Talk:Presidency of George Washington/Archive 1

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 1

Copyedits

I have made a bunch of copyedits for a second time that are consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I made most of these some time ago, but I see they were reverted:

Headings in Wikipedia follow sentence case, not title case, e.g., "Taking a global position", not "Taking a Global Position". See WP:MOSHEAD.
In the first sentence, where possible, the title of the article should be repeated and place in bold text and there should not be wikilinks in the bold text, as a general rule. I have moved the link to the George Washington article slightly later in the first paragraph in order to be consistent with WP:MOS#Article_titles.
Partial dates follow the format "Month Year" e.g., "January 1779", not "January of 1779" per WP:DATE.
Plain English words should not be linked in general -- see WP:CONTEXT.
Acronyms should be spelled out on first use, i.e., "North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)" instead of just "NATO" per WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations.
"initially" is spelled that way, and not "initally".
In 1707, the Act of Union merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain, so it is more correct to talk about the "British monarch" at this time. "English monarch" is an anacronism in this era.

Ground Zero | t 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User 70.21.44.236 added "Treaty of Paris" which ended the revolutionary war. However, this was signed in 1783, before Washington's presidency started. Should it be included? I suspect that Washington was not even involved with the treaty since he was a general at that time, not a politician. Fordsfords 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

good point so I deleted it. Rjensen 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with George Washington

I think this page should not be merged with that of the biography of George Washington because many other US Presidents have seperate articles devoted only to their tenure as President.Rougher07 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and adding an 18-page article into a 23-page one is a bad idea - let's keep them split. Biruitorul 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose a merger. The article stands alone just fine, and is one among a growing number of articles about American Presidential administrations. -- Yellowdesk 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the proposed merger tag. It's obviously not going to happen, and further, the proposer Robin63 has failed to put forward any rationale for considering the merger. -- Yellowdesk 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC),

Washington served two terms. The legislation he signed was important for the new country. It deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

locking this page from being edited

I think we need to lock this page from being edited. Too many people have messed around with it. -- Yankeeboy1865 16:46 31 March 2007 (UTC-5) —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources and Clarity

There is a lot of good information in this article but I am not sure of most of its validity. Also much of the article is badly ordered or badly worded. Abe Kline (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written statement

"With inauguration on April 30, 1789, the presidency of George Washington initiated a significant leadership role over the United States."

Well apart from being grammatically wrong, this sentence doesn't make sense! George Washington's significant leadership role in the United States commenced more than 20 years before 1789.Eregli bob (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Slavery?

There is a segment devoted to Washington's slaves in Philadelphi, however, what about the Fugitive Slave Law and the Naturalization Act. Washington, himself a slave owner, sided with the slave owners and signed FSL that allowed them to invade other U.S. States and territories and bring alleged run away slaves back to their masters. The NA prohibited free blacks to vote and denied them any constitutional rights. The United States was only for white people. Internationally Washington gave military support to French slave owners in Santo Domingo. Were the above issues not included for POV purposes? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to be more of an essay than an encyclopedia article

Entire sections have no references or very few, references need to be improved all around, statements are made without being backed-up by reliable sources. For an example of a Wikipedia Good Article about a United States Presidency take a look at Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Shearonink (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Succession box

Per the examples at Template:Succession box/doc & Template:Succession box, the title parameter would seem to be the actual job title. So it looks like the information that goes there should be the actual job title, like "President of the United States" or "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" etc. not a descriptor such as "US Presidencies" or "UK Prime Ministers". Shearonink (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

An interesting observation, but I have to disagree. Most readers and editors alike will recognise that "U.S. Presidencies" or "British Premierships" are not titles but rather pluralised descriptions, and the fact that there is no header (e.g. {{s-hon}} or {{s-ppo}}) there should be no confusion among non-technical readers. I should also note that these articles are meant to be complementary (per WP:SUBARTICLE) to George Washington, Benjamin Disraeli and others. It is much better in my view to tweak the boxes and avoid replicating the boxes already included at the parent article. The links you gave above are the guidelines recommended, yes, but I believe that in these exceptional circumstances a slight omission ought to be justified.--Nevé –selbert 03:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink & Neve-selbert, I've done some wikisurfing and experimenting with {{S-other}} and {{S-civ}} (also with {{S-off}}), which would be the most apropos, but I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do) and came up with something that should work for the presidential administration succession boxes. I've gone ahead and introduced one version on the Washington Presidency page, and another, slightly different one, on the Ford Presidency page. Let's continue discussing this here; let me know what you think. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not bad. The version for Presidency of Gerald Ford is much better, in my opinion.--Nevé –selbert 13:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Neve-seibert. I think the piping in the Ford one is much more succinct, looks better, descriptive wording, etc. Shearonink (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That template ({{S-other}}) works for me as well. Even though "administration" and "presidency" are used interchangeably, I suggest that we stick with "presidency" since that word is in each article's title. Also, as space isn't an issue, and as full words are preferable to abbreviations in most situations, I propose that "United States" be used rather then "U.S.".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpw (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I would have to disagree with you there, "U.S. Presidency" feels much more natural than "United States Presidency". Take Google Books for example, "U.S. Presidency" OR "U.S. Presidencies" renders about 36,800 results while "United States Presidency" OR "United States Presidencies" only renders 6,940 results. There is nothing abnormal with the term "U.S. Presidencies"; it is undoubtedly in common usage and is more encyclopedic than "American Presidencies". Unlike UK or UAE, "US"/"U.S." seems to be used much more often to refer to nouns and the like. Take Oxford Dictionaries for another example, which states "US first lady and stateswoman" for Hillary Clinton, but not "UK stateswoman" for say Margaret Thatcher. While I appreciate the changes you have introduced, I believe that "U.S. Presidencies" should be retained. There is nothing wrong with the term.--Nevé –selbert 13:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert:We're talking about a more formal title here, not casual conversation. While in your opinion there's nothing wrong w/U.S. Presidencies, United States is preferable and, unless there's a good reason not to, it ought to be used. Drdpw (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I prefer the word-choice of "administration". Shearonink (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink, I'd support going with "X" Administration & "Y" Administration". If we do, it's my suggestion that the top title read U.S. Presidential Administrations (long enough of a title to warrant using U.S. over the preferred United States). The only reason Presidency seems more logical to me is the fact that the word is in the article titles. Drdpw (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: "U.S." is used much more commonly as an adjective than "United States" is. The only adjective that betters "U.S." is of course "American". We could go along with "American Presidencies" as a sort of compromise, I suppose. But with that being said, I should note that we should aim to save space with these boxes. "U.S." is brief and straight-to-the-point. I see absolutely no problem. Most readers know what it stands for. If you insist, we could go along with {{abbr}}, i.e. U.S.--Nevé –selbert 14:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just come across this template including "U.S." in lieu of "United States", Drdpw. "U.S." seems pretty commonplace around these succession boxes, apparently.--Nevé –selbert 14:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Neve-selbert, for long titles U.S. is indeed preferable to United States. Length is not a concern here however. Did you see Shearonink's suggestion about Administration over Presidency? Drdpw (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I did, yes. I can live with that.--Nevé –selbert 14:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick note: using the word "American" to describe "United States" or "U.S" things can be a loaded term for many readers. I think "U.S" is preferable & more-specific - agree with the above. Shearonink (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I had the same thought Shearonink. U.S. Presidential Administrations then? Drdpw (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Improved

