Talk:George Washington/Archive 4

fan that seems to be adding to every political figure of the U.S. on wikipedia and the emphasis on 'republicism". George Washington though not a fan of foreign policy was all for democratic unity but leary of politics and power as a whole. But he believed in organizing government by smaller groups ex. Congressional convention in Pennsylvania for the Articles of Congress and the forming 2nd Continental Congress to revise the Article of Congress which introduce Bill of Rights later. Then template for the Constitution. So this republicism is contradictory to the nature of George Washington.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.24.187 (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to add a section on his cultivation of hemp and how he proclaimed it to be such a wonderful plant. Washington and Jefferson both had hemp crops (Jefferson's at Monticello) and proclaimed all the uses of hemp. People deserve to hear the truth about hemp and why it is unconstitutionally prohibited by the Feds today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs) 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Native American land treaties
The article doesn't mention Washington's role in the Native American genocide. His plan swindled the Native Americans, or his term "beasts", of their territory.

Deeper explanation with footnotes: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm#blueprint —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.155.184 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that there needs to be pickle jars thrown at the enemy of his actions in regards to Native American people. George Washington was instrumental in the decimation through genocide of the Iroquois Confederacy. The Seneca began to call him "Village Destroyer" due to his reputation of slaughter among them. (American Holocaust, David E. Stannard - ISBN13: 9780195085570 ISBN10: 0195085574). I would like to contribute to the article with Washington's own quotes about the treatment and slaughter of Native Americans, but before I do so I would like to find out what everyone else thinks. Unfortunately i am going to throw pickle jars at out first head chef at IHOP no has responded to the above comment yet. Let me know what you think. --- Gunuin 09:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think quotes from Washington with your own conclusions that they prove genocide would be of any value to the article at all. If you have reliable sources that accuse him of genocide, then make your case using these sources. Tom (North Shoreman) 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote to add a bit of info on the topic. It is pertinent to American history and he played a major role in it. You will have to do your work to get it well cited though, people will challenge it. I suggest nothing but the strictest of known facts, like orders he is documented to have given, or raids he documented to have led. Dkriegls 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Washington's plan to swindle the natives out of their land is his greatest achievement. Stealing a continent in that way is unique in history, and is history's greatest swindle. The standard biographies do not mention Washington's plan, and I will be surprised if the truth can make it into the Wikipedia article on Washington. (that is my work which is being cited in this section) Wadefrazier 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Wade Frazier Kyle is the 1st president of the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdodds96 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section NPOV
Here is the legacy section

Legacy

Main article: George Washington's legacy Further information: Cultural depictions of George Washington

Congressman Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee, a Revolutionary War comrade and father of the Civil War general Robert E. Lee, famously eulogized Washington as:

First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting. . . . Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues. . . . Such was the man for whom our nation mourns.

Lee's words set the standard by which Washington's overwhelming reputation was impressed upon the American memory. Washington set many precedents for the national government and the presidency in particular. His decision to relinquish the presidency after serving two terms in office would be formalized in the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

As early as 1778, Washington was lauded as the "Father of His Country"[19]

He was upheld as a shining example in schoolbooks and lessons: as courageous and farsighted, holding the Continental Army together through eight hard years of war and numerous privations, sometimes by sheer force of will; and as restrained: at war's end taking affront at the notion he should be King; and after two terms as President, stepping aside.

Washington became the exemplar of republican virtue in America. More than any American he was extolled for his great personal integrity, and a deeply held sense of duty, honor and patriotism. He is seen more as a character model than war hero or founding father. One of Washington's greatest achievements, in terms of republican values, was refraining from taking more power than was due. He was conscientious of maintaining a good reputation by avoiding political intrigue. He rejected nepotism or cronyism. Jefferson observed, "The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish."

This is not NPOV, especially the last paragraph of it. It also makes statements that need sources. What if I extoll a different American for great personal integrity more than I extoll him for it? What if I see him as a war hero or founding father more than as a character model? How do we define how much is power is due?

