Talk:George Washington/Archive 39

Occupation - slave owner in info box
The info box gives "Occupation	Military officer politician". I tried to add slave owner, but this has been reverted. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Slave owner is not an occupation. See for the definition of occupation. Nerguy (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nerguy "An activity or task with which one occupies oneself; usually specifically the productive activity, service, trade, or craft for which one is regularly paid; a job." Slave ownership was what Washington occupied himself with, would you rather describe it as "farming with slave labour"?  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can add farmer. No need for the manner of farming. You wouldn't write for jimmy carter that he was "farming with tractors". Nerguy (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Drdpw what do you think? Nerguy (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nerguy I find your comparison of people with machinery deeply distasteful. His slaves were also used to run the White House and his other homes, and the management of them was his occupation. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 20:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Washington was a planter who relied on slave labor to produce crops. That is what should be said. Wikipedia talk page is not a forum to dehumanize black people as machines. I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * L'Origine du monde and Cmguy777 You are taking my statement out of context. I was not saying that black people are machines. Rather I was saying that slave labor is not the occupation itself, but the mode of doing the occupation. Nerguy (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Insert: Nerguy, your second statement is much better. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Slave owner" was not Washington's occupation; nor was it his profession. Do not add "slave owner" to the opening paragraph or the the infobox unless there is a consensus to do so. As your proposed edit could have broad implications for hundreds of other articles, I suggest that you start an Rfc. Drdpw (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement Washington was a planter. But he used forced labor, slaves, to make his crops. That should be mentioned somewhere in the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Washington used slave labor to produce crops, beer, and to work in his household. That is a simple statement of fact. I think would be a good compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph currently states: "" That is a succinct and accurate statement of fact, and is fine as is. Drdpw (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nerguy (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Washington had a brewery. Washington made beer too using slave labor. I believe making beer should be added too. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * can you elaborate? If you think this is important, it should be covered in some depth in the body of the article. Right now, it isn't. Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think its important to know how much Washington relied on slavery for his own prosperity. Beer "Throughout George Washington's life, beer was both made at Mount Vernon by enslaved workers and purchased for use at his table." mountvernon.org Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Field Labor "The majority of enslaved people at Mount Vernon were assigned to agricultural work on the plantation’s four outlying farms." mounternon.org Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Skilled Trades "In 1799, more than 50 enslaved men and women were trained in specific trades that kept parts of Mount Vernon’s operation self-sufficient." mountvernon.org Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Labor in the Mansion "A staff of enslaved butlers, housemaids, waiters, and cooks made the Washingtons’ lifestyle possible." mountvernon.org Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ten Facts About the Gristmill "The mill was operated by hired and enslaved millers." mountvernon.org Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Something like this can be added to the article: Washington used enslaved people for his distillery, gristmill, field labor, skilled trades, and household mansion labor. These were not Washington's occupations, but he certainly profited or materially benefited from forced slave labor that allowed him to live a "high-life" lifestyle. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The current statement is fine; no need to make it wordier. Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * His consistent occupation was exploiting slaves. Slave owner is the simplest way of putting it. "Planter", as had been said before, is a euphemism for this, something discouraged here. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "exploiting slaves" was not Washington's occupation. Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree Washington exploited his slaves. Being a slave owner is not an "occupation". But, yes, exploiting slaves was how he profiteered from forced labor. Washington also exploited Revolutionary veterans out of their promised land after the war. Do you have any source that says Washington's occupation was a "slave owner"? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am trying to come up with a compromise: "Washington worked enslaved people for his financial, material, and lifestyle benefit. Washington used enslaved people for his distillery, gristmill, field labor, skilled trades, and household mansion labor." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is "slave owner" not an occupation? Investor or mill owner is. That is a bit long for the info box! "Exploited enslaved people" would be more neutral. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Washington was a land speculator. That is true. He owned a millgrist too. I am not sure land speculator is an occupation. It could possibly be because of an exchange of money for land. I don't think Washington worked at the millgrist. He had slaves and workers to do that. Washingon owned people. That is ownership. Not an occupation. But he did exploit his slaves. Wikipedia needs sources. I used the term work. I could not find a source that says Washington exploited them. I have found in general historians are protective of Washington. I have supplied serveral sources above. Washington seemed to work slaves in every part of Mount Vernon and its four farms. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said Cmguy777.Nerguy (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than the infobox matter, regarding the way historical personalities should be introduced in general, I think that Wikipedia needs to reflect scholarly sources. Does any Washington biography (including the critical ones, of course), or noted scholarly publication that gives him considerable focus, introduces him as "slave owner"? At least a publication about slavery in the US, that includes a case study about him as a prominent slave owner (ie. his slave owning practices were exceptional, he was one of the biggest slave owners etc. not that he was a prominent slave owner because he was a slave owner who also happened to be a "President and Founding Father" etc.) ? I get the impression that Washington's relationship with his slaves and slavery attracts considerable scholarly attention, but I've never seen a serious scholar argue that this should be one of the "titles" that define him - in this case I think that a paragraph mentioning the matter in the lede is fair. Owning slaves is certainly immoral from our modern point of view, and some of his actions regarding his slaves (evading Pennsylvanian emancipation law) were really problematic, but if we are going to freely attach labels such as "rapists" to monarches who forced another royal/noble family to give their daughters to them, "human sacrifice practitioner and organizer" to Aztec leaders,.etc, Wikipedia's neutrality will be affected soon. Such labels should only be used in the cases scholars consider them prominent enough to use them themselves (ie. men who legally married 15-year-old wives in eras that permitted it should not be labelled "child rapists", but someone who committed an extraordinary act, was persecuted by his own society and labelled as such by scholars, should be defined as such).
