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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The main talk page for this archive was refactored on 19 July 2005, see this version. Previous versions available at the main talk page's Revision history, the first/earliest post for the talk page being dated 16 June 2002.
Note to myself and others: It sure would be nice if wikipedia had an entry on George Washington with some content:
Really nice article. Very well designed as it is possible in Wikipedia. The drawings of famouos (specially scientist) people is my dearly field. Someday I'll post some of my hand-drawings hereon as soon I'll reach down for a scanner. -- XJamRastafire 16:36 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)
"Washington farmed roughly 8,000 acres (32 km²). Like many Virginia planters at the time, he was frequently in debt and never had much cash on hand. In fact, he had to borrow £600 to relocate to New York, then the center of the American government, to take office as president.
In 1788–9, George Washington was elected the first President of the United States. The First U.S. Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a significant sum in 1789. Washington, whose wealth by some estimates exceeded $500 million in current dollars, refused to accept his salary."
Something has to be re-worded in there.Oldsoul 11:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to fix the article and Stephenb wants to revert for unknown reasons. Rjensen 14:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed "under the current Constitution", because, despite many many urban legends, there were NO other Presidents of the United States before Washington, they were called President of the United States in Congress Assembled, and was nothing more than chairman of the Continental Congress. Also, this article is a MAJOR mess. The table and the non-table entries overlap each other. -- Zoe
They shouldn't overlap now--at least on my screen they don't. In general I found that most of the presidents have little to no information about them, which is why I started making the tables. I hope to follow it up with some biographical information. Even in this particular case, more space seems to be spent on the cherry tree story and his rank as a Freemason than on his actual presidency and legacy. Danny
Zoe has a very valid point about the 'under the current constitution' wording. Yes there were men who had the title of President before Washington but this was because the presided over the Congress. The President back then would be the equivalent of the Speaker of the House combined with the responsibility of being the head of the federal government bureaucracy and, if memory serves, was appointed by Congress on a yearly basis. The Congress is where the real power was; they are the only ones who had the authority to set policy. In essence the President was little more than a bureaucrat who had to largely do the bidding of Congress. See President of the United States of America for a better explanation. Therefore it is highly misleading to say 'President under the current constitution' because the earlier position by that name is not at all what we would now call a 'President'. This wording should be removed from the table template in my opinion. --mav Done already. Danny
oop. I guess I should say a kind of "sorry" for putting back in the 11th President of the Union fact, but however you wanna wrangle with the words, he was the 11th of the Union and the 1st of the Constitutional union. If you count your country beginning in 1776 instead of 1789, you really oughta give some credit to persons at the head of it meantimes. =p In any case, I don't think it does WP any good to ignore this dispute/debate/error on the GW main page. Reword if you feel you must - there may indeed be a problem with "11th president of the USA" as opposed to "11th of the Union", but for God's sake don't go sweeping it under the rug again. There's little point to an "encyclopaedia" that simply repeats what "everyone knows" and no point to it if it's not quite the truth.
Do we have a page for the Presidents of the Cont Congress pre Art of Confedency. I have heard the arguement of Hanson being consider the first pres because he was president of congress at the time of the adoption of the articles but what about pre AOC presidents like Handcock who was president of the congress July 1776Smith03 22:33, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Just a status note: I've combined the material for the two President of the Congress articles, and adjusted some of the President of the United States to try to clean up some of this whole area. I will still try to improve some of the biographies of the CC presidents. Lou I 23:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Since the Articles of Confederation is the legitimate predecessor to the current Constitution, the link should be established showing the transition of power between authorities. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The qualifier "under the constitution" after "first president of the US" is awkward and out of place. Do all the other presidential entries need to be amended? Should Ronald Reagon be called the 40th president "under the constitution" because there were men who held a completely seperate office but also called president under the Articles of the Confederation?
Is it just me or is the picture of washington we have in the info box really wierd? His cheeks are all read and it is kind of freaking me out. Cant we replace it with one of the more traditional portraits usually shown of him, like one of the images further down the page? Unless anyone feels very strongly about this I am going to change it. --Bonus Onus 22:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
The new (JUL 2004 ) article says: "George Washington was one of the few early American Presidents who was not a total follower of any one specific Christian denomination."
I think it would be more accurate to say: "Like many of the Founding Fathers & earliest presidents, Washington was a Deist. He occasionally accompanied others (his wife especially) to Christian churches but never became a communicant. Before the Revolution, holding church office was a condition of membership in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and so Washington was also then a vestryman in an Episcopal church."