Maybe this section needs to be renamed from "legacy" to "praise for" or "remembrance of" if it is going to be nothing but praise.

I totally agree with the accuracy of the paragraph about how he is treated in textbooks, but that needs a source too. I would recommend major modifications to the last paragraph of the legacy section. Like, deleting everything except the Jefferson quote. 128.252.107.160 04:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Farewell Address
A really tendentious (and ungrammatical) section. And the statement about alliances needs a source; it would exclude not only grand treaties of alliance, but guarantees of say, Cuba or Venezuela. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lafayette!!
I really think that in the section where the Baron von Steuben is mentioned some information should be included on Lafayette. He and Washington had a very close relationship, which I think deserves a whole paragraph, but there isn't even a mention of him. And wasn't there a Polish count that helped to improve the army, too? I can't remember his name, just that it ended in "ski". CClio333 13:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are refering to Kazimierz Pułaski. He was very well know for his development of the American calvary. Had no where near the influence that von Steuben had on the development of the Continental Army. He had no close relationship with Washington like von Steuen had as far as Im aware of, but to be truthful I dont know that much about him. Showers 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by user Pimper
Removed content, perhaps someone should check user's IP? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattkopera (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Disambugiation page
Why does the dismabuigation page say George Washington is made of radiation? Is it vandalism, or some weird compliment, or obscure fact about Washington??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.160.73 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Looks cool. 'll help me with my school. Found you on google.

Innoculation
An information concerning the innoculation of the Continental Army on orders of Washington has, according to my reading of the archives, been removed. I'm unsure whether it should go back in, as the article is already quite a read on the screen, and it may require more than a passing remark if it is to stay despite what is apparently a general unawareness of this procedure before the researches of Pasteur and Jenner. However, I can partially source it, as it was effectively done in the late 18th century. What was then called innoculation was a rather crude ancestor of the vaccine.

The source is a biography of Louis XVI "Louis XVI le Roi Bienfaisant" (Jean de Viguerie, on the various, and often contradictory, influences of the french government prior to the revolution), where a section is devoted to the innoculation of the royal family, and makes note of how the intendant of Franche Comte had financed physicians to do it through his province, and how it was later used by Washington on his continental army. 70.53.139.226 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The truth
He actually died on December 31. It even says so in a book that I have! 124.180.66.13 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts About George Washington
1)George Washington owned over 33,000 acres of land. 2) Washington lived in NEW YORK AND PHILDELPHIA DURING HIS PREIDENCY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.187.220 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

GA in zh.wikipedia
Please add in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Hair
Wow it was pretty amazing that scientists could discover George had red hair. Can you believe what they can do nowadays? Also, all they had to do was study a portrait of him. Pretty cool! Meldshal42 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose that it should be mentioned that George Washington was a redhead; a fact little known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.202.1 (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After finding two solid sources, I added mention of his red hair in the Personal life section. &mdash;Adavidb 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If we speak strictly (say: What?!?)
GW was the 15th persident of the US. , but yes, the first one as popularly elected. The presidents of the USA before Washington (say What!?) --195.56.212.224 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * George Washington is the first President of the United States, as the title "President of the United States" was established by the US Constitution, and George Washington was the first person elected to this title. There may have been titles similar to President during the days of the Articles of Confederation, but it was not the title President of the United States. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm...no. Read BBC article about it. The tilte existed before, and I speak about the title. --195.56.14.113 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, don't confuse h2g2 with the BBC -- while h2g2 is a service provided by the BBC, it is not vetted by the editorial processes of the BBC. The disclaimer (in part): Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

During the days of the Continental Congress, there was the President of the United States in Congress Assembled, which implies that this was the head of a congress of soverign states, not the executive of a republic the President of the United States is. George Washington was the first of his kind. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, now it's clear, thanks :) I thought the title was the same, and only the background of it was different. --91.120.97.127 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

itd still be nice to have some kind of note about him not actually being the first president, because he wasnt the first prez. TehEvilShadow (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

