Talk:George Mason/Archive 1

"Father of the Bill of Rights"
I find it interesting that Mason is ascribed with this title in this article, while Madison is more frequently given that epithet. A Google search for "'Father of the bill of rights' Mason" pulls about 480 responses, while the same with "Madison" pulls about 600. I don't really debate the accuracy of giving Mason the title, since he was always its heaviest proponent, and Madison only supported them after having a turnaround (or religious epiphany, if you want to be idealistic) during his run for the House in VA. I hate these epithets in general, and tend to find they distract people more than they help them, especially when they're ascribed to multiple individuals for multiple reasons. I won't change anything, but I found it questionable, or at least interesting. Uh, discuss, I guess. 69.137.157.78 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mason is the Father of the Bill of Rights. Madison is the Father of the Constitution. --72.66.25.36 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

George Mason was kind of hard on his wives.
OK, I'm no expert in the social expectations of Colonial times, but it kind of looks like George Mason just kept getting his wives pregnant over and over until eventually their bodies collapsed under the stress. What the hell?! Sounds like an amazing man to me... maybe that is why he's less well-known than the other founding fathers. -- anonymous

Actually, it says he only had two wives. With the first he fathered 12 children, and with the second he fathered none. Perhaps you're confused by the fact that the article also lists his children's marriages, and the children that they had. (What I don't understand is why the article should include a list of all of Mason's children's spouses and children. It strikes me as kind of irrelevant.) -- Tim314 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

George Mason owns slaves but is against slavery
Okay, first please understand that I am in no way, shape, or form endorsing or justifying slavery, just attempting to place the statement into historical context based on my own POV.

That said, many early "founding father" types owned slaves yet were against slavery. My take on the reasoning is simple economics, e.g., the need to continue to operate plantations. Where else were they going to get the labor pool? Even though technically categorized as slaves, the degree of "forced, uncompensated labor" was variable from owner to owner. Some slaveowners were more benevolent than others, even going as far as to allow slaves to own property, farm private plots, and sell their services or extra produce.

JMHO, Mmoyer 23:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree about the economic view. You sound like Charles Beard in a pessimistic mood. The Founding Fathers didn't want to get rid of their slaves is because they could not give up their services. It was a vice not a necessary evil as some would think. The Constitution is all about what the country is supposed to turn out as not what they wanted right then. They knew they weren't perfect, but people still deify them. They were hoping their children would finish the job. The labor was everywhere there were so many people without work that the veterans revolted when they couldn't pay their taxes. They had grown accustomed to slavery but were hoping the next generation would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.52.149 (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead copyedit
This article's lead provides a good introduction to the topic, but some of its sentences are awkward and repetitive. I'm going to copyedit it, and list my changes here. Huntthetroll (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit #1
 * Added link to Constitutional Convention article
 * "For all of these reasons he is considered to be…" → "For these reasons he is considered…"
 * Moved clause about his work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights to the end of the second paragraph, where it made more sense
 * "Similar to anti-federalist Patrick Henry, he was later a leader…" → "Like anti-federalist Patrick Henry, Mason was a leader…"
 * "…addition of explicitly stated individual rights as part of the U.S. Constitution…" → "…addition of explicitly stated individual rights to the U.S. Constitution…"
 * "His efforts eventually succeeded in convincing the Federalists to modify the Constitution and add the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the Constitution). The Bill of Rights is based on Mason's earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights." → "His efforts eventually succeeded in convincing the Federalists to add the first ten amendments of the Constitution. These amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights, are based on the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason drafted in 1776."

