Talk:George Washington/Archive 5

Accent
Do we know which accent George Washington had ? Mackem or Geordie ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.176.4 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Southern. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that George Washington had a British accent, it may have sounded what people would consider today a bit like an american accent, but only a very light American tone to a British accent. However he could have well have had a southern accent.


 * Do you have reliable sources to support this assertion? Remember, this page is for discussions of improvements to the article, not a forum on the subject.--JayJasper (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, does it matter? The article's already quite long. MrZaius  talk  01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs something to accent it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a rare recording of his voice speaking at Valley Forge. His accent is recognizable as Geordie La Forge. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Futurama took a guess at it. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just hoping he didn't say his own name the way we midwesterners tend to say it: "Warshington". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the length of time, I couldn't let this pass. Not all Midwesterners say it that way. Also, people from other parts of the country (e.g., Newt Gingrich of Georgia) do say it that way. -Rrius (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"General" Inaccuracy
In his spare time, George Washington liked to grow his grand old plum tree, and serenade young boys to sleep. He gained the reputation like that of modern day Michael Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dking926 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire page is littered with inaccuracy. Theres no mention of his scandals or sharp fall from popularity. He did not received 100% of the vote, he only had 69. Also many mentions of Washington being a republican, republicans were his primary political opponent(mainly the jefferson democratic republicans)Jayl1980 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked more into it, Washington did win 100% of the states but not the vote, this was his first scandal as it was later discovered that Alexander Hamilton had threatened and bribed the college to swing votes away from John Adams, Hamilton thought Adams was to bullheaded and couldn't be controlled. There were rumors that Washington didn't win the election at all. Also the final scandel which ended his political career was called the Jay Scandel, it followed the signing of Jay's Treaty with England which was extremely unpopular.Jayl1980 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He threw a rock across the Rappahannock River NOT the Potomac. The Rappahanock flows by his boyhood home near Fredericksburg.He fell in love with a boy named jackson

You have to be careful regarding US political parties. They changed names over the years: Federalist (1791-1824) vs. Anti-Federalist (1789-91)

Federalist (1791-1824) vs. Democratic-Republican (1791-1824)

The two parties basically fall apart and are remade.

National-Republican (1828-32) vs.  Democrat (1828-present) Whig (1832-1852)             vs.   Democrat (1828-present)

Republican (1853-present)    vs.   Democrat (1828-present)

The dates are crude estimates but they give you the idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only in name, to simplify history on a matter of "liberals" vs "conservatives" is absurd, you also seem to be impliying that a former "liberal" or "conservative" party share something in common with todays main parties (which is even more absurd).190.160.131.109 (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He threw a silver dollar across the river, or at least that's what they told us in school... along with the old joke "a dollar went further in those days". He was unanimously elected by the electoral college, obviously not the popular vote. He was often listed as a Federalist because his politics leaned that way, but he was not formally a Federalist. And given how things turned out under Adams' administration, he was right to be concerned about Adams. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of the real first president, John Hanson (1781) and the SIX other presidents after him [Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788)], and preceding Washington taking office in 1789, under the The Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was written? DavidRavenMoon (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they don't count. The Constitution was a reboot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides which, as noted in Articles of Confederation, the job of "President" under the Articles was more analogous to the Speaker of the House. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Those chaps weren't "President of the United States", they were "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". The "United States in Congress Assembled" was Congress. Thus, they were President of Congress. -Rrius (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you might want to check on his date of death... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.7.154 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Children
This site: http://www.americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=28 shows that George had 2 children? Your Wiki entry says he had none but had 2 nephews...which is it? This is why wiki's are bad. More often than not the data in the entries is incorrect. What a waste.