Many states still had established religions & religious tests for office (even in 2004 MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, and TX STILL have religious tests for office). No one wanted to be branded an infidel (as Jefferson had been), so there were several reasons to be quiet about not being Christians.
Why can't you put all these links on an article called Religious beliefs rather than the Talk:George Washington article?? They don't necessarily have to do with George Washington. 66.32.139.109 00:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"George Washington was arguably one of the few American Presidents who was not a Christian."
"George Washington was one of the few early American Presidents who was not a total follower of any one specific Christian denomination."
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html
Both Adams' were Unitarian. Unitarians do not believe Jesus is/was God, and so cannot be really regarded as Christian.
Jefferson was a Deist. Madison kept his religious views to himself, but agreed with Jefferson on many things - especially separation of church & state. -- JimWae; 2004-Nov
It's very fair to say that GW was "religiously tolerant" and open minded, however, it's not conclusive to say that he did not view himself as a Christian. At the very least, present both aspects in the article on GW's religious beliefs and indicate there is evidence for both sides.
Numerous sources of his own writing indicate direct references to Christian belief and activity.
namely:
"... the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. "
from: George Washington's Circular to the States, June 8, 1783, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XXVI (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 496.
-
and a letter to the leaders of Native American communities in Delaware: (ostensibilty proselytizing)
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."
from: George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.
and from a private letter:
"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations. "
from:
George Washington's letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 343.
To ignore these very easily found and referenced items and claim outright that GW was not a Christian is intellectual dishonesty and revisionism of the worst sort.
JJW says look here --- http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm
If one were to take a peek at Washington’s papers at the Library of Congress, one would quickly see that the man was not a “deist” by any stretch of the imagination. Those who say that Washington was a “deist” are not interested even in the man’s own words; they are interested in rewriting history to ease their own guilty consciences. The link above that JJW provides is one of an agenda. Why not try searching for the truth and go straight to the source?
Just one example: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw300388))
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a forum for personal agenda; deism by definition is the belief that once He created everything God no longer is involved in the affairs of man. This is clearly not what George Washington believed. In his own words:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw050322))
The section on Washington’s religious beliefs needs to, and will, present the truth.
Oh, so now you interject what you "think" he might have meant with all of his ref. to God? That is "agenda" driven. Somehow I knew that you would resort to this self-interpretation of Washington's words.
Sight credible sources that Washington supported “religious pluralism”; “atheism” websites will not suffice. In the meantime, also sight credible references that Washington was a “deist” and that every time he spoke of Jesus, God, righteousness, prayer, Heaven, etc., he meant it in an “deistic way. At the same time, prove that his prayer journals are not really his own.
You offer no proof? Only agenda-driven sources? That is not "fact". Here is a credible source http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/index.html
You just violated the 3 revert rule. If you think Deists never pray, you know nothing of Deism. Have you found a single mention of Jesus anyhwere? Nothing will count as proof to those who will not consider alternative possibilities--JimWae 06:31, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
You have violated the first rule: do your research!
This would appear to be a fact, why was it removed? Has anyone got proof that he never said such a thing? [1] [2] If it is in fact not true, it seems to be a popular misconception, so it should be debunked in the article. -Martin
Martin: Both of those sources cite "Maxims of George Washington". Read more at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/what_they_said.html about that.... --Gabbe 18:39 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)
According to ZOE, Amedeo Modigliani is Italian because he was born there. George Washington, in fact and in 'law, was born a British citizen, in his majesty's colony of Virginia and carried British papers. Why is George Washington different than Modigliani? Your inconsistency is further proof that you don't know what you are talking about, and you are a total fraud...DW
The following material was removed by 217.127.141.173:
In recent years Washington's image has been unfairly tarnished by anti-Semites who attempt to use his name to further their goals. Many anti-Semitic Arab and Neo-Nazi books, journals and websites offer forged "quotes" supposedly by America's founding fathers, especially George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. These supposed quotes have been debunked as forgeries by historians.
- - Example of an Anti-Semitic website pushing fraudulent quotes from America's founding fathers - - Egyptian government sponsored press spreads Anti-Semitic forgeries about Washington and Franklin -
- Urban Legends website debunks the anti-Semitic Washington quote forgery
.