I am thinking about removing the citation needed tag on the top of the page, and maybe even nominating it for good article Thoughts? Eddie891 (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the article is sufficiently sourced such that the top tag is not needed. I'm not familiar with all the requirements for good article status, though the remaining lack of some citations may be a hindrance. It certainly seems beyond the current "start" class assessment. —ADavidB 14:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the refinprove tagEddie891 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Presidency of George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Presidency of George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024231743/http://www.american-presidents.com/george-washington to http://www.american-presidents.com/george-washington

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Presidency of George Washington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 01:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. I have an interest in American history, and I know I've already made some minor edits to this. I'm presently reading Flexner's Washington: The Indispensable Man, the 4-volumes being a bit too much for me. Anyhow, I'll begin posting stuff within a day or two. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

To me this doesn't seem like a comprehensive enough summary of Washington's presidency. The French Revolution is mentioned all too briefly, and there's no specific mention of either the Jay Treaty or his Farewell Address. The ideal length for a lead is 4 paragraphs. This has 3. I think you can work another one in. Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have given the lead a 4th paragraph, but did not address the concern RE:brevity of French Revolution mention & no specific mention of either Jay Treaty or Farewell Address. Drdpw (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This looks better, but more can be done regarding foreign policy. Specifically, the Farewell Address and show it shaped American foreign policy until at least the 1890s. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this still needs some work, but I think it makes sense to hold off on the lead until we've completed most the major revisions to the body of the article (since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article). Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Election of 1788–89

Again, this could do with a little expansion. Do you have a quote from Washington that would indicate how he felt about taking office? Who were the other candidates for VP (Jefferson, etc.)? How did Washington feel about them (if he made his views known)? Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this section should be two-to-three paragraphs Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have fine-tuned what Eddie891 recently added to this section and added some text & citations. Drdpw (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I made one edit. It would be nice to add mention of the 12th Amendment to this section. A low-information reader could easily become confused when reading about the procedures for the Electoral College. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Done — mention of 12th-A made. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you still think this section needs work? It seems pretty good to me.

~~Inauguration~~

Start of first presidential and vice presidential terms

~~I think that a comma would do better in the caption than a semi-colon. Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Done Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"He was sworn in by Robert Livingston, who administered the oath of office." The final clause is merely a repetition of "He was sworn in." Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume you no longer have an issue with this, as it's no longer present. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

~~I know there was no chief justice yet, but why did Livingston swear him in? Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Very good point, this should definitely be added Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe Livingston did it for the simple reason that the ceremony was being held in the State of New York, of which he was the highest judicial authority. Drdpw (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I read that it was Washington who added "So help me God" to the end of the oath. Is that true? If so, it should be mentioned here. Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Copied some info to from George Washington to address your first and third points in this section Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks better. But still a couple points. The prose could use improvement. For instance, "this did not happen" is both vague and unencyclopedic in tone. Why didn't it happen? Also, the quote from the Inaugural Address should come after the oath, because that was the order in which it was delivered. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC

Done — rephrased "this did not happen" sentence and moved address to after oath-taking. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking office

~~It's generally best for all paragraphs to include sources at the end, even if the source for the next paragraph is the same. Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)~~
~~Washington did not establish the courts. Congress did. Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Fixed Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

~~This says only that the Judiciary Act established a Supreme Court. How were the circuit courts created? Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Re-worded, I think it's fairly clear now that the Judiciary Act also established the lower courts Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What happened to this section? I can't find it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to leave a note here detailing what I did to it. The Salary, Taking office (inc. subsections), and Judicial appointments sections have been absorbed into one section, Administration, thus synchronizing the section & subsection headings with other presidential administration articles. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you still have an issue with this section?