February 30th?
Are u sreiously going to tell me he was born on February 30TH!!!???. Well unless we no longer use the grogorian calendar, theer has to be something wrong. 28 or 29 days in febraury, geniuses —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warfwar3 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Some guy probably vandalized the article and won the games at the arcade

. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Geoerge Washington is dead now.
 * Thanks for sharing that tragic news. -Midnightdreary 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality
George Washington was British, not American. when he was born, there was no America to be born in.
 * Technically true in a political sense. He was born in North America after all. Many people born in America referred to themselves as Americans even when under British rule as well. So you might want to say he was born American in a ethnic/physical sense if not a political one. Showers 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's rubbish and you know it; it's just another American way of discrediting Britain, her supposed friend... I am English, I was born on Land belonging to England. If I decide tomorrow that I am in fact American, I would 1. be as American as George Washington and B. Know in my heart that I will and always remain an Englishman.....Christ, I didn't even fight in any wars under the banner of England...he did. Dazzh 03:25, May 25th 2007 (BST)
 * And I suppose Indians thought of themselves as British instead of Indian as well. Being born on British land and all that. Really, I have no idea how you think I discredit Britain by saying that. I know for a fact that's how my ancestor felt about himself before the War even started. One of the reasons why he joined the Virginia Militia. Showers 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm- yes, we should credit the british for ... helping us ... defeat the british. hmmmmmm daniel  folsom  22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

you see, you misunderstand......there was no "us" then,neither was there a "the British"...youwere one and the same, it's a common mistake in the US to assume that the "British" were somehow a foreign nation and army.It was a civil war, no question about it...and it was the "British" system that ALLOWED these events to unfold....if the US were fighting Portugal or France.....they'd probably still be fighting. H0ckeyd01:15, 28 August 2007 (BST)

It is my understanding that he would have viewed himself as a Virginian, not an American or Briton. Dkriegls 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If that it true, it's very sad. No patriotism, but then again it could be argued that all Americans sold out their true nations, and therefore are traitors. This is not my opinion however, maybe we could work this into the article? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh....
"George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799)[1] led America's Continental Army to victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), and in 1789 was elected the first President of the United States of America.[2] He served two four-year terms from 1789 to 1797, winning reelection in 1792. Because of his central and critical role in the founding of the United States, Washington is referred to as father of the nation. His devotion to Democratic-republicanism and civic virtue made him an exemplary figure among early American politicians."

Not sure about that first part... :D

-MS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.4.211.21 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


 * It's true, I was there. --NEMT 13:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect we'll be taking some heat for this...
-- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This happens with Wikipedia articles all the time. No big deal; it'll get fixed in the next Google crawl update. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The lede is far too long
There is far too much detail. The entire second paragraph could be summed up in 2 or 3 very SHORT sentences. --JimWae 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed Oldag07 00:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the myths section is too much of a trivia section Oldag07 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

George Washington, Deist
editprotected The infobox for Washington should also include Deist as religion...4.129.67.186 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

John Jay
Someone told me that the revisions I did by adding John Jay as secretary of State were vandalism. NOT TRUE! Jay ran the department of foreign affairs under Confederation and, then was secretary of state when the department had a name change in September 1789. He remained in charge of the department until Jefferson arrived home from France in March 1790. This is according to every single biography of Jay or Jefferson ever written for adults. AS to Jay being chief justice, he was sworn in in February of 1790, not 1789, and continued to serve as Secretary of State until March. John Marshall was also chief justice and Secretary of state simultaniusly.Ericl 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jag was, as you seem to admit, never actually Secretary of State. Jefferson was appointed and confirmed in 1789, and although Jay continued to serve in an Acting capacity, he never held the title of Secretary of State.  This is why the articles on Secretary of State list Jefferson as the first person to hold the office.  Jay receieved his commission as Chief Justice in September of 1789, incidently. JCO312 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The changes to the U.S. Cabinet infobox did not display correctly and though restored, they still do not. Information in Wikipedia articles needs to include references and source citations. Without such attribution, the info remains likely to be reverted as vandalism. Mentioning "every single biography" here is no no substitute for a proper citation. &mdash;Adavidb 02:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth
I have editted the place of birth to reflect it in more accurate detail. Although he was born in Virginia, it was more technically the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, British North America as the place would have been referred to at the time of his birth.

