (published in print or not) are great and that not all research is the best, but I don't know why we should wholesale get rid of every reference whose publisher is the MVLA. Shearonink (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The source] that Victoriaearle referred to had no author's name, nor list of sources. Some of the Mt. Vernon articles do. This I believe will have to be resolved on a per item basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't doing any editing this past weekend...but didn't anyone notice that the content for that particular source was removed back on December 9th? and that there was a stranded reference? (complete with a "Harv warning") So anyway, that particular source is moot and I've removed it. Shearonink (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the question about the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, the list of contributors can be found here, and this page explains that it is a digital encyclopedia. The issue is really one of degree: according to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing." To satisfy 1.c of the criteria, the article has to cite "high quality reliable sources". As Wehwalt mentions in the thread below, there are many many such sources available. Jstor returns 660,000+ results on a simple search of "George Washington", and 88,000+ results on "George Washington life" (including reviews of biographies, not only valuable but almost necessary to determine which biographies to use). High quality sourcing is crucial for featured articles, and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association is a tertiary source authored by students & professors. Because of the volume of other sources available it can and should be replaced, or used judiciously. Victoriaearle (tk) 02:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Careless editing

I will be the first to confess to sloppy work in my editing, and I do regret the extra work this causes when it happens. It will help reduce needless corrections if all of us 1) slow down a tad in our work; 2) avoid working while more important distractions are at play (it’s Christmas!); and 3) read what we have just written before and after posting it. Thanks, pals. Hoppyh (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the editing is coming along fine overall, with the condensing of grammar where appropriate and with minimal points of context having to be restored. It is my hope at least that we can reduce the article, a bit more, but not too much, and still leave it just as informative as it was previously. So far it looks like this is being accomplished. Many thanks to all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have just completed copy editing through the Trenton and Princeton section. I need a break but hope to return. My sincere wish for your healthy and happy holidays, Gwillhickers, et. al.Hoppyh (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That takes quite a weight off my shoulders. Thank you for coming around. Hope we can work together in good spirits as we did before I opened my big mouth. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To your point above, food for thought...to the extent there is a body of thought for a shorter article, consider letting go of your preference for time enough to shorten and get the FA, then restore the detail afterwards. Might be a strategy worthy of GW himself. You’ll just have to weather your own “Valley Forge”, and then you’ll be in your own “Yorktown”? Cheers, pal. Hoppyh (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention

The closing two sentences about slavery (that were) in the Constitutional Convention section would seem to be better placed in the Slavery section. The signing of the ratified Constitution was a major turning point for the young nation. Is a comment about slavery all we can say about the Constitutional Convention in a closing statement? I moved the statements to the slavery section, because placed in the section for this landmark topic, by themselves, gives too much weight to this topic. Meanwhile, we should look for a better and more general closing statement for the Constitutional Convention section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Article size

@Victoriaearle: Thanks for your review and recommendations. I agree with most of what you've recommend, with the exception of article size. Currently the article is roughly 15,500 words. To get it down to 10,000 words would require the elimination of 1/3 the article. As you've pointed out, there are other articles that are very long. Further, the Ulysses S. Grant Featured Article is 16314 words long. The Ronald Reagan FA is 15616 words. The Barack Obama FA is 12892 words. The Hillary Clinton FA is 16171 words. The Elvis Presley FA is 17965 words long. These are all very famous people with highly involved lives and warrant the article size used to comprehensively cover their lives. We originally submitted the nomination and deemed the size for this article was appropriate because of all the topics that were covered. Even summary coverage of all these topics requires an appreciable amount of space. Ian Rose said we should tend to the article and then submit it to peer review where we can get a consensus on things like prose, article size, etc. Right now we don't have a clear and unbiased consensus. The Washington article has been quite large for some time, so there is a long standing consensus to keep the coverage at this approximate length. During the review there were remarks about sourcing, citations, hagiographic and wordy prose, but none of the reviewers made article size in of itself an issue. This idea never came up until I recommended that the nomination be closed and you weighed in with your thoughts. Reminder, page length guidelines allows editor discretion in terms of article size concerning exceptional articles. We should tend to the matters pointed out by reviewers and let the article size find its own level, rather than putting the cart before the horse. We should also do no less with the coverage of Washington than was done for the people/articles mentioned above. Any further thoughts from you are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Barack Obama article prose is 79 kb while the Ronald Regean article is 95 kb. There should be concensus that the article size needs to be reduced, otherwise, one editor will reduce the article and then another editor will add to the article. In my opinion only, adding to the article adds to the hagiographic part of the article. The two are linked together. Rjensen at on point reduced the article size. There seemed to be no issues there. Here is the thing, the article can be reduced, and things can always be added, such as a sentence or two, when needed. The Cincinnatus part, again only my opinion, was a bit hagiographic. That could be mentioned in one or two sentences, not a full paragraph. I just said that as an example. Trying to be diplomatic. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say anywhere between 10,000-15,000 words is good for article size, with a 95 KB cap. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article is too long, not because of arbitrary numbers, but because this is an encyclopedic work, and links to subtopics are available for the reader who wants more detail than belongs here. I am quite confident that the ownership issue encumbering the article will prevent any substantial reduction; the talk archives are replete with your own futile attempts at this. I applaud you for your dedication. That said, I will not waste time and effort arguing with someone who has been and is opposed to our view. The article is forever GA—not good. Hoppyh (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