Executive mansions and the District of Columbia

This section is not GA ready. First of all, while Washington did select the exact location of the new capital, its general placement emerged out of a compromise between Jefferson and Hamilton, neither of whom are mentioned in this section. That's a problem. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This compromise is mentioned later (under economic policy), but I agree that the compromise should be expanded on in this section. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

~~This section should not be discussing Washington's retirement or Adams moving into the White House. That's getting too far ahead.~~

I re-worded this a little. I think it makes sense to mention the re-naming of DC and Adams moving into the White House in this section, but I agree that there was too much talk about Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that you're rather new here, but as a general rule, before nominating an article for GA status (or anything, really) make sure that maintenance tags like "citation needed" get cleaned up. An article can't become a GA with one of those, and tags like this which can be simply fixed tend to annoy reviewers. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, unfortunately this article wasn't quite ready for GA Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded this section, and cited it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

~~It looks good. But it's still not clear why the capital was moved from New York to Philadelphia. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)~~

I have mentioned that it was due to the passage of the residence act of 1790 Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I renamed "Executive mansions and the District of Columbia" → "Selection of permanent U.S. capital", and moved residence information to "Presidential tours", which I renamed → "Presidential residences and travels". Drdpw (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Northwest Indian War

~~"some 1,100 warriors who easily"-I recommend adding a comma after "warriors."~~

Done Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

" the highest casualty rate in any United States Indian war"-Not sure what you mean here. You were just talking about a specific battle, which you'd need to make more clear. But even then, there were plenty of battles with Indians in which the Indians massacred the entire American force. For example, at the Fort Mims massacre in 1813, all 275 militiamen were killed, as well as the majority of civilians. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this has been removed. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

~~Information about the treaty that ended the war is repeated. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Removed the offending redundant sentence Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Economic policy

The opening section is all too brief and should be given a separate sub-section. There isn't enough about Jefferson's opposition to Hamilton or how Washington personally saw the events. It's all too general. People coming here from the main Washington biography are going to want more specifics than what they got there. I don't think that this section is fully living up to their expectations. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You actually may want to retitle the section "Economic policy and the rise of political parties," combining it with the section on parties down below. Bring in the information from that section about what separated the parties on economic lines, and then work foreign affairs differences into the appropriate section. This will avoid repeating material, and will provide the reader with a better sense of where to find the appropriate information, instead of looking all over the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The economic policy section is perhaps the most important section of the article and really needs expansion, imo. I've been itching to improve it for a while but I'm working on a few other articles. Interesting idea to combine this section with the "rise of political parties" section, but the books I've read on the era have often emphasized that foreign policy played nearly as strong a role as did economic policy in forming and solidifying the new parties. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. We don't have to combine them. But the section still needs expansion Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This section has been expanded quite a bit, do you still have an issue with it?

The Whiskey Rebellion

The penultimate paragraph reads too much like an opinion essay. That should be avoided. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a poor paragraph. This doesn't go against your point, but I do think that the broader importance of the rebellion should be mentioned in some way Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. Maybe add "to maintain order" or something like it to the end in order to specify exactly what was going on. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This section is much improved from when you reviewed it earlier, do you still have an issue with it? Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Foreign affairs

"and then asked for congressional approval once they were finalized."-How is that setting a precedent? The Constitution stipulates that the Senate must approve any treaty. It seems as though Washington was only obeying the Constitution. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Good question Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The precedent is that he asked for congressional approval AFTER they were finalized. He negotiated the treaty himself, and after the negotiations sent it to the senate. After this, the senate was treated as a sort of Fait accompli I hope that is the correct usage of the phrase . It might not seem important, but Ron Chernow describes it as "This decision may have done more to define the presidency and the conduct of American foreign policy than an entire bookshelf of Supreme Court decisions on the separation of powers. Where the Constitution had been sketchy about Presidential powers in foreign affairs, Washington made the chief executive the principal actor, enabling him to initiate treaties and nominate appointees without first huddling with the senate." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. This point definitely seems worth including in the article. Orser67 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Though sentence about the precedent has apparently been removed. Though it would be nice to include, I don't think it's worth failing the GA review over Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

~~Taking a global position~~
The French Revolution

This section is out of order. France declared war on its neighbors in 1792; Louis XVI was executed in 1793. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed this issue, along with a few others that I had with this subsection, including re-titling it. Cheers.

This seems to have been addressed Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

~~How did Hamilton feel about the Proclamation of Neutrality? Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Added (he supported it). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

~~Jefferson's reasons for resigning should be mentioned as well. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)~~

They are mentioned in the 'Cabinet section' Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Jefferson's reasons for resigning, I was wondering if we could re-word that a little. I think it's generally bad practice to say things like "it has been speculated." Better to say who is doing the speculating (e.g. "historians and biographers such as Jon Meacham and Joseph Ellis have speculated"). I would do it myself, but I'm unclear as to who is saying what. Orser67 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Smith asserts, "Under the guidance of William Branch Giles and James Madison in the House, and with the behind-the-scenes direction of the Sec of State, Anti-Federalists launched an all-out attack on Hamilton. The purpose was to discredit the administration, cripple the treasury Department, and impeach the Secretary." John Adams (v.2, p.833) He also states "Decisively defeated in his efforts to engineer the censure of [Hamilton], Jefferson resigned from the Cabinet ..." John Adams (v.2, p.845). Drdpw (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Peace with Great Britain

~~"⅔ vote, 20-10,"-Nowhere in that sentence is the word "ratification" mentioned, which is pretty crucial. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Fixed Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

~~" treaty's submission to the House"-Only the Senate ratifies treaties. Why would the treaty thus be submitted to the House? Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Good question Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

~~Those last two sentences repeat material and should be taken off. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)~~

I fixed the redundancy issue Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

