George 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Honors?
Seems like some of the portraits show George Washington is wearing a blue ribband of an order diagonally on his chest. Is that the Order of the Garter? Or some other? I can't find anything in the article itself describing awards or honors that he held during his life that would entitle him to this decoration. I wonder what order this was or if it was just artistic license? JByrd (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Citation/Bibliography convention
If the Washington biography is ever to pass an FA review it will have to adhere to a single citation convention. Currently several approaches to citations are employed and there remains numerous 'cite book' and other such templates and url's mixed in with the body of text. Little by little I will attempt to move cite book templates, etc and url's from the body of text to the Bibliography. Looking ahead, it seems this will take some time. Request that any new citations added to the article employ currently used citation convention. The Harvard citation method is what is predominate, so we should align all citations with that format. Example: <ref>{{harvnb|AuthorLastName|2005|pp=23–24}}</ref> -- See also: Harvard citation markup examples
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Note: There are a number of variations in harvard citation producing slightly different results in format. To maintain consistency in format the harvnb template is being employed, producing a Name, year, page# citation with nothing enclosed in brackets. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
-
Citation issues
- The source for cite [19] in the caption for Washington's Coat of Arms, (Pottinger, Don, 1953; Moncreiffe of that Ilk), doesn't even mention Washington. The WP article Coat of arms of the Washington family wasn't much help as it's tagged for lack of citations. I did a quick search
with no luck. Hopefully the editor who added this item will be of some help, otherwise we'll have to tag it shortly.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Fixed
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/bible.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Archived sources have been checked but failed to be useful/working
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Chernow quote
There is a quite lengthy quote by Ron Chernow in the Religion section. While quotes are welcomed in various instances to reaffirm a point, issues arise (1, 2) when they run at length, as is the case here, and when the point can be made with Wikipedia's voice cited by reliable sources. Do we really need this one particular quote, one of many other perhaps better sources, to make the point in the article about the politically motivated controversy regarding Washington's religious beliefs? The 'reliable source' for the quote is oddly a podcast from Chernow, not any of his several works. The source for this quote is only reliable if the reader loads and plays the podcast on his MP. As an aside most url's have a questionable life span before they go 404. More importantly, the quote is not needed and tends to undermine Wikipedia's voice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Added to the section is a statement that says the historical estimations of Washington's religious views have typically reflected that of the person or party/source asserting that view, and is cited by a RS used extensively in the Washington biography. Since Chernow's lengthy quote, taken from his podcast, is already in the dedicated article, Religious views of George Washington, that statement has been removed from this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Slavery section
It seems the slavery section is over done in terms of Washington's biography -- it is the largest section by far than all others, with the exception of the section on Death which is slightly smaller. Since there is a dedicated section, George Washington and slavery, for this topic we should trim many of the lesser details here, leaving of course the basic premise of Washington and slavery in place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. This seems to be a thing where controversial aspects of a very famous persons life manage to attract the most attention. Slavery isn't what he is notable for, and the size of the section should reflect that. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- We have the section hat, Main Article: George Washington and slavery. The first paragraph probably suffices for this summary article omitting the references to white indentures, and the detail here in the last three paragraphs of the section, not now included at "George Washington and slavery" can be added there at its deletion here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @TheVirginiaHistorian and Compassionate727: -- Generally agree. I would simply delete the last two paragraphs in the lsavery section here, already covered (+ -) in the main article and then add the following statement, a rather important one that somehow has escaped our notice all this time. This statement is in the main Washington-slavery article, but should by all means be included here.
-
- In 1794, Washington signed into law the first Slave Trade Act, which limited American involvement in the international slave trade.[1]
-
- If anyone here, or elsewhere, wishes to make the change/reduction to the section that would be okay by me. Meanwhile I'll not deviate from what I've been doing, i.e.upgrading the citations, bibliography and making some contextual edits where needed. Much still needs to be done there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done –Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, I deleted all but the first, which I felt was sufficient. The second really just elaborated further on his opinions on the matter, which is what the separate article is for. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done –Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @TheVirginiaHistorian and Compassionate727: -- Generally agree. I would simply delete the last two paragraphs in the lsavery section here, already covered (+ -) in the main article and then add the following statement, a rather important one that somehow has escaped our notice all this time. This statement is in the main Washington-slavery article, but should by all means be included here.
-
- We have the section hat, Main Article: George Washington and slavery. The first paragraph probably suffices for this summary article omitting the references to white indentures, and the detail here in the last three paragraphs of the section, not now included at "George Washington and slavery" can be added there at its deletion here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Regulating the Trade". New York Public Library. Retrieved 2015-12-20.