The reason given (on my talk page) is that the material is "out-of-place, not noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article, stigmatizing and written by somebody with an axe to grind. "
I generally find snopes.com to be quite useful in sorting out disinformation, but let others judge. -- Someone else 03:32 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think the lines badly written and out of place. FearÉIREANN 03:50 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Since you seem incapable whether through chronic stupidity or monumental arrogance to understands facts, let alone show the slightest tact, politeness or decency, people like you aren't worth replying to and I won't be doing so again. But just for the record,
Furthermore people like like Camembert, Maverick, Zoe, Deb, Jimbo and many others who have personally insulted in an extreme manner do competent, capable work on Wikipedia. You may have opinions that differ with most people, but you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to utter personal villification and abuse to people on Wikipedia. And you have no right to deliberately spike articles (whether through stupidity, ignorance, arrogance or childishness) by adding in facts which anyone with an iota of knowledge about editing documents knows to be factually incorrect, such as describing Washington as British. If you cannot follow basic standards of politeness, decency and show even the slightest element of a willingness to work with the hundreds of others on Wikipedia, then maybe it is time you set up your own encyclopedia, though going by previous standards, you'd probably end up writing nasty notes to yourself! At times various people have become controversial through their opinions, through edit wars, through disputes. Various members have been complained about by many people, but in my time on Wikipedia I have never come across a person who has made so many enemies through such arrogant rudeness. Whatever positive items you contribute are more than outweighed by the offensive nature of your behaviour. So cool it, cop your self on and start acting with some of the maturity you keep claiming to have. Like everyone else, I have had my fill of communicating with you. The number of people willing to try to talk to you is diminishing, as is the support for keeping you on Wikipedia. Daily, a new person offers to try to talk calmly with you, only to be greeted with venom and rudeness by you and to give up. Issue closed, now grow up and stop being such a prat. JTD 21:32 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
When did Washington die? Was it 1797 or 1799? -- Zoe
As a matter of historical curiousity, has everyone heard the three stories about George Washington that circulated over the years:
Apparently someone even checked his corpse just to be sure he . . . em . . . dangled (if you catch my drift!). And sure enough, he dangled. So the stories that there was something very feminine about him, with soft small hands and a lack of a need to shave. His body shape and also some his behaviour led to rumours to the effect that he could be, like the legendary and possibly mythical Pope Joan, a woman who got places in a male patriarchal society by 'pretending' to be a man. The fact that he never fathered children, had no love affairs (apart from one rumour that was spread around by friends that seems to have been intended to kill of the other rumours, just as a rumour was spread around by Lincoln's 'true love' when gossip began to spread about whether he was a homosexual) all added fuel to the fire. But then US presidents attract rumours the way Bill Clinton attracts women. And there is about as much truth to most of them as in Bill's claim that 'I did not have sex with that woman'. JTD 05:34 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... I've always read this as "Father of The Country", but Google seems to disagree:
I had changed it to "Father of the Country" before double-checking with a Google search, but a little more digging found that the most common expression seems to be:
So, I'm going with that. Daniel Quinlan 18:55, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
I think I have some evidence of George washington's birthplace and a little of his early life.. I live in a village (in the UK) which has records of the Washington family and a record of his birth in the village. I'll try to get more evidence of it though before posting..
At Wikipedia, at all the pages talking about a President of the United States, there have been a few fights about whether there should be a rectangular box containing the Presidents from being at the bottom of the page. Can you please let everyone come to an agreement on whether there should be one?? User 66.32.127.241
Do you know of a list of Americans who get honored in order by how often they get honored?? (There is a site called "The Political Graveyard" that you can use as a reference tool.) Here are some ways:
As far as I know, I believe it is most likely that George Washington got honored the most, followed by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. How far do you know about how this list goes?? Try to make it go as far as you can, at least to #10; there is no maximum limit. You may include any American who lived entirely between 1706 and 1945.
Some possible answers that could rank somewhere from #11 to #16 include James Monroe, John Q. Adams, Henry Clay, James Polk, Robert E. Lee, and Woodrow Wilson. Try to put them wherever they go in this list, but remember that there really is no maximum, as long as you are using Americans who lived entirely between 1706 and 1945.66.32.139.147 17:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Alexander Hamilton
Jefferson Davis
Grover Cleveland
Ulysses Grant
William McKinley
Francis Marion
Is there any reason the sections starting with Presidency are full headings as opposed to regular headings (one equals sign instead of two) causing the article to be renumbered halfway through? Telso 02:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just added some date notes to the "Early Life" section and changed the Old Style year of his birth to 1731 (I did it 1732|1731, so clicking on the Old Style year brings you to the correct Gregorian year).