~~The House issue still needs to be dealt with.~~ Also, there isn't any image in this part of the article. ~~Maybe add a painting of John Jay here.~~ Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with the House issue. Drdpw (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Barbary pirates

~~Do you have the name and year of the "harsh treaty?" Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)~~

As far as I can tell, the only treaty that the United states would sign with Algiers during Washingtons presidency was the Treaty of Tripoli, witch is what I assume it refers to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Prior to 1794, when was the Navy abolished? Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Continental Navy was disbanded and its last vessel was auctioned off in 1785. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that this information should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added historical context & background to this subsection. Drdpw (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been addressed. If anything, there may be too much background in this section. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Spain

The Louisiana Territory had been controlled by Spain since 1763. I think it would be good to mention that in order to give the reader some context. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

~~I tried to address this Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)~~

This seems to have been addressed. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now. The whole article was prepared a bit clumsily, but there is a chance that it can reach GA status with a lot of hard work. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added historical context & background to this subsection. Drdpw (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Farewell Address

Washington did not condemn political parties as evil. In fact, he stated that their development was natural in a republic. He did, however, warn about factions and divisions which divide Americans and spur fraternal hatred, instability, or tyranny, the latter arising when one faction becomes too powerful. I recommend rephrasing this as "the dangers of factions" or something similar. Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to the somewhat weaker "dangers" of political parties, would happily change it more but I'm reluctant to without a source Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Legislation vetoed

~~Hold on! The page for the Apportionment Act of 1792 says that Washington signed the bill, but the article for the bill has that he vetoed it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)~~

The page says "Earlier apportionment legislation had been approved by the House in February 1792 and the Senate in March 1792, but was vetoed by the President on April 5, 1792. It was the first presidential veto of legislation in American history." I plan to clarify on the page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This small section now a subsection ("First presidential veto") in the new Administration section. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Elections during Washington's presidency

~~For 1792, there's nothing about Washington realizing that his reelection was seemingly required to keep the nation together. Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)~~
Is there any information to indicate whom Washington preferred to have succeed him? I imagine he preferred Adams, but is there any concrete evidence to support that speculation? Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried to find this when I expanded this article a few months ago and had no luck, but hopefully we can add something eventually. He seemed pretty pleased that Adams won from what I remember. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

All I can find is in Ron Chernow's bio of Washington he writes "Martha Washington, privy to rumors of Adams's victory, pressed his hand in congratulation and said how pleased Washington was." chances are that Washington never actually disclosed his position. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's all. Eddie891, I see you haven't yet done anything in response to this review. I've seen the automated message on your talk page stating that I've begun, and see you've edited in the days since then. You have 4 days to respond or else I fail the review. Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99: now I recognize how hasty I was in nominating this article for GA. I will try to fix the issues you pointed out in the weeks coming up (I am very busy right now), but if you think there are too many issues afflicting the page, you can fail it. Thanks for taking the time to review. currently I can not add anything, as my commitment to The Signpost comes first, but next week, I plan to have a LOT of time to edit. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Eddie891, GA reviews ideally are completed within a week, but there are plenty which, for various reasons, last longer. I have no problem giving you more time to edit. Don't worry about the hastiness. By first GA nomination was John C. Calhoun, and it needed a lot of work at first. But now it's a FA. Display name 99 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not the nominator, but I responded to several comments and made some edits. Great job Display name 99 with pointing out areas where the article could be improved. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Orser67, thank you for helping out with those points. Hopefully you can help Eddie get this to GA status. Be sure to leave some for him to do, though. Thanks again. Display name 99 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Eddie891 and Orser67, I'm not far from passing the article. But there are still a few point above which don't seem to have been resolved yet. Here's another one. The citation style in this article is extremely inconsistent. It's generally best to cite books in full in the "Bibliography" section, and to leave the footnotes for shorter citations, including the author's name, the year of publication, and page nos. This is the case for some sources in this article, but not all. Some of the full citations needed to be moved into the Bibliography section, in order to have everything else look consistent.

I always prefer Harvard refs, but I won't insist on them. If every book is cited like 58 and 59, that would be good. Display name 99 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been slowly adding Harvard refs, however, I can't find what book "Harvey, Webb, Wooldridge" refers to. does anyone know? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Eddie891, I've discovered this problem in several "Presidency of ..." articles, the Harv-ref became orphaned when the presidency portion of the main G. W. article was cut-'N-pasted to create this article. I went ahead and reconnected it. If you find others, check the Washington article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with the referencing? Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Eddie891, have you had a chance to look at the article lately? There are still a few things that haven't been taken care of. Any comment of mine that you see above that hasn't been struck still needs to be resolved. There are a few of those. Display name 99 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Orser67 and Drdpw, I see that Eddie891 has gone on an extended wikibreak without leaving any sort of message on this page and without indicating a return date. There are still several of my comments here that need to be dealt with. One more thing is that bulleted lists are highly discouraged in articles. The list of SCOTUS judges is, in my opinion, unnecessary, as there is a link to a full article containing a list of them. The other two bulleted lists should be incorporated into paragraph format. If neither of you indicates a willingness to do this, and if Eddie does not respond, I will fail the article in 2 days' time. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've responded to most of your points. With the exception of the lead, I think that the issues you raised have largely been addressed adequately, and the article has improved tremendously. I agree with you that the bulleted lists (slave trade legislation and con amendments) should be converted to prose and I would be willing to do that or help with it. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I also changed the SCOTUS bullet list to a paragraph, which I think is a reasonable summary of his SCOTUS appointments. Orser67 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And I tried to improve the lead. Orser67 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have modified the bulleted lists at states joining the Union, Constitutional amendments, and slave trade legislation. Drdpw (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like everything has been taken care of. I'm promoting the article. Good work and congratulations to everyone involved. Display name 99 (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool, good job everyone Orser67 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review following FAC