Indeed, he had two children. This needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codewerdna (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These two were stepchildren from his (widowed) wife's former marriage; they were not descended from George Washington. The source, which I believe is reliable, is http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/family-george-washington.html . &mdash;Adavidb 01:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

People were actually vandalizing this page? The evil of man knows no bounds.George Washington Head (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington had no children of his own. Moreover the Bassett mentioned in "Personal Life" was apparently a nephew, and the reference takes us to a page on Warren G. Harding!68.72.94.110 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

this isntt truee !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.134.217 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Party
Its mentioned that George Washington was not part of a political party. However, it was quite clear that he was a Federalist. Most historians would agree that he was a Federalist. Although he did not necessary claim any political party but to present his political affiliation as being nothing is wrong. His views were of the federalist party. Strong central government. Big government who would tax and spend and build infrastructure. Most of his proposal were federalist views and ideas. Alexander Hamilton, his Secretary of Treasury built the economy on the federalist ideals. So yes, although he didn't necessarily claim a political party, this was more because he was the first president and the idea of political party had not been created yet. But Washington's political ideals were that of the Federalist party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.60.23 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I completely agree. Washington was a Federalist, overall, even if he did attempt to avoid politicking. Would somebody consider changing the part where it says he had no party? I may be able to do it later, but first I have to organize some sources. There are a couple of good books on the subject, like Hofstadter's "The Idea of a Party System" and Joanne Freeman's "Affairs of Honor."

Concerning the "Presidency..." section
My history teacher mentioned several letters where George Washington told his wife that he wanted to be president, but accept it "humbly". The article says that he did not want to be president.

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.82.181 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year — a large sum in 1789. Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment. A dangerous precedent could have been set otherwise, as the founding fathers wanted future presidents to come from a large pool of potential candidates — not just those citizenswho could afford to do the work for free." -This is also inaccurate, Washington knew he could not afford to have the lavish lifestyle he wanted with the pay they offered. His expenses for his presidential residency and his regular home far exceeded the $25,000. Supposedly congress forced him to take the set amount of money because he was bankrupting the coffers with his "only expenses". I wish I had a good refernce to point to, but this is from my AP history course in Highs School, and was repeated in my College courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.5.135 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, at the time before the revolution, George Washington just happend to be the wealthiest man in America (Washington indeed was the biggest landowner at the time, taking in consideration that the colonial economy worked almost exclusively out of crops). The myth of every single "revolutionary" aristocrat (not just Washington) is not uncommon, nor is it brand new to revise history with a more critical look upon facts and motives.--190.160.131.109 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Add category
Someone please add Category:American farmers to this article. --AmericanAgrarian (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken article help
Hello, I am in contact with a volunteer who is trying to record a spoken version of this article, and he needs help with the pronunciation of certain words. Is there anyone here who could possibly speak with him on the phone (or even just leave him a voice mail) to confirm pronunciation? Here are the words: Culpeper County, adjutant, Fort Le Boeuf, Fort Duquesne, Tanacharison, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, Battle of Jumonville Glen, Monongahela, Pamunkey River, Martha Dandridge Custis, Pamunkey River, Daniel Parke Custis, Fraunces Tavern, Edmond-Charles Genêt, the Marquis de La Fayette, Mohammedans, Touro Synagogue, laudanum. If so, please email me and I will pass along his contact info (he is a professional voice actor). Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not featured?
Why can't this article be a featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.88.201 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its lacking objectivity, not everyone thinks George Washington was a hero (e.g. the Iroquois).190.160.131.109 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How many Iroquois are on U.S. currency? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original question, I'd say to just read through the lengthy todo list up top of here to see a number of likely triggers for object votes. The article is certainly good enough that making the transition to FA would be feasible to do in a short period of time, if someone felt like putting some serious effort into it. The article would/should not, however, pass in its present form and may require slightly more cleanup than can be done during an FA nomination without undermining it. I'd strongly suggest that a cleanup resulting in the subtraction of a couple of K of text, especially the extremely grandiose language that deviates from the encyclopedic tone desired here, followed by a month of laying low before raising the nomination. MrZaius talk  06:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did he really fight for the British?
Wheres the proof that he fought in the British army? Or is it something, someones just made up? There needs to be more evidence of this IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.35.134 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Prior to the Revolution. Read the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course he fought for the British, he WAS British. There is never a question as to if he were NOT British, he was born on British Soil with very wealthy British roots. Also, a good point to make would be to suggest that even after the war, he fought for the British against the ideals of Jefferson.User talk:Hockeyd'' 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.101.203 (talk)