Reason: At the time of Washington's birth, England started its new years on March 25, not January 1. For English Old Style dates prior to March 25, it's necessary to subtract 1 from the Gregorian year to get the correct Old Style year. See the Mixed-style date page for a good explanation of this issue. Dale Arnett 01:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) __
Ahem - the switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar advanced the date by 11 days in the 1700s. The year, however, should really be the same - either 1731 or 1732. I don't know which would be correct, but both the "old style" and the "new style" date must have the same year. Lupo 14:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I may be getting my Presidents mixed up, but I remember reading in one of my English classes poetry by a black female poet who held audience with Washington a couple of times -- apparently, he was quite fond of her. I recall she coined the word "Colombia" in reference to the New World in one of her patriotic poems. I've been trying to recall her name, but with no luck. Since I was thinking on writing an article on "Colombia" in this sense (the current article there on the Republic of Colombia will have to be moved :P ), it would be good if I had her name and could find that poem... Any ideas? Garrett Albright 06:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Washington apparently wrote a letter to Phillis Wheatley in appreciation of her poems. I don't know that they ever actually met or if "Colombia" appears in her poetry, but it's a place to look. -- Nunh-huh 06:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My book Presidential Places says that he was born in Washington's Birthplace, Virginia not Wakefield, Virginia. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 15:51 August 25, 2004 (EDT)
Wakefield, Virginia is in Sussex County, Virginia not Westmoreland County --Patricknoddy 19:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 19:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 15:57 August 25, 2004 (EDT)
Ferry Farm was his childhood home, if I'm not mistaken (I live within a few miles of that area)... ugen64 01:21, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Well, someone wrote "Pope's Creek," so I guess the issue's closed. Anyone know how Wakefield has to do with anything? Brutannica 03:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
His birthplace is not Pope's Creek, Virginia it is Colonial Beach, Virginia. --Patricknoddy 11:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 11:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 7:31 September 16, 2004 (EDT)
Rev. Dr. Abercrombie link added. bgk 21:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, apparently a new editor had edited the article, changing — to –
But, he/she did not see the vandalism before that: -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Washington was commissioned in 1989 as a colonel in the Virginia militia and built a series of forts in Compton, California. He was dispatched by the governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie, to force the French out of the Ohio valley. When they refused, he attacked a French scouting party, killing ten, including its leader, Jumonville. Anticipating retaliation, he built a small fort (Fort Necessity). It proved ineffective: Washington's forces were vastly outnumbered and the fort, built on low ground, flooded during a heavy rainfall. He was forced to surrender and negotiated a safe passage back to Virginia. Nevertheless, the incident ignited the French and Indian War.
Should be:
Washington was commissioned in 1754 as a colonel in the Virginia militia and built a series of forts in the western frontier of Virginia. He was dispatched by the governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie, to force the French out of the Ohio valley. When they refused, he attacked a French scouting party, killing ten, including its leader, Jumonville. Anticipating retaliation, he built a small fort (Fort Necessity). It proved ineffective: Washington's forces were vastly outnumbered and the fort, built on low ground, flooded during a heavy rainfall. He was forced to surrender and negotiated a safe passage back to Virginia. Nevertheless, the incident ignited the French and Indian War.
In 1992, Washington accompanied the Braddock Expedition of the British Army during the French and Indian War. During the Battle of the Monongahela in western Pennsylvania, he had three horses shot out from under him, and four bullets pierced his coat. He showed his coolness under fire in organizing the retreat from the debacle. Washington then organized the First Virginia Regiment, which saw service through the war.
Should be:
In 1755, Washington accompanied the Braddock Expedition of the British Army during the French and Indian War. During the Battle of the Monongahela in western Pennsylvania, he had three horses shot out from under him, and four bullets pierced his coat. He showed his coolness under fire in organizing the retreat from the debacle. Washington then organized the First Virginia Regiment, which saw service through the war.
In 2000, he resigned his commission and married Martha Dandridge Custis, the wealthy widow of Daniel Parke Custis. Washington adopted Custis's two children and never fathered any of his own. The newlywed couple moved to Mount Vernon where he took up the life of a genteel farmer. He became a member of the House of Burgesses.