 * Nowadays we tend to criticize "Great Men Theory", but when we choose to see certain prominent personalities as demons for sharing the contemporary society's vices, we obscure the fact that it was a social problem - it's just the reverse of the coin, when others try to give the achievements attained by many to a few individuals (in some cases, these individuals don't even play an active role, let alone a leading role, or contribute significantly, in such movements). Imho, good leaders tend to make a difference and exceptionally horrible individuals also make a difference, but there should always be moderation and balance in assessment. Deamonpen (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe Washington was a prominent Virginian slave owner. Washington was fighting the "tyranny" of George III but enslaved hundreds of people. That is a contradiction. Slaves could not vote, nor were they represented in Congress. They were not taxed, but they were slaves for life, and Washington owned their children. I don't think historians adequately address this issue. Washington was a harsh slave owner too. He approved of a female slave being whipped merely for complaining to an overseer. I am just trying to work a compromise in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see some sources that list Washington as one of the richest presidents. Slavery undoubtedly contributed to that. But even if historians inadequately connect these issues (from our point of view), I would like to see such a label being backed by one or two solid, reputable scholarly works. Surely in this era of hotly debated race/oppression issues, someone would have (or will) write such a work sooner or later. Other scholars might hesitate addressing the matter themselves, but if the work is of a high quality, at least their conscience will prevent them from rebuking it. As for leaders being inconsistent regarding "their" liberty and others' liberty, it is, alas, commonplace. --Deamonpen (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, talking about harshness, in the Wiki article about GW and slavery, the example of Charlotte not being whipped in 14 years is used to indicate the frequency of corporal punishment being used on GW's slaves in general. Among the two sources cited, Wiencek does not mention the incident nor the frequency of punishments, just that GW exerted a level of moderation ("knew it was necessary to restrain the overseers..."). Does anyone know whether the MountVernon website is a strong enough source to back such a statement on its own? This surely needs some more investigation on materials that give a broader view and real statistics, not an incident involving a singular individual, as well as background information to put it in perspective (how frequent were corporal punishments used on soldiers/free/white workers in those days and Washington's role in that etc.). --Deamonpen (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe historians, in general, have a fundamental bias in favor of the Founders, including Washington. For example, Ulysses S. Grant traditionally has been castigated as a corrupt despot President. This was propagated by the Dunning School and Cult of Lee. The Dunning School, full of respected historians, was racist against blacks. Grant had prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Washington protected slavery while President he signed the Fugitive Slave Law. He kept blacks enslaved in Pennsylvania perpetually while he was President, bypassing the Pennsylvania law that freed slaves every six months. I believe condoning the whipping of Charlotte shows a brutal side of Washington, in addition to threatening to send a slave to the West Indies. Washington also forced slaves to work in a blizzard while he retired comfortably to Mount Vernon. Mount Vernon is a reliable source, that is all that is required by Wikipedia of its sources. Wikipedia also requires the article to be neutral. I agree that editors have to work with the sources given and that slave owner is not an occupation. I am not pushing anything here nor having an agenda. The article should not say directly Washington was a cruel slave owner, without a reliable source, but should just state the facts. Readers can make their own conclusions about Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"slave-owner' in the first sentence of the lede
In recent years Washington's slave ownership has received more and more attention. The section in the lede is equal in size to the description of his military triumphs. Now is the the time to give his profession in the first sentence. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 19:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, slave owner is not a profession, and it does not belong in the first sentence. Drdpw (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Slave owner" is just as much a profession as "businessman" or "investor". That's how he made a living, which made the other things possible. FWIW, neither "statesman" nor "Founding Father" are professions either. Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The term "planter" is a euphemistic way of saying the same thing, but we're supposed to avoid euphemisms in favour of plain language. Guettarda (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Washington forced his slaves to work on his plantation. That should be said in the introduction. He profited from black slavery. By profession he was a soldier and a politician. But the subject of slavery should be in the introduction. I would have no issue saying Washington profiteered from owning slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Slaveowning should definitely be in the lead, but I don’t think in the first paragraph, because it was not a reason for his fame.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was his profession through out his life, until his death, including when President. If he hadn't been a slaveowner he wouldn't have had the money to become president ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Julius Caesar also wouldn't have been able to become emperor of Rome without profiting from the sale of gauls as slaves, yet Caesar isn't listed as a 'slaver' in the lede of his article. This point is irrelevant.A Tree In A Box (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that describes slavery as a consistent part in his life and career [].  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Slave ownership is how Washington profiteered by being a farmer. I think there is a difference between profiteering and the term "career". Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity: English American or American