Excuse me? The writer above states, "a good point to make would be to suggest that even after the war, he fought for the British against the ideals of Jefferson." Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for personal debate.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Steiner" :


 * This is now corrected, with the publisher included as well. &mdash;Adavidb 01:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Madison addition to Farewell Address
Madison and Hamilton were both responsible for editing Washington's farewell address My source is the book Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis in the chapter The Farewell Will someone please add this. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.232.96 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blank awards section in infobox
Why? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what awards did he recieve? If you know of any, you can add it(and cite it). I don't know if he recieved many though, because he was the first.Red4tribe (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Um...
Shouldn't we have His $1 Photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.143.105 (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Um....shouldn't state why? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about his image on the quarter? That's the answer to the question, how can 4 Washingtons equal 1 Washington? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

image
I think the fact that he was a slave owner completely out-shines his image of founder of the us when considering his legacy, as such a thing would for any man....what kind of stance could he have really had for ideals such as "liberty"...does that not seem logical.....Rodrigue (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well this is a problem that the planet will never resolve, how can a man claim freedom for all and own so many slaves?..was it not Lord North who said "how loudly the yelp of freedom from the owners of slaves". It's a question every American must ask and deal with in their own way...also, it might be good to note that Washington had a "round robin" system of slavery, in that in certain states a slave could only be one for a set number of years and when each of his were nearing the end date, he just shipped em to another state to renew their "lease"..clever. H0ckeyd (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.101.203 (talk)

A man simply can't hold others in chains and have any kind of stance on freedom, liberty, or justice, I don't think there's really much question about that.....Rodrigue (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The stance on slavary during the late 18th century clearly reflects that many held the belief that God condoned slavery and that it was the peoples right to not only keep the Africans in bondage, but to educate and convert them in Christianity. Even Africans held slaves. They were the ones who sold their enemies into bondage in the first place. Slavery at this time was not the same type of slavery that we remember from the United States Civil War. It was much more inclusive and offered many more options for the slave holder and the slave. Many slaves were able to earn their own money and eventually buy their own freedom. It was not until anti-slavary societies began "stirring the pot" so to speak, that slave owners started holding a tighter leash on their property. So in a way, we could say that anti-slavary societies actually made slavery worse and made the institution stronger. The keeping of slaves, like many other institutions, adapted and evolved over the years. To Codemn a man for holding beliefs that were widely accepted at the time would be condemn ourselves for Global Warming, because we all drive cars that polute. Does that take away from our own generations accomplishments? It shouldn't. Our thoughts and ideas evolve just as they did during Washington's day. I have heard this argument before and I belive that people who want to rewrite history to make all of our forefathers look bad are just being agitators. Yes he held slaves, but that is no secret. Why taint a mans image by turning him into a monster, when he was the one who gave you the right to speak your mind in the first place, literally?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In Battle
Why doesn't it mention about how he was shot multiple times in the french and indian war and wasn't wounded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.111.84 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How does one get shot multiple times and not be wounded? Do you mean shot at multiple times? If so, anyone who has been on a battle field has been shot at multiple times, and the information is moot. Jojhutton (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he had a stack of protoGideon Bibles in his jacket pocket that each took one of the multiple hits for him? MrZaius  talk  14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did find information that said that he had two horses shot out from under him and that during one battle, his coat was shot through 4 times, but that is not the same as being actually shot.Jojhutton (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably warrants mention somewhere - Is it already included in the page for that specific battle? If so, that's good enough for me. MrZaius  talk  17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the most appropriate reply to this drivel is here. Wanyonyi (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant here. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rendering errors/excessively long infobox
The infobox in the LEAD currently dominates the article to an extent I've never seen anywhere else. You can't use the infobox to rewrite the article - It currently doesn't end at a 16:9 1600:1050 resolution until the American Revolution section, pushing the images for the preceding sections, and, more importantly, the per-section Edit links down to the point of uselessness. Proceeding to cut a fair bit, tweak layout. MrZaius talk  08:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Also struck wholly redundant WikiSource link - It is also present in the template full of interwiki links at the end of the article. That said, if it absolutely must be reinserted please do not reinsert it in its original location, as it was necessary to remove either it or an image to fix the rendering glitches caused by the cluttered layout of this article. It might be better off in the Further reading or External links if, and it's a big if, it's really necessary to link to it twice. MrZaius  talk  08:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: The deleted images may be moved to Cultural depictions of George Washington in a new artwork section. Most of them are highly redundant when shown here, depicting the same theme as most of the images still-present. MrZaius talk  08:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