Also, another gripe: What is that random paragraph about Mason's stance on slavery doing in the lead? It doesn't logically follow from the preceding paragraph at all. I'm going to see if I can find a better place for it. Huntthetroll (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit #2
 * Since there is an entire subsection devoted to Mason's views on slavery, the slavery paragraph does in fact belong in the lead. However, the sentence "Like his fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson, Mason owned slaves whom he never freed" was an almost word-for-word copy of a sentence in the slavery subsection, and much too specific to belong in a lead (see WP:LEAD). Therefore, I deleted it and incorporated the fact that Mason was a slaveholder into another, more general sentence as a dependent clause.
 * Rewrote the slavery paragraph to improve the logical link between it and the preceding paragraph; see this.
 * "These amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights, are based on the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason drafted in 1776." → "These amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were based on the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason had drafted in 1776."
 * "George Mason…was a United States patriot" → "George Mason…was an American patriot"

Huntthetroll (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Specified "Bill Of Rights" on the main page as United States Bill of Rights so there would be a useful link. I'm happy if it's changed back, as long as there's a link to the US Bill of Rights he was the father of that a visitor can click with confidence instead of having to try the [1][2][3][4] refs - I think there should be one such.

Removed the "waka waka wee" comment on this talk page. --HenrikErlandsson (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in top section must be corrected
Slavery cannot be 'repugnant' to a slaveholder, by the definition of the term 'repugnant'. The subject may have held views that slavery should eventually be eliminated (he did, in fact) but any definition of 'repugnant' does not square with the person continuing to actively engage in the activity, and Mason did not even manumit his slaves in his will. Please feel free to alter the language so that this inaccuracy is corrected. ToFeignClef (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a combination of WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX (some other guidelines can be presented as well). You might read some of the related history to see why TEDickey (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to respond with substantive comments at any time. Thoughts from others, please? ToFeignClef (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to attempt language that made specific where the differences lie, mentioning that he owned slaves and did not manumit them upon his death, but wrote about the evils of slavery. That would be more accurate regarding the article's sources as well. Universaladdress (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am amenable to this and think it is a good way to address the responses below. ToFeignClef (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I did ask for some from you. Injecting a comment that states that the sourced statements are contradictory and (it appears) should be discarded to follow your opinions is something that might bear discussion. TEDickey (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what the problem is. From repugnant: "Offensive or repulsive; arousing disgust or aversion."  How does this definition result in a contradiction with anything else in the sentence at issue? (People can engage in activities they themselves find distasteful.)  Magic ♪piano 13:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Birth date
Is the 11 December 1725 birth date Old Style or New? —  AjaxSmack  21:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure new. Don't have my sources with me.==Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is new style. We don't generally say that in an article, so I've removed the tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have a cite? I can't view the Broadwater footnote and this source says 11 Dec is Old Style.  Any other sources? —  AjaxSmack   02:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I went to this. As it lists Mason's birthday as December 11 and Washington's as February 22, and the latter is new style and they hadn't adopted the Gregorian calendar yet at the time of either birth, I took consistency for granted.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Mason. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6N6Vt271S?url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_04-27-01.html to http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_04-27-01.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism
Considerable vandalism in the last day or two. I do not regard myself as competent to repair it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John W. Kennedy (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the vandalism and semi-protected for two weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates?
Seriously? A person with coordinates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * His grave.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

the first paragraph...
...has diction problems in its final sentence. Namely, an utterly unclear reference. The present text: The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored, served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, of which he has been deemed the father. Sounds to me like Mason has been deemed the father of the United States Bill of Rights. How this could read better: The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored and (of which he has been deemed the father)(*this could use a citation), served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights. 2604:6000:1405:97C:84DB:A323:F165:BAE0 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the Bill of Rights of which he has been deemed a father. It is sourced in the article. The lead section is a summary of what is sourced elsewhere. I've rephrased a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

need clarify
Section "Wartime legislator", 3rd paragraphy: "...Where is Mason, Wythe, Jefferson, Nicholas, Pendleton, Nelson?"

I guess Nicholas is George Nicholas, but who is Nelson?--Jarodalien (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thomas Nelson Jr. I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Visiting Scholar Wehwalt has worked on it.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Father of the Bill of Rights
Should it be "co-founder" with Madison, or is the stand-alone designation of "father" adequate here? I consider Mason the father, but there are differences of opinion and likely differences in sources. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "has been deemed the father" does not convey universal opinion. We're not saying what he is, just what he's been called. Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The only place in the topic which mentions anything of the kind doesn't support "the", but only "a" (to promote some opinion, you'll need several sources) TEDickey (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Modified. Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)