Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:George Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleGeorge Washington has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 3, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 2, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
September 13, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
June 6, 2011Good article nomineeListed
January 26, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of August 27, 2006.
Current status: Good article

Template:Findnotice

Bias

This paragraph under Washington's religious beliefs is written in the first person and extremely biased. Can someone please remove it?

There has been a huge controversy, to put it mildly, about Washington's religious beliefs. Before the Revolutionary War he was Anglican – Church of England – which meant after the war, he was Episcopalian. So, he was clearly Christian....He was quite intensely religious, because even though he uses the word Providence, he constantly sees Providence as an active force in life, particularly in American life. I mean, every single victory in war he credits to Providence. The miracle of the Constitutional Convention he credits to Providence. The creation of the federal government and the prosperity of the early republic, he credits to Providence... I was struck at how frequently in his letters he's referring to Providence, and it's Providence where there's a sense of design and purpose, which sounds to me very much like religion... Unfortunately, this particular issue has become very very politicized. (67.243.164.243 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The paragraph is preceded by: "Chernow, in a 2010 podcast, summed up Washington's religious views:"
"Chernow" is previously identified in the article as Ron Chernow, who is a well-respected historian without a particular religious axe to grind. Please elaborate on its bias (especially how it is "extreme"). Magic♪piano 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only problem with this section really is that, since it's apparently all quoted from Ron Chernow, it should be formatted as a block quote like the others in the article. As it is, if one missed the preceeding line for whatever reason, this reads like a major shift in the article's tone. 68.149.38.112 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHITEWASHED

The dishonest libertarians who RUN wikipedia have effectively whitewashed perhaps one of the cornerstones of George Washingon's beleifs.

NOWHERE in this article does it get into George Washington's support for a strong central government. As of now, the words "Central Government" don't even appear in the article at all, leaving the reader with a completely skewed understanding of the nation's first President and his intentions.

Google the words "George Washingon" with "Strong Central Government" and you will find a slew of sources supporting this, including in Washington's own writings.

Please don't let the libertarians whitewash our nation's history by allowing them to control the flow of information and omit anything that doesn't line up with their narrative.

This is a prime example of why so many scholars and academics don't support Wikipedia..

--69.125.144.110 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No single group runs Wikipedia, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The reason this particular article is protected from IP-editing is because of frequent and persistent vandalism. All anyone editing as an IP has to do in order to add sourced information to this article is register as a named-account, do ten edits, be over 4 days old and then they will be autoconfirmed. Then, as an autoconfirmed editor, find multiple independent reliable sources that back up allegedly missing information and add that info along with the references to the article. If, as you say, a slew of sources are there to support your assertion then it should be easy for you to add the information and the references yourself. --Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's all in the opening paragraph: "Washington...oversaw the creation of a strong, well-financed national government that maintained neutrality in the wars raging in Europe, suppressed rebellion, and won acceptance among Americans of all types." and the ending paragraph of the opening lede: "Washington had a vision of a great and powerful nation that would be built on republican lines using federal power. He sought to use the national government to preserve liberty, improve infrastructure, open the western lands, promote commerce, found a permanent capital, reduce regional tensions and promote a spirit of American nationalism." That pretty well covers it. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 10 June 2012

The year of Washington's O.S. birthdate should be changed from 1731 to 1732. The transition from the Julian to Gregorian calendar changed dates by 11 days in the period when Washington was born, but it did not change the calendar year of a date (unless, of course the Julian date fell in late December). See, by comparison, the dates of Thomas Jefferson's birth in the Wikipedia article on Jefferson, and the details of the Gregorian calendar in the Wikipedia article on that topic. Fizzbowen (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point the reason for this particular OS year being different than the NS year is explained in Old Style and New Style dates. The caveats on changing the start of the year don't apply to Jefferson. Magic♪piano 00:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why doesn't WP:MOSDATE#Calendars apply here, specifically:

At some places and times, dates other than 1 January were used as the start of the year. The most common English-language convention was the Annunciation Style used in Britain and its colonies, in which the year started on 25 March, Annunciation Day; see the New Year article for a list of other styles. 1 January is assumed to be the opening date for years; if there is reason to use another start-date, this should be noted.

Fat&Happy (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Slate article, which is reference 10 in the current revision, does a good job of explaining the calendar conversion and its results. Under the Old Style, March 25 was when a new year started (and the year number incremented). With the conversion to New Style, the past dates between January 1 and March 25 had their year number incremented, to be in the 'same year' as those dates after March 25. —ADavidB 03:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Slate article, the issue of the birthdate (Old Style/New Style) has come up before regarding Washington, see this link to various sections in the Talk page archives as well as this particular link. Shearonink (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Please insert an external link to www.wartonstoswald.co.uk - this web page shows geneological links to the village of Warton in Lancashire UK. The featured Church has a ancient stone featuring the Washington crest upon which the Stars and Stripes is supposed to have been founded, along with a grave stone of one of the Washington family. The Church flys the Stars and Stripes on 4th of July each year, a flag that has been donated, and periodically renewed by a regular visitor from the USA.

Christos69 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done While the request was presumably made in good faith, there is a concern that the link would run afoul of WP:SPAMLINK.--JayJasper (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit request) Washington assumed command of the Continental Army on July 3, 1775

(edit request) George Washington assumed command (in-person) of the Continental Army on July 3, 1775, thus coincidentally, making the next day - July 4th - his first full-day as Commander-in-Chief.[ref]Lengel, Edward G. General George Washington pp 105-109, (Random House, 2005)[ref] 

- Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The fact that he was appointed is sourced within the article, the actual date is not. Please provide a source for the July 4th 1775 date. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ref]Lengel, Edward G. General George Washington pp 105-109, (Random House, 2005)[ref] - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit request) tweaks to Freemasonry: Fredericksburg Lodge, Masonic ceremonies of Federal City southern boundary & laying of Capitol cornerstone

George Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredericksburg Lodge. He was the main participant in the Freemasonry ceremony of March 15, 17-- at the laying of the Southern Boundary of Federal City ('Capital City', later known as Washington DC). GW also led the Masonic ceremony of the laying of the cornerstone of the US Capitol Building on Capitol Hill (previously Jenkins Hill) on Sept. 18, ---. I fill find (or someone else will find) the references for these important editions to the article. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit request) Fabian "tactics"

The title of one of these sections asserts that Washington used "Fabian tactics." Washington pursued a Fabian strategy, not Fabian "tactics." There is no such thing as Fabian tactics. Please change the offending title to "Fabian strategy." The American Fabius will thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.131.132.186 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit request) Step-son John Parke Custis "Jack" died at Yorktown 1781

(edit request) After the British defeat at Yorktown in 1781, Washington suffered a tragedy when his step-son "Jack" Custis died there. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit request) Step-grandson/adopted son George Washington Parke Custis & step-grandaughter/adopted daughter Eleanor Parke Custis ("Nelly")

(edit request) "Lacking any children of his own, he had adopted Martha's two young grandchildren".[ref]Ketchum, Richard M. The World of George Washington p.251 (American Heritage, 1974). (There are many more references.) Step-grandson/adopted son George Washington Parke Custis & step-grandaughter/adopted daughter Eleanor Parke Custis ("Nelly"). Custis' daughter Mary Anna Randolph Custis would be the only remaining descendent of Martha Custis Washington. She married Robert E. Lee becoming Mary Custis Lee and they inherited Arlington House which at that time, had more Washington memorablia than Mount Vernon. [ref]Pryor, Elizabeth Brown Reading the Man - a portrait of Robert E. Lee through his private letters p. 49 (Viking, 2007)[ref] - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington&oldid=501413397"