Washington the surveyor
There seems to be an inconsistency in the source used to cite this statement: At the age of 17, in 1749, Washington would receive his surveyor's license from the College of William & Mary. The cite [22] for this statement is from William and Mary College. In an effort to find a published alternative to this web site source I've looked through a fair number of Washington biographies, books, and so far none of them mention that Washington received his surveyor's license from the College of William and Mary in 1749. However, Ferling in his 2009 book, The Ascent of George Washington ... claims, on page 12, that Washington learned surveying from hands on experience and, in 1749, was immediately appointed Surveyor of Culpepper County, getting the appointment because of his experience and through his friendship with the influential Fairfax family -- with no credit given to any training at William and Mary. Evidently Ferling chose to leave this important piece of info out the equation. Puzzling even more is this source, from Ambler, Univ. N.Carolina Press which claims Washington never attended this college. After looking through many sources, it would be nice if someone could find a published (book) source that mentions (or clears up the claim) that Washington received his training and license from William and Mary.
Btw, our biography only gives cursory mention to Washington's surveying career. He spent four years working as a surveyor and conducted more than forty major surveys throughout Virginia and for the Ohio Company. It also doesn't mention whether Washington attended the College of William and Mary. If this is so, it should get a fair mention. -- -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- As I assumed from the College of William and Mary source, Washington did attend this college, but did not train as a surveyor there. The college in its charter of 1693 had the official authority to appoint all Virginia county surveyors, and through its function Washington received his license after working for Fairfax. i.e.Washington received some basic education in this field but obtained a professional capacity by his experience in the field. I've expanded coverage of Washington's career as a surveyor and have given the topic its own subsection which is warranted because of his extensive experience and because it's something he is widely noted for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not quite so. The website states "A 17-year-old George Washington received his surveyor's license through W&M and would return as its first American chancellor." This does not clearly state that GW attended classes there, it says he received his surveyor's license through William & Mary and that fact would seem to me to be something different. Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- PS: I vaguely remember something to the effect that GW never paid the monies to the colony/government that he was supposed to (as part of his surveying fees). Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Here is the entire passage: A 17-year-old George Washington received his surveyor's license through W&M and would return as its first American chancellor. Thomas Jefferson received his undergraduate education here, as did presidents John Tyler and James Monroe. -- The section only says he received his commission there so I suppose we should mention these other items. Done I've been trying to replace web site sources with published sources, so I'm a little reluctant to use such sources to cite these items. The original url for the W&M web page already went 404, so I had to go back, do a search and upgrade the url. Still looking to published books, whose page numbers never change, to cite these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- PS: I vaguely remember something to the effect that GW never paid the monies to the colony/government that he was supposed to (as part of his surveying fees). Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not quite so. The website states "A 17-year-old George Washington received his surveyor's license through W&M and would return as its first American chancellor." This does not clearly state that GW attended classes there, it says he received his surveyor's license through William & Mary and that fact would seem to me to be something different. Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I assumed from the College of William and Mary source, Washington did attend this college, but did not train as a surveyor there. The college in its charter of 1693 had the official authority to appoint all Virginia county surveyors, and through its function Washington received his license after working for Fairfax. i.e.Washington received some basic education in this field but obtained a professional capacity by his experience in the field. I've expanded coverage of Washington's career as a surveyor and have given the topic its own subsection which is warranted because of his extensive experience and because it's something he is widely noted for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
Death
The article section on death starts with "Washington spent several hours inspecting his plantation on horseback, in snow, hail, and freezing rain; later that evening he ate his supper without changing from his wet clothes". By inclusion before his illness, there is a strong implication that his illness was caused by him being in cold, wet weather, and sitting in wet clothes. However, there is no evidence that being in cold wet weather or sitting in wet clothes causes illness. My concern is that this passage reinforces a common but disproved myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcelis555 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- As far as I know, no one has proved or disproved anything, "myth" or otherwise. Do you know of a source that says 'wet cloths' had nothing to do with it? In all likelihood the wet cloths didn't help matters and may have been sort of a catalyst that triggered or aggravated an already present condition. All we can do is mention what facts are known and let the implications fall where they may. Did you have a better wording in mind? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Those occurrences - that Washington rode his horse around Mt Vernon, weather was bad, didn't change out of his damp/cold clothes before sitting down to dinner - are the facts of Thursday, December 12, the last day Washington could be said to have been "well". The next morning, Friday/December 13 he woke up with a sore throat that got only worse as the day went on and then died the following Saturday night. Whyever would WP delete the known facts of Washington's last few days before his death? We don't know exactly *why* Washington became ill, though most experts have agreed that he probably died from a variety of conditions, the main factor being a severe sore throat known as epiglottitis complicated by bloodloss through medical bloodletting. I'm with Gwhilickers on this - that the weather and Washington's wet clothes probably didn't help matters and that the facts should stand on their own and let readers' conclusions fall where they may. Shearonink (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know, no one has proved or disproved anything, "myth" or otherwise. Do you know of a source that says 'wet cloths' had nothing to do with it? In all likelihood the wet cloths didn't help matters and may have been sort of a catalyst that triggered or aggravated an already present condition. All we can do is mention what facts are known and let the implications fall where they may. Did you have a better wording in mind? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)