30% completed (estimate)

As per Ian Rose's suggestion, let's tackle the references collectively. We already checked 1 through 9, so I will continue from 10. Maybe someone else can start at the bottom and work upwards? Edwininlondon (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Edwininlondon: Is there a page to coordinate a list of all sources and their checks, or shall they go on the talk? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Eddie891:I've never done this either, so let's just make it up as we go :) Edwininlondon (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Edwininlondon: Not sure if I'm allowed to help with the reviews, but I assume that I could, just making sure everything is in the source cited. If you don't think I should, tell me. I have marked print books to check when I can check them out. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that we're out of FAC process, anybody can do anything. When you bring it back in, no doubt someone else will do a spotcheck. Our job now is to make that spotcheck pass.Edwininlondon (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note that, as sources will be added, this link should be used to verify sources. that will avoid confusion of source numbers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I have Wood's Empire of Liberty right in front of me, I figured I would double-check the sentences that cite that book. Orser67 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Went through McDonald. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

1-9:ok

10-19:
10: ok

11: ok

12: sorry I have no access --EIL

13: ok

14: sorry I have no access --EIL

15: ok

16ab: ok

17: not ok (Google Books doesn't show me page 430, so hopefully that has the info, last sentence p 429 looks promising - EIL)
Removed; sentence now supported by the former 19th cite

18: sorry I have no access --EIL
Removed; sentence now supported by the former 19th cite
I have the Morison book, the cited page supports the 2 remaining statements. Drdpw (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

19: ok

20-29:
20:ok

21ab:ok

22:ok

23:ok

24:not ok. Nothing about arrival, nothing over presiding. Ok for being sworn in as vp
Fixed (Eddie)

25:not ok, should be pp. 50-51

Fixed (Eddie)

26: ok

27: ok

28: sorry I have no access --EIL
28 is ok -Orser67

29: sorry I have no access --EIL

29 seemed trivial, so I removed it

30-39:
- 30ab: ok
- 31: sorry I have no access --EIL
- 32: sorry I have no access --EIL
- 33: ok
- 34: ok
- 35: sorry I have no access --EIL
- 36: sorry I have no access --EIL
- 37: sorry I have no access --EIL
- 38: ok
- 39: has been fixed
  - fixed (Eddie)

40-49:
40: ok

41: fixed

42: sorry I have no access --EIL
It's good

43:not ok. Mentions first cabinet meeting, but not establishment of postmaster or attorney general, nor individual meetings with leaders.
Fixed (orser67)

44: ok

45: ok

46: ok

47: ok

48: ok

49: ok

50-59
- 50:not ok. Hardly sources any of it. Try page 139 instead of 137. Still will only source stuff about randolph though.
  - There were indeed several issues here, but I fixed them all I believe -Orser67
- 51: ok
- 52: ok
- 53: sorry I have no access --EIL
  - Changed -Orser67
- 54a: not ok: should move to previous sentence "During his two ... only infrequently"
- 54b: not ok: this is a straight copy and paste
  - It is a US gvt piece, so a copy-paste is fine–Eddie
- 54c: not sure we need this
- 55: ok
- 56: not ok: it seems the right book but p.12 is not sufficient
- 57: sorry I have no access --EIL
- 58: not ok: it seems the right book but not p.86
- 59: sorry I have no access --EIL
60-69:
- 60: fixed
- 61: sorry I have no access --EIL
  - ok (I have Smith’s book) Drdpw (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- 62: sorry I have no access --EIL
- 63: sorry I have no access --EIL
  - ok (accurate quotation) Drdpw (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- 64: ok
- 65: ok
- 66: ok
- 67:ok
- 68: ok
- 69: sorry I have no access --EIL
70-79