Should be:
In 1759, he resigned his commission and married Martha Dandridge Custis, the wealthy widow of Daniel Parke Custis. Washington adopted Custis's two children and never fathered any of his own. The newlywed couple moved to Mount Vernon where he took up the life of a genteel farmer. He became a member of the House of Burgesses.
By 2004, Washington had become one of the colonies' wealthiest men. In that year, he was chosen as a delegate from Virginia to the First Continental Congress and the next year to the Second Continental Congress. He did not support colonial independence until 1776, when he read Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
Should be:
By 1774, Washington had become one of the colonies' wealthiest men. In that year, he was chosen as a delegate from Virginia to the First Continental Congress and the next year to the Second Continental Congress. He did not support colonial independence until 1776, when he read Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
Dates were changed... and since when was George Washington from Compton, California? -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some of the information on this page seems to be duplicated. A little past halfway down, it starts repeating sections from the top. I'm still pretty new here (still learning the syntax and customs), so I am hesitant to fix it myself.
For the record, I confirmed that Washington was indeed reappointed as a Lieutenant General after serving as President. Some sources give his rank as Major General, but a special bill authoirzing his appointment granted him three stars. He obtained 6 star rank very posthumously in 1976. -Husnock 15:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Pershing's General of the Armies position was actually different from the 6-star promotion that Washington received in 1976. Before WWII, Washington and Pershing were the highest ranked military officers in US history. After WWII, several generals received a newly created "General of the Army" rank, which carried 5 star. This included Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Bradley. President Carter raised Washington to 6 stars, a position only he holds. Not sure where Pershing falls now, but he is not an official 5 or 6 star general.
So Washington didn't wear a wig. OK, I accept that. Never really questioned it, really, because every portrait I've ever seen of the man made it look like he was a closet mullet devotee rather than a wig guy.
However, I just reverted an anon -- and I feel bad for doing it, because it's certainly plausible -- who claimed, in the same section, that good ol' George powdered his hair. Anyone got a reference for this?--chris.lawson 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, that was fast. Way to kill two birds with one stone, Josh -- that ref not only supports powdering, but that it was real hair (rather than a wig).--chris.lawson 23:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
George Washington wasn't the only person in history to receive the General of the Armies rank. John J. Pershing also received it, so I made that change.
This category has been added and removed a couple of times recently. In this context of the subject of this article it seems like an anachronism to me. -EDM 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I just repaired the list of other language version links as all non-latin alphabet ones were just question marks instead of their appropriate characters. I suspect this happens when someone copies the text into a word processor or notepad that doesn't support those characters and then, after the edit, pastes it back into the edit window and inadvertently replaces the links with question marks. Please make sure these other language versions are correctly displayed before saving.--Kalsermar 16:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I quote now from the peer review: "The article needs better sourcing, it's not clear which if any of the books in the further reading section actually source the information in the article. Some inline citations would help as well." This is true, but as I have not helped with this article, it would be difficult for me to do. Will anyone with more familiarity of this article shoulder the greater responsibility for citing the sources? (If not, I guess I will have to, but I am pretty much a newcomer to this article). --Trevdna 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe all the information in the article is found in the Freeman book. Rjensen 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
George Washington is part of the list of Federalist party candidates, and there's a little footnote at the end of the article explaining how he was president before the Federalist Party was formed. First, maybe there should be more information about this in the article proper, second, shouldn't this article be in the United States Federalist Party category? Billy Shears 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
==There was no Federalist (or other) party when Washington was elected and reelected. However it formed in his second term primarily to support his programs. Did he "belong" to it? They did not have formal membership forms. But GW was closely associated with it, his closest associate Hamilton ran the party, and and the party made GW their great symbol.
With the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who held a lifetime commission as General of the Army (five star), George Washington is the only President with military service to reenter the military after leaving the office of President.
I would like to add some fun interesting trivia. For instance that he was the first president to own a cooler, his height, how he proposed the design of the flag to Betty Ross along with other facts which I feel would be beneficial to add. Everyone please try to find some fun facts so we can add it!
Feel free to discuss. -JJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.204.60 (talk • contribs) 02:20, December 16, 2005.
George Washington was the first presidents of the united states and has been a great dad. I wish he was still alive because I really like him! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.236.3 (talk • contribs) . and provides some insight into what we can expect if a trivia section is added.
The word evidence was too strong. Some people see Washingtons writings as evidence, while others do not. It goes the same way for his writings which could be seen as evidence that he was a Christian. It is a matter of personal opinion so I took it off and made it more balanced.