POV/Tone
Areas in the article, but especially the last, uncited, paragraph from /* Legacy */ treat the subject in such a fawning tone that it would be axed in a heart-beat anywhere else. Here, though, it actually is possible to replace those statements with sourced quotations and paraphrased statements that make the same point in a stronger, more professional manner. MrZaius talk  08:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this. Look, I love Washington just as much as he next guy but I read this article and cringed a few times. There are sentences that make broad, general statements that ought to be directly sourced to books and their relevant page numbers, it is not like there are a shortage of them that deal with this issue. In the meantime, he should probably be treated like everyone else and trim those fawning statements. This paragraph is a pretty good example: The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a large sum in 1789. Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment, to avoid setting a precedent whereby the presidency would be perceived as limited only to independently wealthy individuals who could serve without any salary. Washington attended carefully to the pomp and ceremony of office, making sure that the titles and trappings were suitably republican and never emulated European royal courts. To that end, he preferred the title "Mr. President" to the more majestic names suggested

Put that section George Bush's page and see what happens. Mcoogan75 (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be reverted, since it's more about Washington than Bush. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Axed"? Funny you should put it that way. Hey, did you know that Washington carved his own false teeth? He whittled them from cherrywood after his father punched his teeth out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not NPOV on Washington in particular, but isn't "although negative toward the patriots in the Continental Congress" a bit NPOV in general? Shouldn't it be "negative towards the members of the Continental Congress"? I'm not saying they /weren't/ patriots, just that it comes across as NPOV/non-factual. Or am I missing a more specific definition of 'patriot'? --dahamsta (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, those are judgment words. This article has too many/ Mcoogan75 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Need section in right window for his delegacy in First Continental Congress
There needs to be an additional section in the right window of the article detailing government positions held. That's the section under Washington's first portrait. The window is missing his delegacy in the First Continental Congress:

Delegate from Virginia to the First Continental Congress

In office

September 5, 1774 – October 26, 1774

(The above insertion is formatted the same as similar info in the John Adams article.)

This info is in all the other presidents' articles, and it is confusing to not see it and think that Washington was not a delegate.

Kristinamwood (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Kris Wood
 * If by "section" you mean "single line", knock yourself out. That said, this article was home to one of the longest (if not the longest) infoboxes in the entire wiki a few weeks ago. We really need to work to keep it down to a reasonable length to prevent it from ruining the layout, readability, and text-image association of the entire article. MrZaius  talk  15:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Small easy issue
In the box that lists him as the first president at the top right, instead of "none" as the preceding president, should we write "office established" like most articles do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.103.243 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. That said, it's just the infobox, "None" was accurate, and this was already done in the larger footer boxes. Let's keep our eyes on the prize. MrZaius  talk  01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington College
George Washington was honored by a school not listed in this article. The school is named Washington College, located in Maryland. Not only does the school bear his name but he actually donated to the school and gave permission for his name to be used when it was founded.

Wolfenangel (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add mention to the daughter article about memorials, but I'm not sold that it was so important that it warrants mention in this article. MrZaius  talk  06:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

British citizenship
He was born in the british america, so he was british, he died as a north american tough. I think this should be corrected and pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.179 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he was a British citizen and served the forces of the Crown is already perfectly clear in the article as it stands. MrZaius  talk  06:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Need primary source for quote about indifference to Mt Vernon's worker's religious beliefs.
Under the section "Religious beliefs" the article contains the following quote,

"When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, 'If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.'[67]"

The footnote links to the an article "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" authored by a Frank Steiner and is posted at http://www.infidels.org.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1

There doesn't seem to be any source for this quote in Mr Steiner's article, its just there.

I'm not saying Washington never wrote this but, I think it needs to source the actual writing of Washington it originated from. I'm sure if there was an alleged quote from George Washington on David Barton's site with no source it wouldn't be cited in this article.

Colonial carolinian (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo
The first sentence of the seciton on "Domestic issues" is incoherent:


 * Washington was not a member of any political party, and hoped that they would not be formed out of fear of the conflict and stagnation they could cause governance.

Would someone please fix it.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Entangling Alliances 15-Nov-08
The use of the term 'entangling' in the article on Washington's Farewell Address should be removed. The phrase 'entangling alliances' is often attributed to Washington when the phrase actually used was 'permanent alliances'. The term 'entangling alliances' is in fact from Jeffersons 1st inaugural address (1801). Kchickenlord (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Boyhood home
I find the inclusion of that paragraph a bit problematic (and recentist: had the discovery been made in 1958, I doubt we'd mention it). The house he lived in is not that important to merit mention in a general biography; however, we can (indeed do) treat the subject at Ferry Farm. So would anyone object to simply excising the paragraph? -- Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This needs more discussion as to why it shouldn't be included. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've stated my reasons; if you have objections, do spell them out. -- Biruitorul Talk 06:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't believe the entire paragraph should be removed, it seems to include far too much detail, particularly in its first sentence. If readers want that much information I expect they'd read the source material. Perhaps the first sentence could be shortened to "The remains of George's boyhood home were discovered in 2008 across the Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg, Virginia.", with the rest of the paragraph, minus its last sentence, positioned second within the "Early life" section. &mdash;ADavidB 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But let's make a comparison to our Featured Articles on US Presidents: Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman. Four of these make no mention of their boyhood homes. Cleveland's shows a picture of his birthplace. Reagan's makes brief mention of his birthplace, well-integrated into the body of the article. Even Abraham Lincoln, with the famous log cabin, just touches on it, linking instead to the article on the site; indeed we have a whole category devoted to these. So based on precedent, we can at least do some more integration into the text. -- Biruitorul Talk 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you, I didn't see the text of that paragraph moved to the related article. It's okay, I took care of it. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't move it wholesale - things like the links to the professors' websites are obvious MOS violations. And naturally, we already mention their first names before the paragraph you dumped in there. That's why it's always a good idea to read the article first and see how new content fits in - which your addition doesn't at this point. - Biruitorul Talk 19:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Stated religion in infobox
It is a good idea, User:Supertask, to suggest your edit here and see if consensus supports it. Declaring Washington a deist as a fact when modern historians are debating over this is an incorrect statement (as if already decided). Your change would involve clear sourcing as well as consensus on this talk page. In the meantime, it should remain as status quo. Please feel free to elaborate here...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't the first president of the USA
According to the book of general ignorance, Peyton Randolph was the first president of the united states


 * Peyton Randolph. He was the first of fourteen pre-Washington Presidents of the Continental Congress or the 'United States in Congress Assembled'. The continental congress was the debating body formed by the thirteen colonies to formulate their complaints to the British Crown. In its second meeting, under Randolph, it resolved that Britain had declared war on the colonies, and, in response, created the Continental Army, appointing George Washington as its commander-in-chief. Randolph's successor, John Hancock, presided over the declaration of independence from Great Britain, where the Congress asserted its right to govern the 13 colonies. Peyton was followed by thirteen other Presidents until, on 30 April 1789, the triumphant George Washington was sworn in as Presdent of the independent United States of America