I also believe that for all the other presidents born in British North America that their birthplaces be changed to reflect what they were at the time of birth more accurately. For example, John Adams was born in Quincy, Massachusetts but it is more accurate to say he was born in Quincy, Province of Massachusetts Bay etc.

No Kids?
What's the deal?


 * This is not a talk page about Washington, but rather the article. but if you must know, reading the book "His Excellency: George Washington" by  Joseph J. Ellis he thinks that Washington might have been sterile.  he also states the irony of the fact that Washington is called the father of our country when he can't even have kids himself.  to make this wikipedia related, this type of speculation does not belong on wikipedia. Oldag07 20:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No biological children anyway Showers 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No biological children anyway Showers 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebellion and Defeats
Opening section says defeat at Braddocks Field was Washington's only defeat, but others historical accounts make a point that the Continental Army was forced from the field of battle numerous times. Another account says he lost 9 battles and won 1 -- at Yorktown. Still others say Washington and his men realized that to succeed, they needed only to survive, it was the British who had the burden of destroying the independence effort. So all this conflicting information has to be clarified. I'm also not entirely convinced of the merely survive strategy either, since France entered only after Saratoga, a Continental Army victory.

Washington's participation in leading the Continental Army was not treasonous until July 4, 1776. His efforts, and those of his colleages, were in resistance to tax policies. So in 1775, the colonies and the crown were a unified empire battling over political issues. The colonial's only act of treaon before July 4, 1776 against the crown was an effort to enlist the help of the Canadians, who refused.

Re: Nationality
George Washington was English, he even fought for the British at one point. Someone should at least edit that box at the top to add his British Ancestry. 213.48.73.89 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect! George Washington is from Africa. As humans evolved in Africa we must all be Africans! Wait, all life came from the sea! George Washington is a fish! 198.6.33.13 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting statements
The second paragraph states "It is curious to note that Washington suffered his only military defeat in the woods outside present day Pittsburgh at Fort Necessity," First, it never goes on to note exactly why that is curious. Because of the location? Because of the name of the fort? Because of Braddock? It looks like a copy / paste out of something else that doesn't fit here. Worse, the very first sentence of the next paragraph contradicts it: "In 1776, he victoriously forced the British out of Boston, but, later that same year, was badly defeated, and nearly captured, when he lost New York City." So obviously the defeat near Fort Necessity wasn't Washington's only military defeat. I'm removing that entire sentence for now since it doesn't make any sense, it is contradictory, and I don't know enough about Washington to rework it properly. --Dan East 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fort Necessity was the only time Washington surrendered. . . Oldag07 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wealth
Washington was apparently the wealthiest President, in GDP-relative terms http://www.scottwinslow.com/2002/wealthy.asp but this didn't come across in the article. The biography mentions his wealth by marriage, land purchases, and initial refusal of the Presidential salary, but seems to lack any explanation of how he became one of the richest Americans of all time -- richer even than Franklin. -CKL