To address the specific question: I meant to mention it during the FAC, but the laundry list was already long, I ran out of steam and forgot. That said, I chimed in the subsequent thread to be clear that because I didn't mention it doesn't mean I wouldn't have at some point because it was on my mind, in other words I wanted to avoid a situation in which nominators think because the reviewer fails to mention a issue, the issue is resolved.

My philosophy has always been to try to write the most informative article in as lean a manner as possible for the following reasons: it's kind to readers, reviewers, visitors to the main page when/if it ever gets there, to those who have to pay for bandwidth to download a large article (lots of people in the world pay a considerable amount of money to access the internet), and simply to make it more readable. It's best not to set an arbitrary word count, i.e, it must be a 15,000 word article because (whatever the reasons and there are many for a subject like this); or it must be a 10,000 word article because (and there are many reasons to be lean).

In my experience, it's best to let the sources lead and write the article - which inevitably will be longer than necessary. Then start hacking; copyediting removes words, strict adherence to summary style removes words; watching for repetition will remove words (I noticed some repetition in the French and Indian war section and might take a stab at some reduction there). Then walk away for a while, come back and ask yourselves whether x, y, or z is really necessary and try to start hacking again. Every section here has the benefit of a daughter article, so there's no reason for bloat in the main biography.

That said, though I am a firm believer that 10,000 words is the max size that's comfortable for a web article, I am guilty of exceeding that. Juggling is the key, and being willing to give up some points in favor of others, and being strict about lean prose. Says she, who writes overly long replies :) Victoriaearle (tk) 00:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Few people will read an article that is too long, and even fewer will be prepared to review it at FAC. A lengthy article may well be justified, but it will likely be challenged on size, as both the Grant and Presley articles were at their FACs. If you are going justify article size by citing other long articles that succeeded at FAC, you should be aware that, although those two were large at the time they were promoted, they were not, at promotion, as large as the current sizes you are quoting. As to the other lengthy FACs that you cite in justification, the Obama article was just over 8,000 words or 49Kb of readable prose at its last FA review, which is well within limits, while the Reagan article was only just over the 'limit' with 10,355 words or 63Kb of readable prose at the time it was promoted. Another thing that might be useful to point out is that this article's section on GW in the French and Indian War runs to some 1100 words. In theory that section is a summary of the c.5000-word main article, the GA-rated George Washington in the French and Indian War. The lead of that article performs a similar job of summarising the salient points, but manages to do so in c.380 words. I've also had a look at trimming that section, and have reduced the word count to 622. If that exercise is indicative of the potential to trim the rest of the article, it suggests a word count of around 9000 words might be possible instead of the current 15000+. Factotem (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think your observation about few people willing to participate in the FA review of an excessively long article is accurate, and it was in evidence in the review just recently ended here. Hoppyh (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As said, the Ronald Reagan article is at 15616 words (95k), Hillary Clinton is at 16171 words (100k). Washington, as of today is at 15273 words (95k). Regardless of the size at the time of nomination, no one has withdrawn FA status because of a long article size, and I've never seen any effort to do so, anywhere. We should not determine article length because some reviewers can't deal with an involved article. Judging from the last review, it seems none of the reviewers were overwhelmed in terms of giving up. As for this trumped up "ownership" notion, Hoppyh, we have this thing called consensus. When someone finds a way to get around that, let me know. Having said that, I see there is a clear consensus to reduce the article size. All that is asked is that we reduce wordy and any hagigraphic prose first, and then reduce text covering battle tactics and such, before removing things that reflect on Washington the person, letting the article size find its own level, rather than putting the cart before the horse and chopping away accordingly. This is not the way to write history, or any factual narrative. When historians write books, they don't decide on a page length first, and then try to write accordingly. The page length is rather a reflection of their research and the effort they have put into the work. As for reading a long article, once again, most