Thus, this article needs to be amended accordingly Thanks, Hadseys 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An explanation would be nice, the United States were originally the 13 founder states, and Washington was not the first guy to be president of them. And if your basing your argument on there not being fifty states at the time well there were nowhere near 50 in the 1780's. Its not called the book of general ignorance for nothing you know Thanks, Hadseys 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those early "Presidents" were more like Speakers of the House. Apples and oranges. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, they were still recognised as presidents over the independent states and therefore claiming George Washington was the first is slander --Thanks, Hadseys 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The source cited appears to be a compilation of trivia one may use to express a supposed lack of "general ignorance" still held by others. As Baseball Bugs has pointed out, despite application of the title "president", that prior role was analogous to a current Speaker of the House and not equivalent to the executive position of President of the United States, which George Washington held first. &mdash;ADavidB 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think part of the confusion is the way we use the term President, to mean the chief executive of the nation. Think of countries which have both a "President" and a "Premier". The single President position under the Articles of Confederation evolved into the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate under the two-house concept of the Constitution. The President, under the Constitution, was a new position that was comparable to "Premiere" - or "King"; in fact some wanted Washington to be called "Your Majesty", but he preferred "Mr. President", thus establishing one of the many presidential traditions that he began. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, Washington was the first "President of the United States". Randolph, Hancock, et al. were known first as "President of Congress" and later "President of the United States in Congress Assembled", though the latter was occasionally (and informally) referred to as "President of the United States".  The references to this at President of the United States and President of the Continental Congress should be sufficient for a reader wanting more background on the subject.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? JacobtheMagnificent (talk)JacobtheMagnificent —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Only in the realm of trivia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps another section about the confusion surrounding him being the first president --Thanks, Hadseys 19:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You could write one and propose it here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the wikipedia article regarding President Washington needs to be improved.

For example, just today I typed in "Barack Obama" on wikipedia. Upon reading the President-elect's article I learned that Barack Obama was the first African-American ever to be elected as President of the United States.

Afterward I typed "George Washington" on wikipedia. Upon reading the article I noticed that the article fails to recognize George Washington as the first white and first male ever to be elected as President of the United States.

Although this is assumed I do believe this must be changed. I myself have attempted to edit the article but have failed under the circumstance that the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobtheMagnificent (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In those days, minorities and women couldn't even own property, much less run for public office. And there's a good reason why it's semi-protected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see this nonsense is over now. Otherwise we would have to change every history book in the world save one written above. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The nonsense has just begun. My point is valid and undisputable. George Washington was and is the first white male president of the United States. I am not proposing that we change every history book in the world, but merely the wikipedia page regarding him. The article fails to point out that he is the first white male president, and it needs to be changed. JacobtheMagnificent (talk)JacobtheMagnificent —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC).


 * You know, we actually need to change all the history books anyways at this point. The one we've got states that all American presidents have been white, male, land owners. This is no longer true.... So since we've got to change them anyways; might as well make them a little more historically accurate. Sure its a given fact, but its still fact....XxIke (talk)xxIke —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC).


 * He has a point, it is in fact, a very specific one to. I think that the fact of George Washington being the first white male for President should be added. I mean after all, if a women becomes President, will we not be saying in her Wikipedia® article,"She was the first women President". Credit should be given where credit is due. Master of Technology (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The best reason an article would included such "first" information is notability. Washington's election as a "white male" is not and was not notable by itself. &mdash;ADavidB 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Political parties
In george wahington's farewell speech he said to stay away from political parties. Even though he thought this if washinton hdent't been our president we would not have political parties. If he had picked someone else other than Jefferson and (or) Hamilton (who were polar opposites on beleifs) no one would feel like they have to pick sides between them. This is the reason that political parties were started.
 * Wee ar wating breahlessly fr yor citaion onn th suject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody really cares about your suppositions. Wikipedia is about cold, hard facts.MissMeticulous (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate?
I think this paragraph:

''The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a large sum in 1789. Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment, to avoid setting a precedent whereby the presidency would be perceived as limited only to independently wealthy individuals who could serve without any salary. Washington attended carefully to the pomp and ceremony of office, making sure that the titles and trappings were suitably republican and never emulated European royal courts. To that end, he preferred the title "Mr. President" to the more majestic names suggested.[36]''

is wrong. It doesn't square with what I've read elsewhere. It is sourced, but the source doesn't cite which references this comes from. (It does list references though.)