See the Washington_Inaugural_Bible for details. Ronabop 10:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I added exerts from his speech back to the address which were removed. Please do not remove them. Wikipedia is supposed to give a fair and balanced view and that's why I added them. The exerts give a great explanation on his view of religion, morality, and foreign policy. I feel that you can learn so more about Washington in 4 exerts then in the whole entire page. Everyone tries to block this view because it's not politically correct. I really want to make this article fair and balanced. They are merely exerts which show his views on important issues; views that you will not learn in school. I feel that these exerts clearly show Washingtons view on these vital issues and would answer many questions that people have. Please do not remove them. Please feel free to add to the discussion here.
Thanks all,
JJ
I think some good material is being tossed out in recent "shortenings" of the article. Why are we shortening it? If shortening is needed, is removing material the best solution? Wouldn't sub-articles do the job even better? If any part could easily be shortened, it certainly is the Farewell Address section. Should main articles contain more detail than their sub-articles? --JimWae 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it should be shortened. Keep in mind he was a very important man so he would have more information then other people. Comparatively with other people it appears that his page is not very long especially given his importance. Shouldn't quality come first? Also the farewell address goes over his advice for America to follow, it is very symbolic. If anyone wants to shorten the article please propose shortenings in discussion before doing it without consent to prevent edit wars. Hopefully we can find something that everyone can agree on.
-Eric
OK, I have been trying to discuss this with JJstroker, but he hasn't answered me yet on his (or my) talk page. However, I would like to bring this up for discussion with everyone working on this article - am I the only one that thinks that quoting large blocks of text in the Farewell Address is unencyclopedic and pointless (contributes nothing of importance or relevance to the article)?
Please discuss. --Trevdna 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I don't think this discussion was to remove one paragraph (am I wrong?) - it was to remove the entire text. I added very obvious references to the full text in the article for those who are interested, so I think it will be alright to remove the rest.
JJstroker - will this be alright with you? (I'm asking you because I don't want to start an edit war.) People may be confused about his views, and this may help to clear stuff up for a few people, but I think that the concensus (other people feel free to agree or disagree - I don't want to come to premature conclusions) was that it weakens the article overall for most people.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?--Trevdna 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)JJstroker
OK - here's what I came up with. I worked pretty hard on it, but if anything is wrong with it, please say so. The indented stuff is the stuff I just worked on. Anyone mind?
Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.
Washington's Farewell Address was the defining statement of Federalist party principles and one of the most influential statements of American political values. Alexander Hamilton made major suggestions for Washington's draft, as did John Jay. The Address was not a speech, but a public letter issued in September 1796.
(The article on the Address can be found here, and the entire text of the article can be found here or here, for those who are interested.)
The Address quickly entered the realm of "received wisdom." Many Americans, especially in subsequent generations, accepted Washington's advice as gospel and, in any debate between neutrality and involvement in foreign issues, would invoke the message as dispositive of all questions. Not until 1949 would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation.
By refusing a third term, Washington established a powerful precedent of a maximum of two terms for a U.S. president. It was broken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1940 but after Roosevelt's death was made part of the written Constitution.
--Trevdna 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, since no one objected, I went ahead with the changes. To prevent any edit wars, please continue to discuss changes to this section here, on the talk page. --Trevdna 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Jeez. Talk to JJstroker. He feels very strongly about this section for some reason. The text that's in there now, was actually originally blockquoted in the article. I agree with you JW, but I'm kind of worn out on this section, so someone else can do the rewriting if it comes down to that. However, I will still monitor this topic, and register support or objection.
BTW, for a complete history of this, see the discussions above, [[User talk:JJstroker#George Washington's Farewell Address|here], and here --Trevdna 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I found this in the article: "George Washington was elected unanimously by the Electoral College in 1789, and remains the only person ever to be elected president unanimously (a feat which he duplicated in 1792). As runner-up with 34 votes, John Adams became Vice President-elect.". If Washington was elected unanimously, how can there have been a runner-up with 34 votes? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It says on the george washington page that he vaccinated his troops, this is wrong as vaccination did not exsist in 1776, read up on Edward Jenner, innoculation existed though. The preceding, previously unsigned comment by 172.215.199.149
Thank you for that (I realized that vaccines weren't around until the 1800s) - however, since I am not aware of Edward Jenner, and that is a fairly irrelevant point, I took it out completely, and replaced it with other stuff (it being a low point for the Army). However, if anyone has any references for that section, it would be great. --Trevdna 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |