Talk:George Washington/Archive 22

Header Section: George Washington Summary is Very Eurocentric
The First paragraph stats" "George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American soldier, farmer, land investor, politician, and statesman who served from 1789 to 1797 as the first President of the United States, and became known as the 'Father of His Country'. He was commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War and presided over the 1787 Constitutional Convention. As a leading Patriot, he was among the nation's Founding Fathers." "the immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more."
 * He also ordered the genocide of indigenous people. Exact quote in his letter to Sullivan
 * The Seneca called him "Town Destroyer" for his genocidal ways.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Insert : The lede is just general statements, and nothing was explained as to what was missing in terms of the article being too "Eurocentric". All we have is your generic claims and your misguided hyper–speak. "Genocide"?? Unless you can provide missing facts, supported by reliable sources, the neutrality tag needs to go. You haven't done this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, would you put the same lede for Hitler (Someone we consider committed Genocide)? I think we should talk about both slavery and the massacres in the first sentence or else it is overly laudatory Eshaparvathi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as Hitler's been brought into this discussion, take a look at Adolf Hitler, here is the first paragraph of that article:
 * Adolf Hitler was a German politician, demagogue, and Pan-German revolutionary, who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust.
 * Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Context matters here. This order to John Sullivan dates to May 1779. It specifically concerns the Sullivan Expedition against the Iroquois Confederacy, a British ally during the American Revolutionary War. "The campaign ordered and organized by George Washington and his staff was conducted chiefly in the lands of the Iroquois Confederacy "taking the war home to the enemy to break their morale", and the expedition was largely successful in that goal as they destroyed more than 40 Iroquois villages and stores of winter crops, breaking the power of the six nations in New York all the way to the Great Lakes, as the terrified Indian families relocated to Canada seeking protection of the British. Today this area is the heartland of New York State, and with the military power of the Iroquois vanquished, the events also opened up the vast Ohio Country, the Great Lakes regions, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky to post-war settlements. "
 * In wartime, starving out your enemy and severing their supply lines are a highly effective tactic. The French invasion of Russia (1812) primarily failed because the French line of supply was severed and their forces starved. "Supplying the army became an impossibility. The lack of grass and feed weakened the remaining horses, almost all of which died or were killed for food by starving soldiers. Without horses, the French cavalry ceased to exist; cavalrymen had to march on foot. Lack of horses meant many cannons and wagons had to be abandoned. Much of the artillery lost was replaced in 1813, but the loss of thousands of wagons and trained horses weakened Napoleon's armies for the remainder of his wars. Starvation and disease took their toll, and desertion soared. Many of the deserters were taken prisoner or killed by Russian peasants. Badly weakened by these circumstances, the French military position collapsed. Further defeats were inflicted on elements of the Grande Armée at Vyazma, Polotsk and Krasny. The crossing of the river Berezina was a final French calamity; two Russian armies inflicted heavy casualties on the remnants of the Grande Armée as it struggled to escape across improvised bridges." Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The article's neutrality is important. Washington was a European American. Possibly more could be added to the Sullivan campaign in this article or what the Indian's called Washington. Washington went to war with the British and Indians (British allies) during the Revolutionary War. Work is being done to improve the article to get to FA. It is written from a European American biography viewpoint because Washington was European American. More consideration can be given from a Native American perspective. I don't have any issues with that. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * More informaton has been added to Sullivan campaign and Indians. Washington called "The Town Destroyer" by Native American people in the article narration. I hope it is enough to remove the neutrality tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Eshaparvathi, you should try to get a handle on the modern day hyper-speak. There was no "genocide" here. If it was genocide all these tribes would have been exterminated. That was not Washington's order. Throughout most of early American history, most battles with Indians came in response to repeated attacks from hostile racist xenophobic tribes. esp during the early days of colonization. How long are we expected to cow-tow to this perpetual victimhood mindset? If we are going to cover these episodes we need to outline Indian behavior before Washington gave the order to go in and destroy villages and capture Indians. If you actually read, and comprehend, Washington's letter to Sullivan, he only orders him to destroy crops and capture Indians. Nothing there about exterminating the lot of them. It was the French and INDIAN WAR. They were hostile Indians and Washington wanted them out. Also, during the Revolution, there were many Iroquois and British attacks against American settlements during this time, including the Cobleskill, Wyoming Valley and Cherry Valley massacres. — Massacred There was battle but the Iroquois were not outright massacred. Not even close. Washington didn't do anything different than many armies have done to their own race during times of war. Please stop vomiting on the Talk page with this "genocide" BS. Also, please stop assuming that the racist xenophobic Indians were all peace loving helpless people that always minded their own business and never initiated hostilities. — It was inappropriate to tag the entire article over this perceived issue. If anything should have been tagged it should have been the section in question. So, while we're at it, now, we need to cover Indian behavior before Washington gave his order. And cover it in detail. It was 'war'. The Indians in question sided with the British and were at WAR with the colonists. During 'war', people, regardless of race, are killed or captured and their towns are often destroyed. During the Revolutionary WAR when British troops first landed in Boston, they burnt down more than 600 homes of civilians and took hundreds of prisoners. Context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is still a neutrality tag in the French and Indian War section. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was put there as a compromise for tagging the entire article. Imo, we don't need it there either and it should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. The information on the Sullivan campaign was probably needed for FA. I added more on slavery issue at the Constitutional Convention. Indians, slavery, and land investments possibly could be "controversial" and I think have been addressed in the article. I don't mind a little criticism in those areas. I think it helps strengthen the article to get to FA. What is left is some leaning out of the article or streamlining, as long as no content is kept, not lost. Any other issues should be addressed in another FA review. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given this second episode of flagrant bias, with the distorted and ill inspired view that accompanies it typically, it now seems no matter what we do to fix cites and sources, improve grammar and the narrative, there is always going to be someone out there ready to torpedo the article or nomination regardless. And of course contributing editors around here, while acknowledging specific errors, rarely stand together as a whole and defend the work done around here, while there are no requirements for being an FA reviewer — so the prospect of achieving FA seems like a (very) long shot. Just being realistic, as we try to move forward.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Asking for an article to be historically accurate and not turn into a hagiography is not torpedoeing.Eshaparvathi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the remarks about "genocide" and Washington's "genocidal ways", your concern for 'historical accuracy' remains highly questionable. The article is historically accurate, unless all those sources out there got it wrong, and you're right. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles use what reliable sources state about a subject. If the preponderance of reliable sources state that one of the major verifiable facts about George Washington is that he committed genocide then I would suggest that you open a Request for Comment about the issue - if this article is historically accurate or inaccurate as to whether the subject committed genocide and whether those statements should be in the first paragraph of the lede or not. Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Archives keeps a list of all official correspondences. Here is an official correspondence from George Washington To JOhn Sullivan:  Here are his exact words
 * "Thee expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the six nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents.1 The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more." . Eshaparvathi (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are not comfortable with the word "genocide." We should be accurate as possible about the order:  "He ordered the immediate and destruction of the settlement and the capture of prisoners of any age and gender.Eshaparvathi (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (insert :) ? I have no idea what you mean by that, being comfortable or uncomfortable with the word has nothing to do with it, what this article has to rely on is what published reliable sources state about the man, our personal opinions about the man don't really matter. If he were  best -known for being a general who participated in the wholesale slaughter and ongoing extermination of particular peoples and this is verified from multiple reliable sources (like, say...oh I don't know...Andrew Jackson and all the related articles Indian removal, Indian Removal Act, and the infamous Trail of Tears, etc.) then perhaps it might belong somewhere in the lede, if not the first paragraph. This does not seem to be the case, that this is what the man is most known-for in history. Keeping in mind consensus I again suggest you open a RFC to gather consensus about this aspect of the article. Washington's military career and his relationships with native peoples matters are covered in greater detail inSullivan Expedition, Battle of Monmouth, plus Military career of George Washington...one of the concerns brought up about this article in past reviews is its length. We simply cannot fit every fact and opinion about Washington into this article, there isn't enough space.  Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that. During war, people, everyone, not just the men, are often killed, captured, imprisoned, relocated, etc. And let's not forget what prompted these actions. Both the French and later the British exploited Indians and turned them against colonial Americans, in war. They didn't call it the French and Indian War for nothing. The mindset that suggests that white men just came along and shot helpless fish in a barrel, for no reason, is based on ignorance, and often propaganda, i.e.half truths and outright distortions, which is too often aimed at racial and ethnic feelings. Unfortunately, some people, most often surrounded by their peers, eat it up without question, caught up in the emotionalism of it all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Washington ordered a total war strategy. The number of Iroquois killed was twelve. This was not a tribal genocide. Now was it Washington's intention to exterminate the Iroquois. That is debatable. But the destruction of their homes is part of total warfare. I had put this in the article but it taken out. Washington did say capture. The military term for "extermination" is "no quarter". Washington did not say that. It does not reduce the brutality of the campaign. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