- ~~79: ok~~
80-89
- 80: not ok. Should be p.25-26 but that still does not cover "Washington appointed Thomas Johnson, William Paterson, and Samuel Chase."
  - Fixed
- 81: ok
- 82: ok (now)
- 83: ok (now)
- 85: ok
- 86: ok
- 87: ok
- 88: ok
- 89: Removed since 88 covers it
90-99
99: ok now
100-109
- 100: ok
- 105: ok
- 107: ok now
- 109: ok
110-119
- 110: ok
- 111: ok
- 113: ok
- 114: ok
120-129
- 125: OK
- 127: Fixed to make it cover whole sentence
- 128: Removed as unnecessary
- 129: OK
130-139
- - 130: not ok, only mentions that a bill containing the tax passed in March 1791
  - 132: Fixed. Didn't even have page numbers before
  - 133: Removed (since I had to do some rewriting anyway given lack of page numbers above) -Orser67
  - 135: OK
  - 136: Fixed
140-149:
- 141: ok
- 144: removed since it was a trivial detail not supported by source. (The removed sentence mentioned Washington being one of two presidents to lead troops into battle, but the source didn't support that). -Orser67
- 148: not at all ok. once again, probably in the book, but not those pages. Could be replaced with Elkins & Mckittrick 1993. pp. 282-288, which still mentions nothing about traveling to anti-federalist strongholds, and actually says Jefferson followers began calling themselves republicans. Just a paragraph that needs reworking and sourcing. Orser67?
  - Rewrote the paragraph. Orser67 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
150-159
- 153: ok
- 159: ok
180-189:
- 180:Nothing about rumors being spread "by fleeing Frenchmen", otherwise good
- 181: Not seeing anything about 1,000 military weapons
- 182: Recommend adding to or replacing source.
- 183: ok
- 184:Sorry, I have no access
- 185:ok
- 186:mostly ok. sources most of paragraph. Other source hopefully gets the rest.
- 187:Sorry, I have no access
- 188:Sorry, I have no access
- 189:ok
190-199:
- 190:ok
- 191not ok. Liberty equality and fraternity stuff is not sourced, and most of the stuff it is supposed to source. Would recommend replacing
- 192: I can only view snippets, but it looks good.
- 193: ok
- 194: ok
- 195: ok
- 196:ok, but if that is going to be mentioned, it should be a note using {{Efn|text text text}} with slightly more information.
- 197: fixed
- 198: ok
- 199: ok
200-209:
- 202a:Fixed
- 202b:Fixed
- 203:ok
- 204ab:not ok. should be pages 119–121)
- 205: last sentence needs source, and can be combined w/204 (see above)
- 206:ok
- 207:Fixed
- 208:ok
- 209:ok
210-219
- 210:says the commission was from 1963, not 1964. needs to be changed
- 211:ok
- 212:nothing about July 30, 1794.
- 213:Sorry, I have no access (Eddie)
- 214:ok
- 215abcdef:ok
- 216:Sorry, I don't have access (Eddie)
- 217:should be "A howl of rage."
- 218ab: Sorry, I don't have access (Eddie)
- 219:ok
220-229:
- 220:ok
- 221: mostly ok. Not really seeing anything about a lull, so perhaps remove that sentence.
- 222:ok
- 223:ok, but might as well remove. The way it is phrased now, it sounds like "all hail Washington", is puffery, and adds nothing.
- 224: ok
- 225ab: just didn't have the stamina to do. (Eddie)
- 226:ok
- 227:ok. To avoid close paraphrasing, consider changing "appease the United States"
- 228abc:ok
- 229abc:seems mostly ok. I can only read snippets, but from what I get it is fine.
230-239
- 230ab:Sorry, I have no access. (Eddie)
- 231a:no mention of 'late' 1786. Other then that fine. (perhaps is in 229)
  - b: mostly ok. Says problems didn't begin until 1783, as opposed to our article which says 1776. nothing about french navy
  - c:add page 16 to get it all.
- 232:Sorry, I have no access. (Eddie)
- 233a:mostly ok. Couldn't find self feeding entity
  - b:ok
- 234:Couldn't find self feeding entity
- 235:Sorry, I don't have access (Eddie)
- 236:Sorry, I don't have access (Eddie)
- 237: Though a blog, it is written by the senior archivist at the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, DC. I'd like a second opinion. Anyways, the blog says 119 captives, we say 199. other than that is fine
- 238:ok
- 239:ok
240-249
- 240:not ok: no mention of Spanish florida
- 214:not ok:See above
- 242:not ok: nothing about 1763, nothing about 32° 22′ and nothing about spain encouraging secession
- 243:Sorry, I have no access.
- 244:ok
- 245:ok
- 246:Sorry, I am accessless
- 247:ok
- 248:ok
- 249:has been fixed
250-259:
- 250a:not ok. sourced in conjunction w/ 249 dates are not sourced. (Eddie)
  - source added. (Eddie)
- 250b:not ok (no dates sourced)(Eddie)
  - source added (Eddie)
- 251:not ok: No dates sourced nor location sourced (Eddie)
- 252:not ok: Only months, not days sourced (Eddie)
- 253:ok (Eddie)
- 254:probably ok. (RI is not sourced, and the specific southern states are not either, but it is sourced just below, and the southern states are also the only southern states, so really goes without saying) (Eddie)

255:Chernow

256:Chernow

257:Chernow

258:
255-257 are all good now, and 258 is unnecessary since 257 covers everything

- 259:
260-269
- 260:Sorry, I have no access (Eddie)
- 261:Ditto (Eddie)
  - It's ok
- 262: Not really seeing anything about equal footing, and slightly concerned about reliability.
- 263abc: ok. I'd like a second opinion about reliability (Eddie)
- 264: ok
- 265:ok
- 266: Sorry, I have no access (Eddie)
- 267: Chernow (Google Books is page numberless)
  - Fixed -Orser67
- 268a: ok
  - b: not ok.
- 269acd:ok.
  - b:not ok
270-279
- 270: ok. added a {{PD-notice}} tag.
- 271:Sorry, I have no access (Eddie)
- 272ab:ok. rephrased slightly
- 273a:ok
- 273bc:not looked at yet
- 274:ok
- 275: ok
- 276:ok
- 277ab:ok
- 278:Sorry, I have no access
- 279:not ok. Hints at, but does not source first sentence.
280-289
- 280:not ok. Only a broad and too vague overview.
- 281ab:ok
- 282abcd:sorry I have no access (Eddie)
- 283ab:ok
- 283c:not ok. doesn't mention what is sourcing. try page 183 for a mention of the electoral vote count (perhaps unnecessary, as 287 sources the same statement.)
- 284:ok
- 285:not ok.
- 286:Sorry, ain't got access (Eddie)
- 287:sorry I have no access (Eddie)
- 288:ok
- 289:Sorry, I have no access (Eddie)
- 290:ok
- 291:ok
- 292:ok. Can see no reason why newsmax is unreliable.
- 293:ok. I own a copy of McDonald's book.
- 294:ok.
- 294:ok
- 295:ok