 * Additional sources would probably be helpful. The page provided is an advertisement for an associated book. –Adavidb 11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section is too long
With six paragraphs, this article's lead section is too long. According to WP:LS, lead sections should not be longer than 4 paragraphs. Even if you combined some of the paragraphs to make 4 paragraphs total, the lead section would still be too long. ---Majestic- 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine the way it is. WP: LS is a guideline not a rule. With George Wasington being one of the most important historical figures in the 18th century, I think we can make an exception. Although some work can be done to shorten it a bit. Showers 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Majestic on this one&mdash;the lede is trying to incorporate too much detail, when it should be a summary. I appreciate the challenge in an article like this – the problem of a 'summary of a summary' – but there is probably some fat to be cut.  Some of the language is a bit flowery with a tendency to shade toward hagiography.  Yes, Washington did a damn fine job as President, but we need to keep a properly neutral tone:
 * Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington emulated the Roman general Cincinnatus, and retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon, an exemplar of the republican ideal of citizen leadership who rejected power. Alarmed in the late 1780s at the many weaknesses of the new nation under the Articles of Confederation, he presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787.
 * I know I'm probably stepping on someone's pet historical reference, but do we need to invoke Cincinnatus? Is it necessary to laud Washington as 'an examplar of the republican ideal of citizen leadership who rejected power'?  (Incidentally, we're also sloppy in referring to 'the war' in this passage and the previous paragraph without ever clearly identifying it as the Revolutionary War.)
 * Washington retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon following the war's end in 1783. Concern over the weaknesses of the new nation drew him back into public life in 1787, when he presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution.
 * This new version is shorter by a bit more than a third, but contains the same information&mdash;without the editorializing. We should really also have a footnote on the bit where's he's alarmed/concerned about the weaknesses of the new nation, as well.
 * I would encourage similar careful trimming to the rest of the lede. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

really good article, but
This is a really good article but there is no citation to show that the cutting of the cherry tree is really a myth. Does anyone know of a reference? Congolese (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Washington's real name
I read in Ripley's Believe it or Not that George Washington was once known as George de Hertburn. Could someone please verify this? Everyeditcounts 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Genealogy sources state that the family origins come from Normandy (France) as FitzDolphin and in England when settled into a village known as Hertburn near the late 12th century. The family styled their new surname as it became a custom among that feudal time period as De Hertburn. This change when nearby Wessington was established. The family gained property and by the feudal laws assigned their surnames as De Washington as the town would later be called. The "h" was silent until later language adaptations followed. Source http://www.rootsweb.com/~vanswfd/default.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.24.187 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

George was cryogenically frozen. He is still alive. He is in his head in mount rushmore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.124.120.3 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. Sure. Right. John Carter 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture please. No Photoshop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.42.26 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Weishaupt
Shouldn't this page be linked to Adam Weishaupt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.180.9 (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, hail Eris. 198.6.33.13 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington and Native Americans
There are several problems with this section. To start with, the probable misuse of the term "Native Americans" in the heading seems to imply that the limited contact with the Iriquois can be generalized to all Native Americans, which is at best inaccurate and could be potentially a violation of POV. Secondly, there is no real assertion made that this content, which is explicitly indicated is of at best infrequent reference, is actually important enough to be included at this length in the article. WP:Undue weight could very easily be being violated. Lastly, the only sources cited are primary sources. The section is now cited as needing reliable, third-party sources, as is required by wikipedia policy. John Carter 15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. At this point the only substance in the section is the reference to a single letter in 1779 and a quote from the DOI without any context. Absent some indication that the originator intends to supply the needed context from valid secondary sources, the entire section should be deleted until someone comes along willing to do the work to properly address a significant issue. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, much more work needs to be done to this section, but it is absolutely SHAMEFUL that nothing in this article deals with this subject. The quote from the DOI, is certainly within the context of killing the Native population and then turning themselves (the Founding Fathers) into the victims in order to justify their killing.