War is often brutal, as are massacres. However, given the context of Washington's life, his beliefs, etc, and his letter to Sullivan, with its several references to peace, it can easily be said that Washington only wanted to make sure that the only, and best, possible option for the Iroquois was peace. — "It is likely enough their fears if they are unable to oppose us, will compel them to offers of peace..." — The ideas of "genocide" and "peace" are entities that belong to entirely different planets. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "There was no "genocide" here. If it was genocide all these tribes would have been exterminated." Not necessarily. "The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". " Few of these attempts at genocide have actually managed total annihilation, and targeted groups such as the Armenians are still around. Fortunately the death toll from recent genocides is not that high: "The Political Instability Task Force estimated that, between 1956 and 2016, a total of forty-three genocides took place, causing the death of about 50 million people. The UNHCR estimated that a further 50 million had been displaced by such episodes of violence up to 2008. "
 * "If you actually read, and comprehend, Washington's letter to Sullivan, he only orders him to destroy crops and capture Indians. Nothing there about exterminating the lot of them. It was the French and INDIAN WAR. They were hostile Indians and Washington wanted them out." Stop introducing anachronisms here. The French and Indian War (1754-1763) was the North American theater of the misleadingly named Seven Years' War (9 years of warfare, but only 7 on European soil), and the Iroquois Confederacy was a British ally in that war. The Sullivan Expedition took place in 1779, 16 years following the end of the French and Indian War.
 * "There was battle but the Iroquois were not outright massacred. Not even close." Well, they suffered massive losses of territory following the war. Because their British allies betrayed them and the hostile Americans were numerically superior. "After the defeat of the British, they ceded most of the Iroquois territory to the United States, without bringing their allies to the negotiating table. Many of the Iroquois migrated to Canada, forced out of New York because of hostility to the British allies in the aftermath of a fierce war. Those remaining in New York were required to live mostly on reservations. In 1784, a total of 6,000 Iroquois had to confront 240,000 New Yorkers, with land-hungry New Englanders poised to migrate west. "Oneidas alone, who were only 600 strong, owned six million acres, or about 2.4 million hectares. Iroquoia was a land rush waiting to happen." "
 * "Also, please stop assuming that the racist xenophobic Indians were all peace loving helpless people that always minded their own business and never initiated hostilities." Participating in territorial disputes and warfare is not always motivated by xenophobia. In any case, "Indians" fought on both sides of the American Revolutionary War. The Oneida, Tuscarora, Catawba, Lenape, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Mahican, Mi'kmaq (until 1779), Abenaki, Cheraw, Seminole, Pee Dee, Lumbee, and the Watauga Association were American allies. The Onondaga, Mohawk, Cayuga, Seneca, Mi'kmaq (from 1779), Cherokee, Odawa, Muscogee, Susquehannock, and Shawnee were British allies.
 * "During 'war', people, regardless of race, are killed or captured and their towns are often destroyed. During the Revolutionary WAR when British troops first landed in Boston, they burnt down more than 600 homes of civilians and took hundreds of prisoners." Have you ever heard of the song "Europa" by Globus? It describes warfare through history, though focusing on European warfare. Part of the lyrics go:
 * "From Agincourt to Waterloo/Poitiers and then Anjou/The Roses War, the Hundred Years/Through battlefields of blood and tears/
 * From Bosworth Field to Pointe Du Hoc/Stalingrad and the siege of York/The bloody turf of Gallipoli/Had no effect on the killing spree
 * Bannockburn to Austerlitz/The fall of France and the German Blitz/The cruelest of atrocities/Europa's blood is borne of these" Dimadick (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Very informative. All in all, Washington was caught up in a war. Actions against the Iroquois were prompted by massacres and repeated attacks toward colonial Americans. Still, Washington's final aim was peace, regardless of the retalitory events that occurred after the massacres and repeated attacks at the hand of the Iroquois. This is the context that is typically ignored by the 'Friends of America' crowd. Fortunately our biography here doesn't skip over this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is important to allow the readers of this article to make their own decisions concerning Washington and Indians. Total war is an agressive strategy and Washington was a general. It was a destructive policy, but, I don't think it falls in the relm of "extermination", "genocide", or "ethnic cleansing". Possibly by today's standards it does. Washington had no problem killing British troops or Hessian soldiers. Washington had no problem killing French soldiers during the French and Indian war.  But we can't apply modern standards for Washington's lifetime. There would need to be some record of Washington saying "no quarter" or "extermination". I don't have any issues addressing slavery or Indian campaigns in the lede section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once the facts are presented there's really not much room for 'interpretation'. And bear in mind by "today's standards", there are some who view spanking, as "child beating". This is what happens when society lives a very sheltered and complacent life style. Anything outside that existence is often horrific to them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

editbreak
Just noticing an addition to the lede, 3d paragraph, comment about war against Northwest Indians and British allies and cession of Northwest Territory. No doubt a momentous event, but without a specific connection to GW, query the pertinence in his lead. Hoppyh (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This came in the wake of someone complaining about the article being too "Euro-centric". It's sort of like claiming that the History of Japan article is too Japan-centric. Anyway, I had reservations about this lede statement. It's the only statement that alludes to a battle (the name and link of which I removed, per due weight). If you want to remove this from the lede I have no complaints. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Where his lead is concerned, GW must not only be first in war, first in peace etc....he must be first in the hearts of his editors. We have no more business making GW less eurocentric than we do making him more abolitionist. He is who he is. IMO, We would be wise to amend this when FA nom is made. Hoppyh (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. We just add what the sources say, not cherry pick and/or ignore certain facts and context. If this renders the article "euro-centric" in the eyes of some, we should not appease them by fishing around for things to cherry pick out of context that might change the tone of a given topic because of that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"We have no more business making GW less eurocentric" Wrong, actually. Per WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective, we must give a global perspective to our articles. "This task force works to ensure that global perspectives are represented in key articles. As the community has often noted, Wikipedia has a systemic Western, 1st world bias due to the demographic of its editors. (Researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute have shown that both coverage and participation are strikingly geographically concentrated on Wikipedia.) This task force works to counteract that bias by identifying articles where adding coverage of global perspective is relevant and would bring needed balance." Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I submit in support of my statement above that a biography (particularly an FA) must present the subject with NPOV. The attempt to give any perspective to a subject is limited by the accurate portrayal of them, which includes their biases and eccentricities, as evidenced by their own words or actions, as well as the contemporaneous words, actions and events in the lives of the people the subject represents, by oath or otherwise. Hoppyh (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Fallen Timbers
I restored my edit. Context was removed. Also, as explained in edit history, the Battle of Fallen Timbers was the only battle mentioned in the lede. This poses an undue weight issue, esp since you added a link to it (we're keeping links to a minimum in the lede), and because there are many battles, much more famous, not mentioned in the lede. If you think the word "hostile" is not quite neutral, regardless if it's a fact, I won't object if it's removed so long as we're covering the event in context in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. This article had another neutrality tag. Why not simply state there was a battle and the Indians lost, without the word "hostile" before Indians? The Battle of Fallen timbers Led to a cession of much of the Ohio Country. That is not important ? That would be considered an achievement of the Washington administration, but that is deleted from the lede. It is just not imporatant. How can editors work this article when something that does not meet your approval is deleted or reverted ? Can other editors express their opinions ? I am not trying to stir the pot, but everytime I have edited, I have always asked will Gwillhickers approve. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't help that. I provide 'reasons' for my edits in edit history. I added something, you changed it. Then you complain when I change it back. The idea of 'hostile' is important context. Maybe we should also mention and link to the various massacres, and mention that at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the Indians executed many by ritualistically burning them alive. We could also mention that they took dirt and stuffed it in the mouths of the American dead as some sort of symbolic gesture. Or we can just mention that the Indians were hostile. As soon as you stop making your usual and accusatory inferences we can get back to talking about article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The only article improvement, in my opinion, is to get George Washington to FA status. Editors, including yourself, should be able to edit freely without approval from another editor. I had added total war but that was taken out. We can't just overlook the concerns of other editors and just call them fringe because we disagree with their opinions. No one is saying the Indians were pacifists, and probably at times, they were a bit more barbaric than the European Americans. The Indians were trying to protect their lands from an American take over. That might explain the hostilities of the battles. The Indians lost. No one is saying Washington is the bad guy. The article should just say what took place. Let the reader make judgments concerning Washington. The article should not justify Washington's actions, nor condemn them. I am all for working together, when a little more freedom is allowed in the editing. I don't think the article should mention "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", or "extermination" concerning Washington. I am in agreement with you Gwillhickers. But I do think editors should be allowed to express their opinions in the article freely. I am all for getting back to work on the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, the opinions of editors has no place in an article, certainly of GA or FA status. Opinions of RS biographers, yes, specifically attributed. Hoppyh (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hoppyh. I was referring to opinions expressed by editors in the talk page, not the article. The freedom to express opinions by editors in the talk page without retribution from other editors. Editors, supported by reliable sources, should be able to boldly and neutrally edit, without retribution from editors, or feel that their edits need the approval of a lead editor or editor(s), before their edits are made. The opinions of editors should not be in the article. Disputes of article content should be settled by editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was sure you meant that. I also am sure you know, as does, that the exchanges between editors really need to be focused on the content and not the contributor. I understand both of your strong desires here to have all your reliably sourced material included; I have been in your positions of disagreement with other editors, trying to get an article upgraded. Problem is that as long as that is going on, there is little hope of an upgrade for the article. I made the personal decision to offer my changes, make the case for them, but then to move on if they weren’t agreed to. I decided to defer to the opposing editors, in just the same way I would to an FA reviewer, who stands between the article and the desired upgrade, as long as their position is not flatly in violation of WP rules. I can always come back after the upgrade with proposals of change which are different but will not endanger the rating. I have had instances in which I have deferred to both of you in this current effort without persisting. I hope you two can reach a similar attitude so that everyone’s work will be rewarded, and the benefit to our true history will be realized. I understand the “lead” editor frustration, because I have been on both ends of that. Truth of the matter is that, when all is said and done, that really is a myth. If we are honest with ourselves, it’s really just the battle of wills, mine and the others’. We each have our individual “truth” for the article, and there’s no right and wrong, just the option waiting to give all the hard work the chance to be shared at a greater level with the higher rating. For me, the only way for it to work in a productive and enjoyable way, is for me to put the article first. Hang in there pals, and thanks for all your hard work. Hoppyh (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hoppyh, thanks for your patience and your up-beat attitude. It's my belief that so long as we stick to the facts, don't cherry pick or ignore other facts, we will get to where we are going. If we have the facts on our side we can get past any hurdles that are put in front of us, esp during the FA nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777, would you kindly stop accusing me of "controlling the article" or having to need my "approval", etc. The greater bulk of your contributions to this article are as you've added them, save an occasional grammar tweak, etc from other editors. My contention was context, per reliable sources. When I change your edits I explain in edit history and most often I try to discuss the issue here at Talk. On several occasions I've tried to discuss an edit of yours rather than revert or change it, and still you, typically, turn the discussion around and start in with your "approval", "editor control", routine. You make it difficult not to address the editor rather than discussing the contributions. Yes, no one is saying that the article says Washington is the "bad guy", but twice now we've had editors come here and say exactly that in so many ugly words. This is why it's important to add context to the narrative, esp where controversial topics are covered, as we are definitely up against many modern day stigmas many young or naive people have been saddled with over the years. I can't make it any more clearer than that.


 * We need to provide the context covering what prompted conflicts and wars with Indians. We could link to all sorts of episodes, but as I said, I am content in most cases to relate the idea in simpler terms, e.g.Hostile Indians, but apparently you've taken exception to even that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. I am all for context in the article and to present Washington in a neutral fashion. Do we really want anymore neutrality tags before any FA review ? My count is that there have been two neutrality tags on the article. We don't have to agree with other editors, but I believe they have a right to express their sincere concerns of the article in the talk page. I personally believe a little criticism of Washington strengthens the article's reliablity. At the same time I don't believe there should be reactionary terms such as "extermination", "ethnic cleansing", or "genocide". To a certain extent I think the article has addressed slavery, Indian wars, and land aquisition. Those could be controversial subjects. I think Washington was foremost a general, and not always a "nice guy", probably had a temper, but that seems to be part of the job. Successful generals have to be aggressive. But those are just my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was really only one tag added, by someone who imo had some serious misconceptions about Washington's dealings with the Indians. I removed it and added one to the section instead, which I also removed a day later. The best way to maintain neutrality is simply to stick to the facts, per relaiable sources and not ignore context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. Both Eshaparvathi and Graham Beards, I believe, put up neutrality tags. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're correct, GB added the tag and withdrew it the same day. However, both these individuals revealed flagrant and rather obtuse biases, so I'm not really that concerned about the actual substance of their claims. In spite of our usual contentious discussions, we seem to be doing alright in the long run. Was there something specific in terms of neutrality you were getting at? - Gwillhickers (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Specific neutrality concerns could be slavery, Indian wars, and land investments. One concern would be the land investments. How much land did Washington actually own, and how far west did his land extention go, possibly Kentucky ? There is also the issue of inherant British or Canadian antagonism against Washington. GB express anti-Washington opinions and apparently or possible expressed the British view of Washington. Washington himself held anti-British views of the British. And it has been over 218 years since Washington's death, and there still seems to be some antagonism. I think the British view the ARW as a type of Vietnam War of the 18th Century. I don't think Washington is mentioned much in British or Canadian history even today. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Specific neutrality concerns could be..." Could be?  The talk page is not the place to wonder about how Washington is covered in other ares of history. Once again, could you please talk in terms of specifics? This has been requested over and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality issues or concerns
Since this article has been tagged for neutrality issues, a few times, and editors have been editing to get George Washington to Featured Article, are there any neutrality issues that need addressing for the article ? This is the time to place any remaining concerns. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Both tags were made by editors with flagrant biases and who harbored some serious misconceptions not at all consistent with reliable sources, so once again, we should only heed comments by objective editors with no axe to grind. This article has never been tagged by an objective and neutral editor. Once again one tag was added and removed by the same editor in the same day. Why don't you simply go to their talk pages and ask them for support? If you feel there is a genuine neutrality issue with one or more of the sections then you should tag them, and then try to explain your action, in terms of specifics, here in Talk. At this point I have little desire to nominate the article. The readers don't need the gold star, only some editors place a high value on this icon. Take the Ulysses S. Grant article, it was FA approved and since then we've added dozens of missing and major details, not to mention all the context it was missing. There are no qualifications for FA reviewers, and too often it shows. That is the unfortunate truth.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not ask for a lecture. I asked whether there are neutrality issues. I take then Gwillhickers, that your answer is no ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is talk is to allow editors to express grievences now, not in a future FA review. Please allow other editors to comment. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't infer that I control the article. You're putting the cart before the horse. The article has never been tagged by an objective and neutral editor with no axe to grind. If and when that happens, we can talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I made no specific references of you Gwillhickers controlling the article. In the interest of the article, I have refrained from doing so. I respect your opinions in the talk page. I just want editors to respond. We have given the opportunity to do so. I believe this will help in a future FA review. This is their chance to respond. I struck my comments. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Article narration length issues
Are there any areas of the article that have narration length issues ? In my opinion, the Final days section can be reduced. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length" -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I asked whether there was any narration length issues. That was an issue brought up by the last failed FA review. I take then Gwillhickers your answer is no ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is talk is to allow editors to express grievences now, not in a future FA review. Please allow other editors to comment. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, please don't infer that I control the article. It's been almost two months since the failed nomination. During this time we have only heard comments from two editors with serious bias issues. You seem to place a lot of stock in their views as you keep referring back to them. That is your privilege. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I struck my comments. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

British and/or Canadian views of George Washington
Since both British and Canadian readers share Wikipedia English, is there any inherent historical bias against George Washington in either Great Britain or Canada ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We should only be interested in the facts, per reliable sources. If you want to go hunting around picking at sources to satisfy some editor's acute bias, please make sure anything you manage to find is factual and not presented out of context. If someone is uncomfortable with the facts that's simply too bad. Still, nothing specific has been brought to the table. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not hunting around for anything Gwillhickers. I just asked a question. We have to allow editors make comments. This and the other two talk sections were brought up to allow editors the chance to make comments. This is their opportunity. So when a future FA review comes up, we can say we have given editors a chance to respond. Grievences should be expressed now, not at the FA review. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is talk is to allow editors to express grievences now, not in a future FA review. Please allow other editors to comment. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Still more veiled accusations. Once again, please don't infer that I control the article. It would seem editors have every right to express reservations, esp when there has been several good reasons to do so. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments struck. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cm', appreciate the gesture. We have gone the distance. If there are genuine neutrality issues presented to us you and I will be among the first to square them, as we've always done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. As long as we give opportunity to respond, that is what counts. That is why I started these talks. Before the article is submitted to FA review, this is the time to express any concerns. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Table of Contents
IMO, Personal life should be between Retirement and Final days. Hoppyh (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Religion and Slavery are important enough to be their own sections, as Slavery was already its own section. Personal life is its own section and was included with portraits of Washington and his family. There just was too much information between Presidency and Retirement. I believe Retirement and Final days should remain together. Editors are free to make changes. My edits are not set in stone. I had made no changes to the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hoppyh — thanks for trying to discuss this before making yet another change in the TOC. As a better move, imo, Personal life should be covered early on in the biography, after Early years. This way the readers have a better understanding of the person before they read along through the other sections.
 * Cmguy777 — I am in partial agreement. There is much information between Presidency and Retirement, but where else are we going to cover Slavery and Religion? Last?  In any case, Personal life shouldn't be covered last. It is not a closing topic to any biography, as was pointed out before. Retirement and Final days is covered last in nearly all the noted biographies. I placed the Personal life section after Early years, as the readers should know the personal basics about Washington the person before they venture off into the other sections. Much of the info in the Personal life section pertains to Washington's early years. At least now Personal life isn't between Presidency and Retirement. This seems like the most practical arrangement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that Gwillhickers. Can the Religion... section be moved to another place ? That would leave Slavery in a good spot. It would fit right in with Washington's 1799 will in the Retirement section. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Some topics are involved throughout most of Washington's life with no 'perfect' place to put the sections covering them, but the TOC arrangement now looks like the best it's going to get, finally. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the article structure the way it is now. Some sections could use streamlining, in my opinion Religion... and Final days and Slavery, without removing content. Editors have had their chance on neutrality concerns. There is an instance of Washington's temper, in that Hamilton could not work with him anymore during the Revolutionary War. I think that would be a good addition. More could be mentioned on his land ownership. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Gallery
Is the present format of paintings, presented in sort of a decorative arrangement, the best way to display these items, given the depth of the section and large areas of white space? Also, I'm wondering if the rather large number of paintings is going to present an issue sometime in the future. We might want to consider reducing the number of paintings a bit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I used the gallery format. Are you suggesting reducing the photos but making them larger ? The five photos of his family should remain intact. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The rows of paintings sometimes becomes staggered, depending on how wide your browser window is. When I view WP, I reduce the width of my window on my wide screen monitor, because I don't like to have to turn my head back and forth when I read the long rows of sentences. In any case, I thought that too many paintings in a biography might present issues. I edited the gallery to show you what I had in mind. I added a link to all Washington's portraits. I also reduced the technical info in some of the images, as this info can be found in the summary of any given image. Go ahead and revert or change if you like, as I've no strong opinions on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's nice, Gwillhickers. Now, sit down for the shock--I'm going to suggest ADDING something! :0 I noticed the Purple Heart stamp isn't in the stamp gallery, and then I noticed there's no mention of the Purple Heart anywhere in the article. Shouldn't it be included? Also, the last stamp shown came out before most readers were born; shouldn't the 1982 issue be added? YoPienso (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Purple Heart stamp was issued in 2011, after 1974, which means it's not in the public domain and can't be used here at WP unless a fair use license is granted. As for the Purple Heart medal itself, this was actually a take off of the Badge of Military Merit, which Washington did award to very few soldiers. I've no problem about covering this in a appropriate section, hopefully presented in the context of the narrative, not just as a stand alone isolated statement, per sources, of course. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 👍 YoPienso (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, we would be well served for the FA nom by incorporating images into the text without crowding, and otherwise linking to the commons gallery for GW. I also think one stamp and one currency item would suffice. Hoppyh (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

checking references....

 * checked 1-27. Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * checked 28-33. There might be ref "purity" issues for some reviewers with refs #28 & #32. Shearonink (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 34 is broken. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * fixed 34. Gee thx everyone. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx for fixing that ref. Btw - there are now 15 left. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

38 80 83 122 128 135 151 152 155 237 251 305 316 338 360 Graham Beards (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These are the broken sfns:
 * Thx . Shearonink (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * & : some help on these refs please? sfn's are still a mess, especially authors with multiple books like Chernow and Ferling. I've checked/fixing 1-80. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 38. Chernow. Which Chernow?!? Shearonink (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 237. this + this = broken. The syntax for sfn/cite-web is very tricky - see: Template:Sfn, Template:Sfn, Template:Sfn etc. Signing off - Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 237 technically fails verification. Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Chernow 2010 Washington A Life Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — We just went through a major deletion session than needed tending to, and discussion, so now that we're hopefully done with these distractions I can turn my attention towards the sources. I've fixed many dozens of cites in the recent past, so I know it's a tedious and often difficult job. Many thanks to the editors who are doing the tough jobs here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * — Citations 8 80 83 122 128 135 151 152 155 237 251 305 316 338  -- there was nothing wrong with cite 360, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Citations 38, 303, 313, are broken and 80 and 83 have not been fixed btw --Graham Beards (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 38. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 303. Which Ferling? Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 313. Fixed. Almost. But  Which  FLEXNER. There is no "Flexner 1969". Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I am going to say this once. Please leave 80 & 83 ALONE. At one point their tricky syntax worked and - though a seeming exception to the usually-seen style - did follow the Template:Sfn guidelines. I am going to try to fix them now, discuss here before any possible future changes. Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 80. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 83. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There is some kind of Sfnm problem going on, shows up in the Preview Window. Will be trying to fix. Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

— cites 303 and 313 Re: cite 313, the version of Flexner, Anguish and farewell, I own was published in 1969. Should have checked the bibliography here first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx . Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind running your ref tool/ref search to see if we've missed anything? Shearonink (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes of course I will do it in the morning, UK time Graham Beards (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx. Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Citations 339 and 361 are now broken. Graham Beards (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 339.
 * 361. Which Chernow.
 * Thx . (fyi - just checked time/date stamps on 339 & 361 - they've both been in the article since July, so maybe not "now"...) So, is the article now (almost) free & clear of broken refs? - sure hope so. Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am just getting an issue with 361. That's all., Graham Beards (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since that's one I cannot fix (don't know which Chernow is being referred to), will have to wait for Gwillhickers. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — With the exception of two Chernow cites, all other Chernow cites are using Chernow, 2010. The Chernow 2004 2005 publication is the Alexander Hamilton biography. [Add :] The citations and source listings were corrected for Chernow's Hamilton biography. The cites were consistent with the source listing, and linked up, but the URL linked to a 2005 publication. Am not sure if this is the only printing. (I don't own this particular work). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx . Shearonink (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

References - discuss all edits to "{{sfnRef|" -style Refs here before any changes
Please leave the following refs ALONE. Discuss any possible changes to: "{{sfnRef|" -style Refs - as found in Online sources here before any possible future changes. Thx. Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 31 - George Washington's Aggressive Real Estate Investment
 * 79/82 - George Washington and Religion
 * 98 - Ten Facts About Washington & Slavery
 * 326 - Slave Control
 * Comment: due to a few consolidations of citations these numbers have changed.  e.g. ref 100 is now 98. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx, now corrected & updated. Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of slaves + a request
From "Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association":


 * Sources offer differing insight into Washington's behavior as a slave owner. On one end of the spectrum, Richard Parkinson, an Englishman who lived near Mount Vernon, once reported that "it was the sense of all his [Washington's] neighbors that he treated [his slaves] with more severity than any other man."


 * Conversely, a foreign visitor traveling in America once recorded that George Washington dealt with the people he enslaved "far more humanely than do his fellow citizens of Virginia."


 * What is clear is that Washington frequently utilized harsh punishment against the enslaved population, including whippings and the threat of particularly taxing work assignments. Perhaps most severely, Washington could sell a slave to a buyer in the West Indies, ensuring that the person would never see their family or friends at Mount Vernon again. Washington conducted such sales on several occasions.

So text was changed from:
 * Washington allowed punishments by his overseers of both male and female slaves for idleness, stealing or fighting, that included whippings, banishments from Mount Vernon, shipped to the West Indies, and difficult work tasks.

to
 * Though he allowed whippings of both male and female slaves for idleness, stealing or fighting, Washington opposed severe punishment, and discouraged excessive discipline by White and Black slave overseers.

And then there is this article @ MVLA's digital encyclopedia on Slave Control.
 * Violent coercive measures were used as well, including whippings and beatings. In some instances, physical restraints were utilized to ensure that slaves would not run away. When Tom, the slave foreman at River Farm, was sold in the West Indies in 1766 as a punishment for being "both a Rogue & Runaway," Washington wrote to the ship's captain to "keep him handcuffd till you get to Sea."