Since there are a lot of people on Wikipedia with a certain ethnicity, shouldn't he be designated as English American, instead of just an American, just like e.g. Nikola Tesla was a Serbian American, not American? 141.138.33.188 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Washington was a "British subject" from birth to 1776. He was always a Virginian. After the Constitution was ratified, Washington was a U.S. Citizen. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "U.S. Citizen" is not an ethnicity. Dimadick (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * American could be North, South, or Central American. The U.S. citizen pinpoints Washington's ethnicity of where he lived. A person from Canada or Brazil is an American. He was a white male of English heritage. He spoke English. He wore western clothing. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way. Since Washington is the father of his country the U.S. he started his own ethnicity. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Washington was U.S. American after 1776. He shared the values of his countryman of the country he started and fought for. Prior to 1776 Washington was British American.Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this? We can call Washington "British subject" and American (Founder of United States) Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added. Reference and note supplied in article for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I supplied a valid source; history.com editors; There was no reason to remove the edits. There seems to be some anymosity that George Washington was born a loyal British subject. That is biased. This article is not neutral is going against Wikipedia policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the source: There is nothing fringe about it. All Wikipedia requires is a reliable source. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change. No need for "clarification", or to label him "British subject" and "American (Founder of United States)". The infobox states that he was born in British America and that he died in the U.S. Now, in place of the efn-note portion of that revert, I have changed the 'Westmoreland County, Virginia' link to Westmorland County, Colony of Virginia. Drdpw (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the changes, but I thought the 8 reversions to my edits were a bit much. The editors at history.com called Washington a "loyal British subject". There seems to be some hesitancy of putting this in the article. No edit war on this, not worth it, but I think the article should say what nationality Washington was. That all I was trying to do. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The official name of England when Washington was born was "Great Britain" by the 1707 Act of Union. This is the Wikipedia article: Kingdom of Great Britain. So rather than "English colony", the more accurate term is "British colony". Any objections to making this change? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Colony of Virginia article says English colony chartered on April 10, 1606 under James I. But at the time Washington was born England was known as Great Britain because of the 1707 Act of Union. I think it better to say British. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does the article say English colony in connection with George Washington? The infobox states that he was born in February 22, 1732, in Popes Creek, Virginia, British America. But yes, with regard to George Washington, he was indeed born in a British colony. The Early life section does mention that Washington's great-grandfather emigrated "to the English colony of Virginia" in 1656, which it was at the time, being pre-1707 Act of Union. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The article only says "Colony of Virgina". "British" should be added. Then what was Washington's nationality? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source I put in the article said Washington was a British subject. It was taken out of the article without any valid reason. Is is controversial to call Washington a British subject? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not controversial, no hesitancy or attempt to obscure, just no need to state something obvious – George Washington was a British subject at birth and was one for over half his lifetime. Such was the case for most all the Founding Fathers. In fact, eight of the first nine U.S. presidents were born British subjects, Van Buren was the first not to have been. Drdpw (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022
George Washington was actually bald. BMickens9 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"wherever he lived" vs. "in his houses" phrasing
As seen in this edit. Let's discuss and come to an editorial consensus.Shearonink (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shearonink Are you disputing that George Washington lived in houses, or is your concern that he was also attended by slaves while on campaign? I am in favour of houses, as he kept a staff of slaves in a number of houses at the same time. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 17:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Are you disputing that George Washington lived in houses...?" No.
 * Stating "forced to work on his farms and in his houses" is insufficient, stating "forced to work on his farms and wherever he lived" covers houses he owned, places he was officially domiciled like the President's House, when he was on military campaigns (accompanied by Billy Lee), etc. Besides, all that, the "in his houses" wording was instituted by you in January, changed, instituted again by you in February, changed back...keeping in mind editing best practices/editorial consensus you should have been the editor to take this up on the article's talk page.
 * I have asked you this before - please do not continue to ping me in your edit summaries, pinging me on the page is sufficient. Shearonink (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Washington had slaves at Mount Vernon and the Philadelpia Presidential house. Let's assume he had slaves elsewhere during the Revolutionary War. Were they his slaves? It is very probable he has a slave valet to dress and groom him. Possibly a slave cook. It seems unlikely he would have had a lot of slaves with him during the war. Again some source would be needed to verify Washington had slaves elsewhere. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What is getting lossed is the fact that tens of thousands of American slaves fled to the British Army for freedom and emancipation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that subject is sufficiently touched upon in the article. Drdpw (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * By contrast, the British Generals, did not have slaves, as far as I am aware. They protected blacks from reenslavement. Washington imprisoned blacks who fought for the British after the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yorktown
The article removed information on Washington rounding up slaves after Yorktown was supplied by a valid source. This article is not to promote American exceptionalism saying Washington had misgivings about slavery after the American Revolutionary War. Clearly not the case. I supplied a credible account sourced From Gregory Urwin. Also, I believe there is some editor harassment going on to have the edit removed so quickly. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the source to verify the information: Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The information was added to show that Washington's misgivings on slavery, were not in full effect, after Yorktown. That did not take place until his new 1799 will. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to show Gregory Urwin's credentials: Gregory J. W. Urwin Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What you added was poorly worded, ill-placed and decidedly not "neutral information." How about we add a paragraph near the end of the 'Southern theater and Yorktown' section along the lines of:

"After Cornwallis' surrender, Continental soldiers, acting on orders from Washington, sought to round up for re-enslavement slaves who had fled to the British for liberation. For the next year, as British troops and Loyalists withdrew from the South, thousands of refugee enslaved people migrated there to gain freedom. The British created a registry of people who had escaped slavery, called the Book of Negroes. The registry included details of their enslavement, escape, and service to the British. If accepted, the former enslaved person received a certificate entitling transport out of New York. (See: African Americans in the Revolutionary War."
 * Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was following the source. Urwin said, "Most historians who cover Yorktown are content to celebrate Washington’s military genius. The blinders imposed by the lingering effects of American exceptionalism deter them from grappling with issues that would complicate the traditional triumphalist narrative." Urwin said historians had blinders on. He mentioned American exceptionalism. The title said that rounding up slaves and turning the Continental Army into slave hunters was tragic. The first sentence of your narrative is good. We need to focus on Washington, not necessarily what the British did to British registered slaves. The edit could have been modified, rather than just abruptly deleted, especially with a PH.D. source such as Urwin. Also, Washington's order counters that Washington was somehow having a "conscious" concerning slavery after the American Revolutionary War. He was not. Rounding up slaves is purely Southern sympathy for slavery by Washington. Even as President he passed a law that said slaveowners could hunt and capture escaped slaves who fled to the North. Washington also was at the Constitutional Convention that allowed slave owners to invade the North and capture slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Washington's atrocities against Northwestern Native Americans
Even if one refrains from calling them genocide, as several recent studies do, the campaigns Washington ordered led to large-scale atrocities against and depopulation of the Iroquois and other peoples and to exclude these extremely significant events or have only a passing mention of them in the biography of the individual who ordered them seems like an exercise in hagiography to me.