I thought Willard Sterne Randall's book George Washington: A Life suggested that Washington did want his presidential salary. And a recent program on CSPAN featured the author of the book His Excellency, George Washington who was asked by a caller why the book was titled such. His response was because that was what people called Washington. I think Washington himself did like some sort of title, but the Congress preferred otherwise. My Wikipedia (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They settled on Mr. President. I doubt Washington wanted to be titled as royalty. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Silver dollars and cherry trees
"One of the most enduring myths about George Washington involves him as a young boy chopping down his father's cherry tree and, when asked about it, using the famous line "I cannot tell a lie, I did it with my little hatchet." In fact, there is no evidence that this ever occurred. It, along with the story of Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River, was part of a book of stories authored by Mason Weems that made Washington somewhat of a legendary figure."

While informative as far as the facts go, the article does not expound on the significance of these myths. Is it something like "Washington was not a liar when he was a kid" and "Washington had a good throwing arm"? The former is pretty universally considered a good characteristic, and maybe the significance of the latter is connected to the popularity of baseball in America? (I'm grasping at straws here..) Adding a few words of explanation to the article would be an improvement, I think. -- 82.103.201.240 (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First, it was the Rappahannock River, not the Potomac, as even the legends have legends sometimes; and also keep in mind that a dollar went further in those days. Washington was not such a good pitcher, though. Hence the saying, "Washington - first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League." Also, the less-told part of the other legend is that, although it's well-known that Washington had wooden false teeth, it's less known that he carved them himself - out of cherrywood, after his father had punched his teeth out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Distillery cite
I have removed info and a cite to the blacklisted personal pages of a banned editor. The distillery information is included on the Mount Vernon article (but needs better sourcing than the website of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States that paid for its renovations and promotion as the centerpiece of its "American Whisky Trail"). Information on the inappropriateness of this website as a reference, despite its .edu ending, is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1 Flowanda | Talk 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Militia leadership
Shouldn't the periods when he commanded the Virginia Regiment, the colonial militia of Virginia, be part of the military offices infobox? patsw (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Periods of service are currently listed in the infobox, followed by a list of the commands themselves (including the Virginia Regiment). Does anyone have a reliable source that documents which commands correlate with which periods of service? &mdash;ADavidB 00:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

About the calendar
There is an error in the notes that says contemporary records indicate George Washington's date of birth as February 11, 1732. The year is wrong. At the time Washington was born, New Year's Day was March 25. The contemporary records of his birth, including his baptismal certificate, indicate he was born on February 11, 1731 not 1732. When Great Britain changed to the Gregorian Calendar, England and Wales, and the North American colonies, also changed New Year's Day from March 25 to January 1, starting with December 31, 1751 being followed by January 1, 1752 instead of January 1, 1751. Because Washington was still alive when the change was made, his birthday was retroactively re-stated from February 11, 1731 to February 22, 1732 after the change of calendar took effect.

Anyway, the footnote needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.168.158 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What reliable source can everyone consult to resolve this matter? &mdash;ADavidB 00:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm almost certain that the unsigned comment above is correct; I've read in a number of credible sources that Washington was born in 1731 O.S., because prior to adopting the Gregorian calendar Britain treated the start of the year as March 25. See the article Old Style and New Style dates and its references. See also the end of the following article, which addresses Washington's birthday in particular: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_Util_StaticDemo/MethodJulGregCal.htm The only reason I'm not making the correction immediately is that it's a relatively minor error and I don't have anything outstanding to put into the footnote. DGaryGrady (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus it would confuse the issue, assuming it's even true, which I question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

GA status
Sorry to bring this up, but after looking at this article it may not meet the GA requirements. I think it could do with a review to determine whether it does or not. The article clearly needs allot doing to it (In terms of structure/general grammar and spelling) and a GA review may benefit the article, could drive more people to come in and improve it. Misortie (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)