So. What exactly was wrong with the previous wording? Was it incorrect? Was it not supported by the sources?... I've added a pertinent source but left the present wording so interested editors can discuss. Shearonink (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also. I had to go through and fix "Sfnm" ref issues. Please check your ref-edits before you publish. Shearonink (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried to make the wording in the slavery section stronger, not out to make Washington a bad guy, but just state the facts. What makes Washington different is that he was fighting a war for Independence from Great Britian, for representation, for freedom. Washington finally freed his slaves in his will. That needs to be stressed too, but I really believe we need to just state what took place at Mount Vernon, without judgement. I don't believe that Shearonink's wording was wrong. There is a certain editor that, in my opinion, is putting in defensive speech, rather than just the facts. But I don't want this to get personal. It is afterall a Wikipedia article. The slavery section might be the most controversial section of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As a controversial subject it is extremely important that we provide factual and well sourced context, which I have endeavored to include, lest we permit modern day stigmas to dictate the tone of the narrative to any biased and/or naive reader that happens along. We mention whippings, but in the context of Washington's mandate to overseers that written permission was needed, and only after the given slave in question had been warned. Washington didn't separate families without their consent. Repeat, their consent. He supported many more slaves than he needed. These things should clue us into the the measure and frequency that whippings and other forms of discipline were administered. I have some reservations about the Mount Vernon sources we're using, as no writer's name is given, and some of their statements are too general, leaving much to be assumed for individuals inclined to do so. If their account differs or is less definitive than those of noted biographers, such as Weincek, Flexner, Ferling, Chernow and others, then we would be better off without yet another website source — this one in the public eye. In any case, the section seems to include most of the important details regarding Washington and slavery, and has plenty of context. and  have done an excellent job in some of the rewording and reduction of some of the grammar, without removing a single shred of context! Well done, and many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ,,  I think all of us just need to just stew in the present version for a bit. Is it exactly how any of us would word it? Probably not. Can we live with it? Yeah... probably so. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that there is always room for improvement, extra context, etc, no one editor is ever going to be 100% happy. After reconsideration I restored the prior opening sentence, (Washington didn't have to 'adopt' slavery, he accepted it from the beginning) but yes, overall I am comfortable with the section, which now has more than adequate coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the section could be worded stronger, bearing in mind a potential FA review. Something should be mentioned about Washington burning his old 1775 will and choosing his 1799 abolition will. Telling how brutal slavery actually was at Mount Vernon makes his 1799 will more important. It was his last official final act choosing to free his slaves, when he had a choice to keep them. I am willing to keep the compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the conflicting provisions of the later 1799 will, once probated, effectively nullified the terms of the 1775 will, without the need for its physical destruction. I have nevertheless left the bedside destruction in, with that in mind.Hoppyh (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, the “burning” of the old will is a distraction, i.e. the reader is impelled to ask, How does a person burn up something on their deathbed? I understand the need for accuracy but the obsession with too much detail, here at the very least, is sending the FA nom of this article up into flames. Again, I suggest using “destroy” in lieu of burn.Hoppyh (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Punishment

 * "brutal slavery" is the sort of obtuse and distorted notion we add context to the narrative for, so the ignorant reader won't assume the extreme worst. However, there's not much we can do for the biased and disgruntled individual, regardless of the facts, unfortunately. I am once again reminded why we may need even more context now. As was just demonstrated, we can't rely on general statements. We should make efforts to find out how often whippings occurred and in what fashion. Given all the considerations Washington extended to slaves, asking for their consent to split up families, supporting so many of them when they were not needed, giving warnings to first offenders, personally attending to the sick, plenty of time off, etc, I think it's safe to assume that when a slave was whipped he/she wasn't tied to a wagon wheel and whipped to a bloody pulp, or anything near to this. There are accounts for Thomas Jefferson's slaves, who were switched on the hind-quarters and legs when "whipped", which was the standard procedure if you wanted a slave to continue working, while not creating extreme fear and resentment among the other slaves, encouraging runaways. I am now convinced that we need to make clear in the narrative how often and in what capacity whippings occurred. Under Jefferson whippings were extremely rare and far from "brutal". Given the context of Washington's efforts, it would seem the same holds true, but we'll need sources for this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillickers. This is what I am talking about defensive speech. I used two words "brutal slavery" and it invoked a response. By the way, I am not for putting in the article that slavery was brutal. Editors should have a certain amount of expression in a talk page. This article Gwillhickers is not a justification for slavery nor a condemation of slavery. Whipping was a brutal process as well as shackling. Is defending slavery more important than getting Washington to FA? And remember Gwillhickers, Washingtion set his slaves free in his will after the death of his wife. Are you saying Washington is defending slavery ? Gwillhickers, you can have your pro slavery opinions, but the George Washington article is not a place to express them. Why is there this need to defend slavery ? Washington being a slave owner does not affect his reputation. Historians still consider him a top President. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is an online source : The Brutality of Slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Insert : — The article didn't mention Washington. Did you even read it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * William Byrd II was considered to have been a brutal slave master. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Insert : — You're reaching, desperately. Byrd was obviously a demented English psychopath and something of a sadist, who died long before the revolution. This is not the Bryd biography. Originally you mentioned "brutal slavery" — at Mt. Vernon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Pro slavery"?? "Defend slavery"?? All along I've only added or asserted context, from reliable sources, to keep in check the bias, narrow and ignorant opinions, and the sort of underhanded accusations you just deposited here on the Talk page, as was explained, several times. . For some reason this drives you right up the wall — you just recited my user name four times. Once again you demonstrate the invective you are inclined to use to support arguments you typically fail to make. Go jump in a lake. -- Gwillhickers (talk}


 * Whippings were considered brutal in the article and Washington allowed whippings of both male and female slaves. Are you keeping out the bias of "narrow and ignorant opinions" of others Gwillhickers, only to insert your own enlightened opinions. Nowhere in the article does it say slavery at Mount Vernon was brutal. Putting people in shackles is brutal. Are you saying that a slave being whipped at Mount Vernon hurt less than a slave whipped at another plantation ? Bryd was not an exception to the norm. Ferling even records Washington saying "give him a good whipping." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Insert : — Yes a "good whipping", an expression, could mean more than an above average whipping -- I doubt Washington meant to whip the slave in question into a bloody frenzy. You seem to be attempting to interpret the distant past with modern day stigmas. This is called Presentism, something that's practiced by some modern day historians and by those who write for website sources in simplistic terms for a naive audience with a five minute attention span. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article I mentioned does not mention Washington specifically but the Slave Control article does. Whippings, beatings, and shackling took place at Mount Vernon. Would not those fall into the category of brutality ? Does a specific source have to say Washington was a brutal slave master. His neighbors thought he was. But again. All the article needs to say is what took place at Mount Vernon, without judgement. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Only sourced information goes into the article. You are entitled to your opinion, that Washington practiced "brutality" at Mt. Vernon, I am entitled to mine, that his disciple was measured and not excessive, even with the "whippings", which remains a sketchy idea, as we don't know to what degree these were administered, and apparently you don't want to know. I am not "pro slavery" for wanting to qualify these ideas, so please keep your accusations to yourself in the future. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