As for avoiding the inclusion of disputed examples in the category Genocide Perpetrators, the category contains numerous individuals who participated in events whose classification as genocide is extremely controversial among historians (i.e. Stalin's famines and deportations or the Black War in Tasmania).Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022
Change vaccination to variolation, as vaccination wasn’t discovered until Edward jenner came along in 1796 or so. Under siege of Boston. Thx! :) <3 Seto21 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ → variolation. Drdpw (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2022
Iceyflame2567 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC) I need to edit it because it want to test it out
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence structure.
Sentence is incorrect. “in the Bible” should be “on the Bible”. 2603:3020:2F07:1300:3D51:C04F:E5EB:871B (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is corrected. —ADavidB 19:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

GW's education in the infobox - no, not College of William & Mary...
Pretty much explained my reasoning for the change in my edit summary but about the assertion that George Washington had an education at William & Mary or was an alumnus of the College...

Regardless of what might be claimed elsewhere, W&M was simply the vendor for official county surveyor licenses, they issued them to every single stinkin' official county surveyor in the colony or early state, see this at William & Mary library (plus George Rogers Clark received a surveyor's license from W&M - he isn't claimed as an "alumnus". anywhere). Surveyors' licenses were a matter of power and legal issues, not a matter of getting educated or taking classes at W&M, see this account of George Mason's legal maneuvering re: county surveying in Virginia.

I rely on what the National Archives stated at "George Washington’s Professional Surveys":
 * The college in its charter of 1693 had been granted the power to appoint all Virginia county surveyors and the right to collect one-sixth of their surveying fees, but in practice the college authorities were more concerned with their income than with who was appointed to the surveyorships. ... [he] did not study at the college to qualify for the commission or stand any examination by the president and masters of the school. There is no evidence, in fact, that GW went to Williamsburg in the spring or summer of 1749. ... Before 20 July 1749, [Washington] received a commission from the president and masters of the College of William and Mary appointing him surveyor of newly formed Culpeper County..

Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone disputes the fact that GW didn't attend the College of William and Mary. It's the fact that GW remained unusually close in its ties with William & Mary throughout his lifetime (i.e. Spearheaded much of the progress on the campus and becoming its first chancellor) that William and Mary itself considered George Washington an alumnus and lists it as such on their website (See https://www.wm.edu/about/wmdifference/incrediblealumni/ ). The former version of the article listed W&M as Washington's education but explicitly stated that Washington received only his surveyor's license and did not attend the college—that's probably the best compromise for now. GuardianH (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But being close to and being a chancellor is not an alumnus. Is George Rogers Clark an alumnus? Or any of the other men who were appointed as County Surveyors?
 * Re your recent change to the education parameter in the article's infobox...See above. Regardless of what W&M might state on their website - which, I believe, partically partially relies on Wikipedia... their asserted claim is in error.
 * George Washington never attended any classes at William & Mary. He didn't receive any type of education from that institution. Read what the National Archives and the National Archives' sources have to say at George Washington’s Professional Surveys. Look up the sheer numbers of licenses that the College gave out to County Surveyors...Per archives in 1784 George Rogers Clark was appointed an Official County Surveyor but W&M doesn't claim him as an alumnus... These County Surveyors were appointed, W&M was the vending office - to claim that any of these men, even with the proviso/addendum of "Surveyor's License only", are somehow to be regarded as alumnus of W&M is not verifiably factual and truthful. It is on the level of any Founding Father myths promulgated as hagiography by Paster Weems - "Pa I cannot tell a lie" and so on. Lol. Shearonink (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it all just boils down to what makes a person an alumni. If you're going by the first definition (this is just what shows up on Google for "Alumnus") i.e. "a graduate or former student, especially a male one, of a particular school, college, or university," then GW should probably be excluded entirely. But if you're going by the second definition "a former member of a group, company, or organization," coupled with the listing of GW as an alumnus of W&M on their website, then GW could be considered an alumnus. Regardless, I don't think it's a hill anyone's willing to die on lol so I think it would be best to keep the version of the article before the revision as it lists GW as an alumni but explicitly states he never attended any classes there. GuardianH (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a Wiki-hill I am willing to die on. His surveyor's license simply should not be claimed as his Education in the article's Infobox. He was not educated at W&M. He can't even technically be considered a former member since he never attended. Are any other Chancellors who did not attend classes at W&M considered an alumnus or alumni? What about Sandra Day O'Connor or Henry Kissinger or Warren Burger?... No, no, and no. GW, along with probably at least 50 to 100 other men, received an Official Surveyor's License during the Royal/Colonial and early United States post-Colonial eras. Sorry, but I think, relying on the verifiable evidence, that it has become a nice and somewhat fanciful construction to assert that GW was an alumnus of W&M. Shearonink (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See this auction listing for a surveyor's license: Seth Kaller Auctions. Granting W&M this vending practice was simply an easy way for the College to earn funds. They were supposed to get a cut of all the surveying work...though GW apparently never paid-up at the time... Shearonink (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I won't comment on this topic (as a staunch W&M advocate, it would probably be inappropriate), but I will transclude the results of the conversation to Talk:College of William & Mary once a consensus is reached. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What I am specifically concerned about, is the matter of the Education parameter in the article's Infobox. A Wikipedia article's Infobox is supposed to be a summary of an article's important points, a summary of a person's life in this case...that GW served as Chancellor of W&M is a verifiable fact but that he was educated at that institution, that W&M is his alma mater is not. If anything, it would possibly be more appropriate to use the parameter of "profession" or "occupation" for the County Surveyor's license since surveying is the only occupation GW held a license for (lol along with being a liquor distiller...I suppose he had to have a license for that as well). Shearonink (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect template used in birth date
In the infobox the following parameter is present:

"birth_date        = February 22, 1732"

When one examines the html source of the displayed page, one finds, where this date occurs,

"(&lt;span class="bday">1732-02-22&lt;/span>)&lt;/span>February 22, 1732"