readers just read the lede and from the TOC go to the sections they are interested in. This article should be a self contained account, not dependent on a dozen different other articles for a reader to get the main picture. Given the clear consensus to reduce the article size, I will of course abide, and from time to time will, if removed, restore any major details or important points of context I feel should remain in the account. In terms of a biography, the focus should be on Washington's thoughts and feelings regarding political ideology, the war, and his association with important people, like Hamilton, Jefferson, Knox, Jay, Burgoyne, Howe, etc. We should not skimp on Washington's early life and family, as again, this is the Washington biography, an account about 'the' person. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There it is, folks. Gwillhickers says, “...from time to time I will, if removed, restore any major details or important points of context I feel should remain in the account.” This attitude and behavior, long in evidence here, is in clear violation of Wikipedia’s ownership policy. The poor writing, well that’s old too. Intolerable. Hoppyh (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, major details and important context. i.e.FA criteria. Your expectation that nothing you remove should be restored is a clear indication of ownership tendencies, more so than anything I've ever done — esp since I qualified the matter in terms of major details and important context, while you ignored my suggestions for article size reduction, and prefer to assume the worst. You're the only one who is beating that tin pot. Please drop the stick and stop the hypocritical gutter sniping, your continued harassment has gone on long enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers acknowledges that he “see(s) there is a clear consensus to reduce the article size.” But then he advises he will restore anything he unilaterally decides is required for his definition of context. So much for consensus. Also, if anyone else believes I am exhibiting ownership or harrassment tendencies and wishes to corroborate Gwillhickers’ accusations, I would be glad to hear from them. Hoppyh (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, if I see an item of context that needs to be restored I will do so. You are free to interpret this as to mean that I will oppose all efforts for size reduction. Your effort to interpret for others what they can plainly read for themselves is silly. You need to lighten up and get a handle on these notions and stop amusing yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion is focus on fundamentals. Be sure that what you have cited actually supports the statements in the articles. I was very concerned by the spot-check, and suspect that there is more in there. Second, be sure that what you have written is accurate. The statement about Washington being a burgess for Fauquier County for seven years not only wasn't true, it lacked understanding about how burgess elections worked (two per county, first two past the post win). Third, the article would benefit through scholarly sources, often in place of web sources or popular biography. Why are only two articles available through JSTOR used? I suspect that at least one of the nominators has JSTOR available through a local library or though educational facilities, there are other useful resources that could be used, such as American National Biography for Washington and other figures. If perchance you don't have such access, seek it through The Wikipedia Library. Fundamentally, make sure what you have is sound.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Yes, one of the other reviewers mentioned issues with some of the on line sources. As pointed out by reviewers in the nomination before I suggested it be closed, a number of issues needed to be addressed. Unfortunately many of these items continued to be ignored as if the only approach to article improvement is reducing the word count. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I have an account with JSTOR. To view any given essay at JSTOR that a given reference links to, you have to have an account, otherwise any reference/link will only bring the front page of that reference. Signing up is easy, but no doubt the average reader doesn't know about, or is inclined to sign up with JSTOR. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Wehwalt. In the few sections I looked at, when I was confused about a point being made I looked at the sources and spot-checks showed that in some instances our text goes beyond the sources (an example is that neither Chernow nor the other source cited claims Washington made peace with the Iroquois, or if it's there I couldn't find it in the pages cited). So, to echo Wehwalt, focus on fundamentals first. Also, Jstor articles do have dedicated URLs and any non-registered user can usually view the first page of an article, and we even have a handy-dandy Template:JSTOR for that. But it's not necessary and I don't understand why linking issue prevents using this excellent resource? Victoriaearle (tk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