General comment on neutrality
If a person in history does ten good deeds, and one not so good deed, we cover all the deeds. "Neutrality" isn't achieved by covering one bad deed, and only one good deed, ignoring the other nine good deeds. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No good deed goes unpunished Hoppyh (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Slavery section neutrality
It is impossible to work on this article when edits are controlled. Critical information is automatically deleted. Only good information is kept. Ona Judge information removed. Opposition to "negative tone". Neutrality issues are keeping Washington away from FA. I believe other editors are afraid to edit on this article. Watched like a hawk. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel this discussion has been going on in circles for quite a while. Arguments concerning how to interprete this particular slave owner's activities in comparison to other slave owners, and whether to portray him positively or negatively. No new sources have been introduced here, and I don't see much progress on the matter. Should we stop flogging the dead horse? Dimadick (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respond to this talk page concerning neutrality and slavery. Starting a new talk only disrupts the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a specific purpose to not allow good faith edits to get Washington to FA and to purposely disrupt good faith edits. There is a strong pro-slavery tone to the the slavery section. Any critical assessment is thrown out. Washington then becomes a god. Chernow 2010 covers Ona Judge, but that is thrown out. A neutral article allows critical and positive views of Washington. I just stated the facts on Ona Judge and used Chernow 2010 as a source reference. But the information was critical of Washington using his powers as President to capture a fugitive slave and that was thrown out. Also thrown out was Washington sending slaves to the West Indies. This article is not allowed to evolve into a Featured Article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Any critical assessment is thrown out"?? Nonsense.  Listen to yourself !  — We mention Washington owned many slaves, all his life, that he originally accepted slavery without question. We mention the whippings, esp in Washington's absence, and other disciplines We mention the selling of his slave "Tom" to work in the Caribbean. We mention that his neighbors thought "...he treated them (slaves) with more severity than any other man."  We also mention that "Washington shared prevailing slaveholder views that slaves were ignorant and dishonest." We also mention his slaves were poorly housed and poorly clothed. We also have Ferling's comment about Washington atoning for slavery.  Are we awake today?   Again, anytime something positive or contextual was added we have to listen to your "defending Washington" notions. And now you've tagged the section and we have to listen to your notions about making Washington into a god. For 'some reason' you're unhappy that there are so many contextual or positive things, well sourced, to say about Washington and his dealings with slaves. The section is neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am the one who added positive information of Washington using money to keep slaves working and other less extreme measures. That was kept. What was pulled was Ona Judge sourced by Chernow. My language was very neutral. Chernow said Washington was "cold hearted" and abused his presidential powers. I just stated the facts without the opinion and even that was pulled out of the article. Everytime it is mentioned that Washington on more than one occasion sent slaves to the West Indies it is pulled. The one example is said without any context and sounds as if Washington did that just one time. And Washington did seperate slave family when he went to Philidelphia. The neutrality issue also has do with the freedom to edit on the article. Making any changes to get the article to FA. But that process is constantly disrupted. Edits are quickly pulled, not allowed to gain any traction. That is a hostile editing environment. It really is the hostility, not just the content, that is in dispute. Being watched like a hawk for every edit in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't talk to me about hostility after all the accusations you've levied here, as well as on other Talk pages. The article is neutral. (Add :) Washington brought slaves to Philadelphia is an exception to the overall rule he didn't split up families without their consent, and we don't know if he didn't get consent in the first place It would seem the slaves in question would rather live in a presidential mansion anyway. He set some of those slaves free before returning to Mt. Vernon, btw. I have every right to watch the article "like a hawk" given some of the comments and attempts made on the article recently. Your assessments can't be relied on. You said "Any critical assessment is thrown out", which is a flat out falsehood. You claimed Chernow said Washington was cold hearted. Is this what you want to add to the article for "neutrality"? I could come up with a dozen quotes from other biographers that say otherwise. Now what? Can we cool off and move on please? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I had left that part out of my edit on Ona Judge. My edit never called Washington cold hearted. And there really is no explanation for the removal of the Ona Judge information. That was the main reason why I put up the neutrality tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and restore the prgh about Ona Judge. This time get Chernow's SFN citation right. Page numbers didn't come through before. The section was still neutral before. You shouldn't have tagged the section out of anger my friend. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I readded the information. The section was not neutral. It was not tagged out of anger. Never Caught: The Washingtons' Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge Erica Armstrong Dunbar (2017) A book was written on the subject. All any editors want is the freedom to edit without being "watched like a hawk". All the slavery section needs to do is highlight certain areas of Washington's life that concerned slavery. I can remove the neutrality tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out with numerous examples, the section was neutral. Before adding the Ona Judge topic you even said you could live with the compromise. Removing the details about this one topic, among many dozens of topics about slavery, did not tip the neutrality scale to the point of non-neutrality. The article needs to be watched like a hawk. Esp the slavery section, which involves a controversial subject that some individuals look at through a (very) narrow lens. You watch the section no less than anyone else and have made more than your fair share of major edits to the section. If some individuals had their way they would suppress all context to advance the typical and rather narrow POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Final days section reduced
I reduced the final days section; the article is now at 98k readable prose. Feel free to revert. It is not set in stone. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well. I'm going to let the present version sit for awhile without touching it but I'll confess I'm not fond of the changes. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're going to really start whacking away at content a lot of the blow-by-blow Rev War battle coverage seems a bit long to me. But whatever. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How else can one reduce the article size ? Adding information ? There was no whacking information. I preserved the original version in the talk page. By all means reduce the Rev War section. I won't accuse you of whacking information. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * whatever. am taking a break. have at it. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unbeliebavle. Cmguy777 — We are in the middle of a discussion about the slavery section and now this? Feel free to revert? Thank you so much. I did. Please discuss major changes first. The stability of the article is being threatened with these antics and could very well result in the GA status being revoked. You are driving away editors. Please stop it! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. Stop bossing me around. Even Shearonink was going to give me a chance. You are threatening the stablity of this article, by being resistant to change. Why don't you just admit you are the controlling editor. The article is all yours. You are going to try to get a bloated article to FA. The articles stability was already in question. I was adding stability to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This section, like others, is far too detailed IMO and I disagree with the revert. The need for prior discussion applies equally to reverts, and the summary section for edit explanation is not the place for messages. These actions should be avoided, as evidence of improper ownership of the article content per WP:OWN. The absence of compromise makes the effort here fruitless, so I will leave this to you all again. I do hope you will find a way to put the article ahead of your own preferences, and wish you the best in that effort should you make it. Cheers. Hoppyh (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the effort to reduce article size to get to FA ? It is only focused on the Slavery section. Editors can work independently of talk sections. It is not a requirement to start talk pages for edits, talks that seldom go anywhere. Article reduction was mentioned in the last FA review. I was only going be the last FA review. I had previously started a talk on article length issues: Article length issues. When editors choose not to respond, that does not bar editing by editors. I got the article to 97 kbs. The talk on slavery was one sided and was not going anywhere. The article did not pass FA at 98 kbs. The content was left in the Last days section. Hoppyh even says it is far too detailed. My concern is that the edits were reverted so quickly. How else can one reduce article size without reducing narration. I kept the narration on Washington. I added the modern diagnosis in a note. Was there a need for a subsection on the matter? Was there a need for four photos ? Was there a need for a subjection on the burial ? I had just combined the sections. My edit was done in good faith to reduce article size. In non controversial sections I think there is more room to edit the details. My edits reduced article size by over 4 kbs and some of that was the photo removal. Gwillhickers had mentioned that the article was going to be nominated for FA again. That is why I made the edits. How can an article be nominated at 100 kbs when it was rejected at 98 kbs ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"Effort to reduce article size"? You just made three substantial additions to the slavery section. Also, your major changes were undiscussed. As an experienced editor you should know that major changes to Good and Featured articles are discussed first, for several reasons; one of which is common courtesy to editors who have given their time and effort to build the article. While we're all free to make edits, the article shouldn't be treated as your personal sketch pad. Also, many long articles have passed GA and FA nominations. If you want to reduce article size by removing secondary details, you can start with the stuff you just added to the slavery section. Condensed and generalized alternatives were even offered to you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. I had started a talk page Article length issues (30 July 2018) and I specifically mentioned the Last days section could be reduced. Editors were given the opportunity to make comments. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight
It would be nice to simply go forward with the nomination at this point, however we should not avoid issues for the sake of expediency. The slavery section is once again, very long and is posing undue weight issues. The section should only include general statements, and not highlight secondary episodes. The section says Washington accepted slavery without question–this is a general statement. It says Washington at times gave warnings and then would resort to whippings–a general statement. It says he personally cared for the sick–a general statement. It says he didn't split up families without their consent-a general statement. It says he left his slaves to Martha with a directive that they would be freed and looked after if needed–a general statement. It covers time off for slaves in general terms. All these statements, and most others, speak in general terms. Otoh, 'Ona Judge' and the slave named 'Tom' are the only topics that highlight specific individual slaves creating serious undue weight issues that very well could come up in an FA review, not to mention the issue of the very long section itself. Washington's personal slaves had nothing to do with the Revolution or with the direction his presidency took, yet slavery is given a much bigger section than even the Surrender at Yorktown–a landmark subject that decided the fate of the entire nation. To reduce length of this now very large section and to avoid undue weight issues, the following sentences should be reduced and generalized.