I wholeheartly DISAGREE that the section should be deleted. IF anything it should remain. There is literally nothing else in the article that deals with such a serious topic. This at least, provides a basis for some genuine scholarship on this section. But it's a start. Or at least, the heading can be renames to  "Washington and the Iroquois" Dkceaser 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Dkceaser
 * The primary question would be whether the addition of the section conforms to the wikipedia policy of Undue weight. That deals not with the "seriousness" of the subject, but the notability. The statement of the editor above that there has been relatively little attention paid to the subject would itself seem to argue against the inclusion of the material, as he himself indicated that comparatively little attention has ever been paid to it. Also, as I previously noted, primary sources such as those used are generally not considered the best possible sources. If reliable, verifiable, third-party sources can be found, that would help the chances of the content remaining dramatically. John Carter 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll Agree third party sources are needed. But i don't see how you can argue that the material lends itself to being removed since "relatively little attention " is paid to the subject.  That sounds more like the problem is with the rest of the article, not this section.  The man's contribution to history is the founding of the United States,  a land stolen -by force- from the original inhabitants.  The fact that it's not mentioned in the article probably just indicates that many of the writers are American themselves and have the same biases toward their first leaders as previous American historians. I'll repeat, it's downright SHAMEFUL that this information is nowhere to be found on this page.Dkceaser 00:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Dkceaser
 * I was referring to the fact that you yourself stated that comparatively little attention has been paid to the subject. By that, I assumed you meant that there is relatively little information in reliable, verifiable sources regarding this subject. If that is the case, then inclusion of much information might well violate the official policy of WP:Undue weight. If you are not already familiar with that policy, I suggest you read it. I have no particular objections to seeing such information included somewhere. My only reservation is about how much space in this article should be devoted to what is, based on what you said earlier, given comparatively little attention in the requisite third-party sources. John Carter 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't clarify exactly your statement about "comparatively little attention" being paid to this subject. Clearly there is much research done in this area from third party sources,  which I would expect anyone involving themselves in serious scholarship on the subject of George Washington to have some knowledge of.  Evidently, as seen by the talk-subject "Washington and Land grants" I am not alone in expressing this disturbing realization that many are unaware, or felt it unnecessary to include, this research despite including so many other intricate, but irrelevant details of Washington's life in this article.Dkceaser 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Dkceaser
 * I note that the DOI reference has already been deleted by another editor for a valid reason that I should have caught. As for the rest, you have still only provided a single letter.  Rather than making a good start, you have jumped right into the middle of a small part of the military operations of the American Revolution.  You have failed to provide any context to what led up to the order nor have you attempted to expand the subject beyond this single small fact.  Throwing in out of context factoids with no discussion of the context is worse than not mentioning the subject at all. Tom (North Shoreman) 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I updated the source citation for Washington's letter (including a URL) and added a third-party source – somewhat reliable by my reckoning. The extent to which POV and third-party source issues persist remains open for discussion. &mdash;Adavidb 07:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This matter is discussed in more thorough detail with less agenda at Sullivan Expedition. ccwaters 14:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that information, it would seem to make sense that this article link to that one, and that the section title be adjusted to agree with the existing title of that article. John Carter 14:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do, giving a lopsided account of a military campaign and using it to categorically define Washington's relations with Native Americans as a whole does wiki a disservice. ccwaters 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this particular expedition warrants its own section, especially since no other battle or campaign in the Revolution is given this much emphasis in the article. Would a better and more balanced solution be to simply mention the Sullivan Expedition in a single sentence in the proper chronological place in the section of this article on Washington in the Revolutionary War? I would suggest something like, "In the summer of 1779, at Washington's direction, General John Sullivan, in retaliation for Iroquois and Tory attacks against American settlements earlier in the war, carried out a decisive scorched earth campaign that destroyed at least forty Iroquois villages throughout what is now upstate New York." Tom (North Shoreman) 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree. All I was trying to do was remove the likely POV nature of the existing heading. And I would agree that it has yet to be established that the content merits the amount of space it currently has. I would have no objections to the proposed revision as outlined above. John Carter 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there was no further discussion or objections from anybody I made the change I suggested. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Syphilis?
There is a common rumor about George Washington dying of syphilis, and it might deserve a sentence or two of quick debunking. It would be easy to wave this off as gross historical ignorance, but I have even heard this repeated by history teachers, so it could stand a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.219.14 (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Washingtons and slavery
With the exception of one slave whom Martha Washington acquired very late in her life, she did not ever have ownership of any slaves. Most of the slaves at Mount Vernon were owned by the estate of Martha's first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, and were held in trust for Martha's son, Jacky Custis. These are the "dower slaves." The Custis estate was managed by George Washington but he did not have ownership of the estate's assets in land or slaves. After Jacky Custis's death, title to the Custis slaves passed to Jacky's children and later to his grandchildren. In his will George Washington directed that the 123 slaves he owned be freed on Martha's death; but she freed them in 1801, apparently fearing that a slave might kill her to hasten the emancipation stipulated in GW's will. Thus it is incorrect to say that "Martha Washington would free slaves to which she had title late in her own life" because she had no title to any slaves except one man, whom she did not free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.168.167 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) wow!yip I know, George died of wateva u call it!!!i copied n pasted this on my project!! dum ass teacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.98.52 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