edit-break

Victoriaearle — Will look into the unsourced statement about making peace with the Iroquois. Somewhere along the line I've read that Washington had, which is consistent with his overall attempts to make peace with the Indians in general, regardless of the conflicts with some that followed. Likely, the citation-page is in there somewhere. Also, JSTOR is an excellent source, with many journals to offer. Didn't mean to give the impression that this was anything less than an excellent source, only that viewing is limited for unregistered readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Victoriaearle — Regarding Washington making peace with the Iroquois, I can't seem to find the passage in question. I even checked an article version that is several days old and still couldn't find it. Can you tell us which statement and citation number is in question? -- I can take it from there, hopefully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this, but Chernow explains here, (I think it's page 39) that Dinwiddie lobbied to fortify the area around the Forks of the Ohio to protect settlers for the Ohio Company, which was business interest, and to secure fur trading with the native tribes. When he received permission from London, he sent GW with a letter, as an envoy, not an ambassador, to inform the French about the British interest. Chernow ends with the "one so young and experienced". Our article says, In "February 1753 Dindwiddie promoted him to major at an annual salary of £100, then made him British military ambassador to the French officials and to the Iroquois and Algonquians, as far north as Erie, Pennsylvania. Thirty years later Washington reflected "that so young and inexperienced a person should have been employed".[34] (pages 26-27). I don't see anything on those page about ambassador to Iroquois (though it could be a different edition). Our article goes on to say, "He met with Half-King Tanacharison and other Iroquois chiefs at Logstown, secured their promise of support against the French, then continued to Venango to meet the French who refused the letter. Washington then reached Fort Le Boeuf, delivered the letter to the commander, and accepted his reply requesting that Dinwiddie send his demand to the Major General of New France in Quebec", but I'm not seeing that in the sources cited. The version I reviewed, here, included the sentence, "Washington was also to make peace with the Six Nations.[37]". It's gone now, but there's some discrepancy with the sources and still some repetition in those sections. I'll take a closer look when I have more time. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources and some of the text needed work. I switched "ambassador" to "envoy", per Chermow, p.31. Also mentioned that Washington had instructions to get any intelligence he could from the Iroquois, per Chernow, p.33. His mission was more of an effort to get their cooperation, rather than a peace mission, as Washington noted that the Iroquois were a mercenary people and sold their services to who would ever pay them, though I didn't mention this in the text. Washington's quote is cited by Chernow, p.31 only, not page 26-27, and not by Randall, p. 71, as was denoted previously. Also mentioned that Dinwiddie appointed Washington to "district adjunct general". This is what he was paid a 100-pound annual salary for, not for his promotion to Major as previously stated. -- Citations are now more specific. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

Setting a limit of 60Kb of readable prose/10,000 words per WP:LENGTH, whilst apparently arbitrary, does have the advantage of focusing the mind on producing a lean narrative that covers all the important details without going into unnecessary detail, both FA criteria. That limit is not in itself an end – the subject may well warrant a longer article – but a means to an end of producing an article that meets the FA criteria on prose and length. I can see two ways in which this might be accomplished in this article:

Micro-managing the prose. I have added a copyedited example of the "Commander in chief" section to my sandox which covers all the important points of that section as currently appears in the article but with less than 75% of the prose. Things to note:

"...and a Patriot siege of the British in Boston." can be reduced to "...and the Siege of Boston." You don't add any extraneous explanatory information about the Battles of Lexington and Concord, so why is it necessary to do so for the Siege of Boston? The link to the article will suffice for those who are curious.
What's so important about Sam and John Adams passing over John Hancock in the nomination of GW as C-inC that it warrants inclusion? All that is relevant to this article is that they nominated GW and he accepted.
Is it really necessary to state that "Washington appeared before Congress in uniform and gave an acceptance speech...". The only important points here seem to be that he declined a salary and accepted only reimbursement for expenses.
Having read the relevant pages in Ferling, the salient point about GW's actions on taking command was that he transformed the citizen-army into an effective military force by instilling discipline in the troops and fostering leadership qualities in the officers. Do we really need to know details about fines, flogging and incarceration, etc.?
In general, the word "also" is used 39 times in the article. See the section on "Additive terms" in User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing for why this may well count against you at FAC, and for general advice on the technicalities of FA-quality prose.

Wider content issue. I find it odd that there are two paragraphs on GW's personal life. Do we really need to know which were his favourite horses, or that he was an excellent dancer, or details of his physical appearance? None of the articles on the presidents that succeeded GW go into this level of detail. It seems only to add unnecessarily to the length of the article. Factotem (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Images - French and Indian War section