 * Current statement: — "Washington several times sent unruly slaves to the West Indies. In July 1766, his slave "Tom", "both a rogue and runaway", was captured and sold into hard labor in the harsh Caribbean sugarcane brakes." Condensed: — In case where slaves were unmanageable and unruly, they were sent to do hard work in the West Indies.


 * Current statement: — "To bypass Philadelphia's 1780 emancipation law, Washington, under advise from his Attorney General Randolph, had his Philadelphia president's house slaves secretly shipped across state lines prior to a six-month enslavement time limit and returned to Philadelphia. A 1788 amendment prevented this loop-hole, but Washington, who believed he was a federal worker, was not charged for violation of the state law. Unneeded — These two sentences are rather superfluous and only cover legalities and don't lend themselves to Washington's relationship with his slaves and the way he treated them, like mention of whippings, tending to the sick, etc do.


 * Current statement: — "In 1796, Washington ordered Secretary of Treasury Wolcott to capture fugitive slave Ona Judge, a dower Custis slave. Judge however, twice escaped capture, and refused to return to Mount Vernon, although she legally remained Martha's slave. Condensed: — When slaves ran away, Washington was earnest in his attempts to have them returned.

The slavery section is much too large and should only make generalized statements about Washington's relationship with his slaves. If these things can be corrected the section will be significantly shorter and only lend itself to general ideas, avoiding several undue weight issues involving specific individuals and episodes, while not effecting neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that these changes need to be made to restore the encyclopedic approach on the issue before an FA nom is anticipated. As a compromise, place the detail in the notes. The Religion etc. section may benefit from this approach as well. Hoppyh (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominate ? I thought it was agreed to keep information on Ona Judge. Information in the Last days section can be reduced. Removing information about Ona Judge would be, first going against the agreement to remove the neutrality tag, and second the condensed language only purpose is to protect Washington's reputation that does not need protecting. The article is in an encyclopedic approach. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The section has grown quite large, which poses another situation. This is a reconsideration that involves more than just Ona Judge. The idea of holding the section hostage with a neutrality tag unless you could include one of your edits seems a little beneath you — esp since coverage of this one episode didn't do anything to the overall neutrality of the section. However, this is only an appeal to you, in the hopes that you'll see why we should render the edits as I suggested and make the overall section smaller in the process. The condensed statements relate the same basic ideas about Washington as do the detailed statements, so there's no "defending Washington" here. (You need to kick that habit.) Besides, I just learned that Ona Judge was Martha's personal slave. The slavery section doesn't even mention Washington's slave Billy Lee, his personal valet and companion, the only slave he set free while Washington was alive, which the section does not, and should not, mention. Is Ona Judge more important than Billy Lee? We shouldn't give weight to any individual slaves. The section in itself has become an undue weight issue and should only cover general ideas about Washington's relationship with slaves in general. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, the detail can be in the notes while maintaining NPOV and establishing due weight. The section is unquestionably overdone, but an effort at compromise is in order. Put the detail about the individual slaves in the notes and move on. Direct yourselves to the content and not each other! Hoppyh (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, could do with some help working on Wehwalt's review... Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ona Judge was Martha's slave. Martha was the first lady and she was married to George Washington who used his power as President and the Department of Treasury to attempt to capture Ona Judge. That is why Ona Judge should be mentioned. And remember Gwillhickers you agreed to have her mentioned in the article. That agreement did not last long. "Go ahead and restore the prgh about Ona Judge." I got the information from Chernow 2010. Martha had no power on her own as first lady to capture Ona Judge. It was up to Washington. I agree that an article size of 95 is good. Now we are all interest in article size reduction. It's about time. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As was explained, given all the specific details about individual slaves, not to mention the legal stuff you've added, the section has become too large in terms of due weight, and a reconsideration is in order, and an appeal is being made to you now. The issue of due weight in regards to Ona Judge is an issue, esp since we are not mentioning Billy Lee, which Chernow and others also cover. i.e.Above you didn't express any concern over Lee. Only Judge, apparently because it only involves your edit. All we need to know is that Washington always made efforts to return runaway slaves. As Hoppyh suggested, a footnote on this would be okay. Also, we are concerned about due weight in the section. Article size is fine, esp since guidelines allows discretion for exceptional articles. As was also explained, our summary section on slavery should only lend itself to general ideas regarding Washington and slavery. Detailed coverage about Ona Judge or Billy Lee or legal details, in the main text of the section, doesn't improve the "neutrality" of our coverage of the general subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently its your article Gwillhickers. Why does my opinion matter ? Just put in whatever you want. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)