George Washington Mule
correct me if im wrong but didn't george washington make the first mule from and a donkey and another animal? and if so what was the animal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.144.172 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider yourself somewhat corrected. Mules are the offspring of a male donkey and female horse, and have existed since long before Washington. Washington did introduce mules into American agriculture, however, with a breeding line from two donkey stallions given as a gift by the King of Spain.  &mdash;Adavidb 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Teeth
George Washington's Teeth - Library of Congress Photograph in the public domain http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.09491

Bear1952 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Must have been painfull.(80.42.213.160 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

General of the Armies
The Retirement and death section mentions:"During the United States Bicentennial year George Washington was posthumously appointed to the grade of General of the Armies by the congressional joint resolution Public Law 94-479 on January 19, 1976, approved by President Gerald Ford on October 11, 1976, with an effective appointment date of July 4, 1776. This made him the highest ranking military officer in U.S. history."

Besides this being unsourced there is (IMHO) a more important issue here. John J. Pershing was also appointed General of the Armies; and kept that title after the 5 star general of the Army was established later. This needs to be solved. Arnoutf (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Extra Information
Should someting be said about George Washington not actually being the nations first president. There was a president under the Articles of Confederation Potatoj316 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No! The nation didn't become a nation during his time. It was either a confederate or 13th original colonies. The U.S. which formed under Washington was the original 13 colonies. So technically he was the U.S. first President. Before that it was a British crown possession of colonies. The Continental congress formed a convention in Pennsylavania but this was not a nation. That was government not a nation. The President of Congress (now Speaker of the House) presides over the government body during law making and votes with other members of congress. But he was not an Executive President of the U.S. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Presidents_of_the_Congress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.24.187 (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The nation wasn't officially called the United States until after the Constitution, just, "These United States" in the Declaration of Independence. RJRocket53 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hemp?
Changed "hemp" to "cannabis", considering George used it for both industrial and recreational drug needs. If you want to clarify check out his Diary entry on August 7th, 1765; "..began to seperate the male from female .. rather too late"

Now he could have just been separating the males and females to get a better fibre, but for producing fibre with cannabis there is no time when it is "too late" the only thing which can be "too late" with cannabis is the separating of the males and females before the fertilisation of the female plant to produce good weed for smoking.

If you wish to add something about how George smoked weed just to expand on this, please do so, I don't have the time right now.--Dimedude (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting point. You need to be careful about original research though. Leaving it as hemp is probably best, though I would be open to persuasion if a case could be made. --John (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ah, but it's not my own research, I only just brought it to light here, this fact is largely known I would have thought but the diary entry "..began to seperate the male from female .. rather too late" clearly indicates that George was cultivating cannabis not just for industrial usage, but for medicinal also, I will try and dig up more sources later but until then I think that should be enough to back up the fact that he cultivated cannabis as a drug, like many other settlers in his time.--Dimedude (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[[Media:nick.com]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.165.78 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

presidency
what were the main events that George Washignton accomplished during his presidency? what were his weakness or his failures during his presidency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.113.238 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)