by book

McDonald (feel free to integrate into list)
- 33:ok
- 39:has been fixed
- 41:~~not~~ ok. ~~The first sentence (The new Constitution empowered the president to appoint executive department heads with the consent of the Senate.) is not sourced.~~
  - fixed
- 43:not ok. Mentions first cabinet meeting, but not establishment of postmaster or attorney general, nor individual meetings with leaders.
- 48: ok
- 50:not ok. Hardly sources any of it. Try 139 instead of 137. Still will only source stuff about randolph though.
- 52: ok
- 60: not ok. should be 29-30. doesn't source last sentence, but perhaps 59 does
  - fixed
- 109: ok
- 148: not at all ok. once again, probably in the book, but not those pages. Could be replaced with Elkins & Mckittrick 1993. pp. 282-288, which still mentions nothing about traveling to anti-federalist strongholds, and actually says Jefferson followers began calling themselves republicans. Just a paragraph that needs reworking and sourcing. Orser67?
  - I'm definitely up for re-writing any paragraph with faulty sourcing. If possible, though, I'd like to do all or most of the rewriting at roughly the same time. Orser67 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- 186:mostly ok. sources most of paragraph. Other source hopefully gets the rest.
- 194: ok
- 197: fixed
- 220:ok
- 221: mostly ok. Not really seeing anything about a lull, so perhaps remove that sentence.
- 224: ok
- 293: ok
Wood (feel free to integrate into list)
- 202a:Fixed
- 202b:Fixed
- 207:Fixed
- 275:Ok (but reworded a little anyway)

Article rewrite and restructure

This article needs to be rewritten and restructured. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777: I see your point, but it is simply a large topic. The prose size is, in my opinion, fine. It is still less than the only other presidency article at GA. When this article was nominated for FA, not one person complained about prose or size or structure. The only reason it failed was because of sourcing. I don't see why. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There is undue weight on the Vice Presidency and the First Lady. The article is suppose to be on Washington's Presidency. The prose should focus on Washington or from his view...i.e. What did Washington do ? What was Washington's opinion ? What was Washington's response ? Mainly the article needs restructuring into first term and second term sections. There should be emphasis that New York and Philadelphia were the nation's capital, not Washington D.C. The narration or prose could change because of restructuring and historical weight. I call it narration blending. This would be the restruction pattern

Election of 1788

First Term (1789-1793)

Inauguration

Cabinet

Domestic Affairs

Foreign Affairs

Indian Affairs

Election of 1792

Second Term (1793-1797)

Domestic Affairs

Foreign policy

Indian Affairs

Retirement

Historical reputation

This is just an example, but I think that this would improve the readability of the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but Cmguy777, can we please discuss this on the talk page calmly first. This page has gone through a GA review, Peer Review, and FAC. Input has been received from some of the most prominent people, including Wehwalt and Display Name 99. The page is now improving sourcing for another FAC. Not one of the editors complained about readability. I understand your thinking, and you right now are just like I was. You see an article that is long, disfocussed, and in need of dire help. I understand. But when you look closer you realize why there is a section on the first lady. Because she was in the presidency. It talks about Adams because he was an integral person. Washington D.C. is talked about, because it was what people thought about. It's impossible to put into first terms and second, because there really wasn't a discernible difference. The work of the administration continued essentially interrupted. You'll note that I say administration, instead of Washington, because Washington didn't really do all that much. Often, he left most of the hard work to other people. In the words of Forrest McDonald, one of the most preeminent scholars, "George Washington was indispensable, but only for what he was, not for what he did. He was the symbol of the presidency [but]... Washington had done little in his own right, had often opposed the best measures of his subordinates, and had taken credit for his achievements that he had no share in bringing about." He mostly served as this overarching figure, who stayed relatively free of scandals, and people united around him. Sure he issued grand proclamations, but he listened to his cabinet. The presidency of Washington was so different from any other, because he, and his 'crew' did something that had never been done before. Together they built a country. In two terms, through with brilliant men with conflicting views united around one person, these people built a country. Hours of thought have gone into this article, because it is different than any other. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That is why I started a talk page. To discuss calmly. I think it is a stereo type that Washington did little, while his cabinet members did everything. I am not disputing article content. It is edited very well. But Adams and First Lady Martha Washington were not President. Much of that information can be used in their respected articles. "Washington not only made the major decisions of his administration (usually, as has been said, after soliciting and pondering the opinions of his advisers), but he also skillfully and patiently tried to establish some semblance of harmony between his prickly principal secretaries." Jacob E. Cooke (2002), page 9, The Presidents, Editor Henry F. Graff, Volume 3. I don't want to waste any editor's time. This article could be improved by restructuring, and rewrites, where needed. Readers will have a better view chronologically of Washington's presidency. At the same time I am not here to rock the boat. Maybe the change would help the Presidency of George Washington get to FA. Is there any concensus for change ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need for major structural changes. I'm not a fan of splitting up the first and second terms unless the terms are fundamentally different (eg due to a major war). I also think it makes sense to give some coverage to Adams and the first lady. Orser67 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am feeling an extreme sense of hostility from editors in the article. Two of my edits have been removed and Cooke (2002) as a source has been removed. Good luck with your article. There is a strong sense of editor control in this article or editorial club. Even an infobox is considered controversial. It is against wikipedia policy to establish editor control. It would help to warn editors that edits need permission before editing. So much for being bold. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Owernership of content is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, sorry you feel that way, but you may also want to keep in mind that editors working on an article won't necessarily agree with another editor who suddenly comes in saying how the article "needs to be rewritten and restructured." The reason the article was rejected as a featured article was not because of article structure, but rather because the citations did not adequately support what was written, and we are working to fix that issue. As for the infoboxes, I actually agree that they'd be useful, but they were removed en masse after this discussion. While I still think that was probably the wrong decision, I think it probably makes sense for either all of the presidency articles to have infoboxes or for none of them to have infoboxes. Orser67 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I had supplied a good source Cooke 2002, but that was taken away. Articles without infoboxes are considered beginning articles. I added information using Cooke 2002 and it was removed saying it was already covered in the article. What I added came from the George Washington biography article. I did say "needs to be rewritten and restructured". That was my assessment of the article or opinion. That is why I started this discussion. Infoboxes are standard practice on Wikipedia especially in the lede. I was told Washington really did nothing and it was all his cabinet. Cooke 2002, disagrees with that assessment. I do not want to make edits in a hostile environment because of ownership of content. I believe a rewritten and restructured article would get the Presidency of George Washington to FA. The restructuring would come first. Any solid content in the article would not be touched. I would not suggest rewritting anything that is already solidly written. But I can't rewrite when Cooke 2002 as a source has been rejected. Any rewrites would focus on Washington. It seems certain editors are against any change in this article. That is ownership of content. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. I did not revert your edits, but you need to realize that there's a consensus against the inclusion of infoboxes in presidency articles, and this is not ownership of content. That is what people decided upon, and many continue to support. I'm sorry, but there's no basis for your claim that Articles without infoboxes are considered beginning articles. I have seen many featured articles without infoboxes.