When one checks the meaning of this "bday" metadata one finds it is a date written in accord with ISO 8601, and ISO 8601 always uses the Gregorian calendar. Thus, the article falsely asserts in its metadata that George Washington was born February 22, 1732, Gregorian calendar. This falsehood must be changed by writing plain text for the birth date rather than a template. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking closer, I see the article uses the Gregorian calendar for the birth date for the birth date, when in general articles about history use the calendar that was in force at a certain time and place. So I have altered the template in the infobox to show both the new and old style dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Virginia militia vs Virginia Regiment
Is there any objection to changing the branch/service in the infobox from Virginia militia to Virginia Regiment? I've just been over at Talk:Virginia militia making the case that the provincial troops in the French and Indian Wars shouldn't be conflated with the militia, so rather than repeat that here, I will simply note that His Excellency: George Washington spends twelve pages (24-35) on the organization, recruitment, training and operational history of the 1st Virginia Regiment that make it clear that it was a permanent, professional military establishment, and therefore not part of the militia, and neither anyone at the time nor modern historians of colonial America would think of it as such. Washington held office in the Virginia militia, it's true, but his actual military service for Virginia and the British Empire in the 1750s came as commanding officer of the 1st Virginia Regiment. Binabik80 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. I would add Virginia Regiment to the infobox and keep Virginia Militia. Washington was a Loyalist technically up until 1775. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2022
Who said George Washington was the president? John Hanson was! George Washington even acknowledged it.47.200.21.3 (talk) 47.200.21.3 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: First, you are incorrect concerning this matter; beyond a similarity of title, the office of president of Congress bore no relationship to the office of president of the United States. Second, in the future, if you wish to suggest a change to this article, then please propose a specific change in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 22:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Agree with 
 * Also - please refer to the talk header section where one can see the following statement:
 * Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
 * and then, the Previous Arguments second section:
 * The assertion that John Hanson was the first President of the United States has been previously discussed multiple times on this talk page, ... Editorial consensus is that, according to reliable sources, George Washington is the first President of the United States and Hanson is considered to be among the Presidents of the United States in Congress assembled (he was the first President of Congress to serve a term as defined under the Articles of Confederation).
 * Shearonink (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022
The date George washington died on is wrong Jomamadaddy (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. "Date is wrong" is not acceptable; if you can provide evidence that Washington's DoD is wrong—which it is not—please submit a request asking, "please change X to Y". Drdpw (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022
Change his name to George S. Washington because that's his full name Kawakami Enjoyer (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Pro-american bias - nothing about Washington's treason.
There is nothing in this article about Washington's treason against the British army he served. 81.99.69.49 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have a constructive suggestion for addressing this subject, please state it. Drdpw (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also please provide reliable sources for consideration of adding this information. Tepkunset (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Date of nickname given to John Washington
Please change the date that John Washington was given the nickname, as the current date would place it in the late 17th century instead of late 16th century, happening in 1672. Mr.lavasquid (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. Please quote the exact passage from the article you object to, and state how you think it should read. The current version is supported by the source The Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington. If you disagree with this source please cite a better source. Also, the article does not mention 1672. What source mentions this year? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"G-Wash" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect G-Wash and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Why the founding fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are not described as Surveyor since the were surveyors?
They need to be shown as surveyors as well on their proffessions. 98.45.214.136 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022
George Washington was a Surveyor. Please include as part of his Occupation. 98.45.214.136 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ... George Washington's first public office was being appointed as an official county surveyor, it's clearly mentioned within the article. Perhaps the IP's request wasn't completely WP-compliant but the basic logic of their statement is verifiable and correct. They seem to have been referring to the occupations mentioned within the article's infobox. I think Surveyor as an occupation should be added. Shearonink (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

how did geoge wasington die
how did geoge wasington die

96.5.8.7 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the section in the article about his death, click on this->>> Final days and death. Shearonink (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To update ranks
It seems he also had the rank of Captain General as you can see in here https://web.archive.org/web/20210925065955/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-03-02-0373 and here https://web.archive.org/web/20210920141335/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-20-02-0021. Srvizcacha (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)4

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023
lot of spelling mistakes ong 143.254.201.235 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide specifics. Drdpw (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)