I think the section is overpopulated with images, causing too much squeeze in the text. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, suggest eliminating some of them. I meant to mention that File:The Night Council At Fort Necessity from the Darlington Collection of Engravings.PNG is too dark, File:Washington Pennsylvania Mapb.jpg is interesting but hard to make out. Maybe remove those two and rearrange the others. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The image of the night council is a night-time scene, and is naturally dark, with images that are discernable. However, I downloaded and edited the image and added a measure of brightness and sharpness to it, while cropping it and then enlarging it a bit. This is an interesting scene and captures the moment well. We should keep this image, imo. The French and Indian War section is rather large and there is more than enough room for this image near the top, or overall if we arrange the images an other way. I added the image tentatively to see how it works in the section. If there is still a consensus to remove it we can do that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The new version is better, but it is a little difficult to figure out what is going on the photo, and in my opinion, Washington's figure is not distinguished between the other people in the photo. It is at night, but I think Washington get's lost in the photo. I am not sure it is the best photo for the article, or who made the image. I am in agreement with Victoria. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Concern was over the image being too dark. That's been fixed, remembering it's a night time scene. The caption mentions Washington and explains the event. Washington, though he may not be picture perfect, is easy to distinguish. No reason to remove, plenty of room. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The above photo was taken from the French and Indian War article. I am not sure that the war in this article is being presented as a two theature war: North American and Europe. There may be an overemphisis of Washington's involvement in the war. I am not sure any of the photos help the article. Possibly more needs to be said on other generals, such as Amherst, in the article, or the European theature. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The only reason the French and Indian war is covered at all in this article is because Washington participated in it, so naturally the emphasis is on Washington. What is so important about Amherst that would warrant his image in the section? Did Washington have numerous and/or significant dealings with him? Washington is not mentioned in the Amherst article, nor has Chernow, Ferling, Randall or Flexner mentioned him. I am trying to deal with issues reviewers had brought to our attention right now, there are still a fair number, so I'll be checking citations and dealing with prose, etc, before further diverting my focus on any new issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I got off topic, but what I was trying to say is that this war was run by British generals, i.e. Amherst. Washington was not a general in this war. I think that is getting lost in the narrative and it extended into Europe. The Amherst photo is a quality photo, compared to the ones found in the article. This is the photo that should be in the Washington article : Life of George Washington--The soldier / lith. by Régnier, imp. Lemercier, Paris. It is from the LOC and I believe has no copyright restrictions. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, theRégnier is very nice, and note this. Also, some interesting ones on this page that would be appropriate to that section. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The Image of Washington (on horseback) during the F&I war is nice, however, it's apparently not available here at WP (1, 2). If you find an available copy to upload, and license it for WP, then I would substitute it for the image of the British arriving at Fort Duquesne located at the bottom of the section -- Washington isn't involved in that scene. In any case, Amherst had nothing to do with Washington, so there's really no reason to mention him in our summary coverage for this section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded the image/painting, Washington the Soldier, by Régnier, taken from the Library of Congress, and added it to the section. It's quite large in full view. See French and Indian War section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. The painting looks great in the article. In my opinion the other photos are not needed in the French and Indian War section. Yes. The Library of Congress said there was no known restrictions on the painting. There needs to be information on the French and Indian War. It was not fought in just North America. Also, Washington was not a general Amherst was. Amherst fought in North America and was the General who defeated the French. Amherst may have been involved in the Revolutionary War in the protection of Canada. Amherst wanted 75,000 troops sent to the colonies. Howe only had about 28,000 troops. Amherst was correct. There were not enough British troops to fight the war. There should be a sentence or two that says the FaIW took place in Europe. I put in the photo of Amherst to show the quality of the painting. The new photo has a higher quality than the other photos. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's common knowledge, at least among history buffs, that the French and Indian War was some time before the revolution when Washington became general. Thanks for adding the rank in the caption, however, I removed the bolding – as much as I think it looks nice, none of the other images have this, not even Washington's portraits. As for Amherst and other context, all we really need to do is mention why the war was fought, i.e.France and England competing for the same territory, Dinwiddie, who appointed Washington, etc, which we've done. I believe at this point we need to make sure our existing text is supported by its citations. Every time a spot check was performed by reviewers, issues along these lines have surfaced, so I can only assume there are other citation issues to be unearthed and fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Amherst does not have to be mentioned, however, a few details on how the war spread overseas is important, and that Pitt spent a lot of money on the war. Taylor (2016) discussed this on pages 41-53. Washington took over after Braddock was mortally wounded. That is important. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As you know, I'm all for context. If we can relate this idea with a sentence or two, all the better. As you must also know, we already mention Braddock being mortally wounded. Mention of Washington's personal association with Braddock, much older than Washington, if anything to speak of, would be welcomed also.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Washington's reputation was improved after taking over command when Braddock was mortally wounded. That could be emphasized. Washington had previously surrendered at Fort Necessity. What I was thinking was mentioning the year that the war spread to Europe, also, the British won all of French Canada. There apparently is some confutsion on the name, Seven Years War vs. French and Indian War. The colonists celebrated after the French and Indian War. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)