Please note that also, your additions were reverted because the information was already included in the article. You have yet to propose any change that did not involve increasing focus on Washington. While you certainly make a point citing Cook, that information would be best included in the Historical Evaluation section. I did not tell you that Washington really did nothing and it was all his cabinet, I merely said that his cabinet did a lot in the presidency, and I feel that they are given due weight for all that they did, as is Washington. To convince me that at this stage of article quality it needs a rewrite, I'm sorry, but saying simply The prose should focus on Washington or from his view, is not enough. (Also, I personally do not feel that one paragraph on the first lady, and three on the vice president is too much weight for either.)

I admit that in my first response, I did not give Washington as much credit as he deserves. I really do thank you for your efforts regarding the article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are allowed on wikipedia. Wikipedia policy: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Infobox policy An infobox is good for this article because Washington was an office holder. It would give the dates he held the office of the Presidency. It would tell who his wife was. It would give his birth date and the date that he died. Why should the reader have to plunge through the article to get this information ? It seems that certain editor(s) is/are controlling the article and that any outside editors need permission to allow any editing on the article. That is why I implied "ownership of content". I had thought wikipedia policy was to be bold and editors should be independent of each other. Do editors need permission before editing on the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As of a few days ago, all U.S. "Presidency of ..." and "Timeline of the presidency of ..." have an infobox specifically designed for presidential administration articles, and distinct from "Infobox officeholder". Drdpw (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography v "works cited"

Hello @Orser67: When I changed the section name to Bibliography I was trying to get the Washington articles consistent with the George Washington main article. When a Bibliography is listed in a literary work, esp involving history, it is understood that the Bibliography is a list of works referred to. Any work not used in the references is usually listed under Further reading, which this article also has. As it is, we have an assortment of section titles used in the various Washington article, including, "references", "sources", etc. IMO, using Bibliography in all the Washington articles would not only show consistency, but also denote a level of literary professionalism to our readers, as this is the widely recognized term used in the publishing world. If this is not a pressing issue for you I'm hoping we can get the sections in the Washington articles consistent with one another in this regard. Best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that "works cited" does a better job of communicating to the reader (and future editors) that the article is built on the sources in that section, whereas "further reading" consists of relevant and useful sources that haven't been used to write the article. But I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, and I appreciate the measured response on the talk page. Orser67 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, directly after reading your first reply I went ahead and changed the section title. This shouldn't pose any confusion to the readers as there is a Further reading section. The term will also introduce the newcomer to history to the terms used in historical (and other) works if they are not yet aware. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still disagree with the assertion that it doesn't pose a risk of confusion. Orser67 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It is proposed that First inauguration of George Washington and the Second inauguration of George Washington articles be merged into this article. These articles are very short, one of them a stub, while their subjects are already well covered here and in the George Washington main article. The two articles in question meet all requirements for merging. There has been no significant additions made to these articles for well over a year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The two articles are redundant and should be merged/deleted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Rjensen (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thirded. Orser67 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Concur; and surmise that most of the "inauguration of" articles could be merged-into/redirected-to the corresponding "presidency of" articles. Drdpw (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this merger proposal makes a lot of sense. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

My only hesitation is that the Presidency of George Washington article is already very long. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Another, stronger hesitation (in fact, opposition): It seems every other U.S. presidential inauguration has its own page. See {{United States presidential inaugurations}}. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Insert : 'Other stuff exists', by itself is not a very compelling reason to not merge, all things considered. Further, many (most?) of the other inauguration articles are stubs and likewise should be merged. Also, the material in the two articles in question is already contained in the Presidency article, so there would be no need to cut and paste material from these two articles to this article. The actual inaugurations are simply short chapters in Washington's presidency, which again, is well covered in two articles. Do we really need four articles to cover these brief events? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with tMiQ. The inauguration of Washington in 1789 is worthy of its own article.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
A seperate article could be created Presidential inaugurations of George Washington that merges Washington's first and second Inaugurations. Merging the two Washington Inaugruation articles in this article, George Washington, would probably balloon the article size in consideration of FA nomination. I recommend merger into the Washington article be put on hold for now. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, there are already two articles that cover the inaugurations very well. Creating a dedicated article for an existing dedicated article is redundant, and will only create another article that likely will be ignored by both readers and editors. The two articles in question meet all criteria for merging and really should be merged/deleted. We do not really need four separate articles to cover these brief events. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.