Wikipedia

Talk:George Washington/Archive 18

< Talk:George Washington
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Gwillhickers in topic Nomination
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Friendly reminder

Latest comment: 5 years ago38 comments5 people in discussion

@Cmguy777, Hoppyh, Rjensen, and Display name 99: (and others) — We are now at 100k level of readable prose, a level many of us agreed on not to exceed, so at this point we might want to add any new content with caution and condense grammar when possible, hopefully without removing important details and context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Hoppyh (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes and I have some advice: drop the section on "Crossing the Delaware" (keep the painting)--it's wildly out of proportion right now. Drop the sections on Sullivan's expedition (he gave general ords) and Arnold's Treason (two sentences each will suffice) -- Let's focus our 100,000 bytes on GW and NOT the events of the Am Rev better covered elsewhere.
I agree as well. I also wonder if anybody would be interested in starting an article called "Military career of George Washington." That could turn out really well and would allow us to condense some of the Revolutionary War material here. But unless that happens, I'm not sure I could support any major cuts to that section of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Military career of George Washington already exists. That article could be used to reduce information. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Well now I feel stupid. Anyway, I now fully endorse Rjensen's suggestion. I can work on it soon or someone else can. Display name 99 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Display name 99, your edits are fine. At 100k of prose, there is no call for drastic reductions of text. Any suggestions about what not to include should have been made beforehand, not after editors have given months of their time and effort to make the article comprehensive and self contained, and not dependent on other articles to get a good picture of Washington's entire life. There are dedicated articles for Washington's early life and presidency too, this doesn't mean we drop these sections. We cover all aspects of Washington's life, which includes military events he was involved with, esp landmark events like Crossing the Delaware, in summary as we've done, keeping all details directly involving Washington. If anyone is so inclined they can get into further depth in a given dedicated article. The article will fail FA nomination if we start hacking away at good writing, major details, context and comprehensiveness. 100k of prose is something some of us agreed is an acceptable level. This is also the acceptable level used in the Ulysses S. Grant biography, a FA. There are guidelines for page length with the 100k as the maximum, however, there are also guidelines that stipulate Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think The military sections are deficient-- there's too much about tactics, and very little about Washington's leadership style, his selection of generals, his negotiations with Congress and with governors, his emphasis on logistics, espionage, relations with the French Army & state militias, and his broad overall strategy versus the British. Those of the points that historians make with respect to what difference Washington actually made, and this article largely ignores all of them. -- Its in our lead summary: Washington's strategy enabled Continental forces to ultimately defeat the British. Historians laud Washington for his supervision of his generals, preservation of command, respect for civilian control of the military and coordination with Continental and state officials. But it is not followed up in the main text. Rjensen (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've no objections about covering these things, not that many of these things aren't already covered. We need to address sections on a per section basis. Bear in mind, by covering tactics, we cover the people Washington was associated with and the events that he had to face. Much is reflected on Washington simply by saying e.g. 'he fought the British facing overwhelming odds'. Also, many readers are more interested in what Washington actually did i.e.tactics, then about what other generals he selected, etc. Let's not move forward with some rule of thumb that says we must remove tactics. They alone reveal much about Washington and the other personell involved. Is there a particular section that gets into too many tactics and not enough about Washington, assuming the two have nothing to do with the other? It would have been nice if comment along these lines was made long before we were approaching the nomination. Anyway, we need to approach specific sections with specific issues. All of the sudden it seems the nomination is way off in the distance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

our job I think is to reflect the RS, which emphasize the larger picture. How did he win the war? What did he do well at? The battles & tactics were GW's weakest point--they are better covered in their own articles & in the Military-GW article. Affairs like Benedict Arnold & Sullivan can be covered in 2 sentences. Why did GW trust Arnold and Sullivan. His espionage was excellent--he surprised the Hessians because they had poor espeionage--but gets neglected in favor of what boat (or flag) was on his Crossing the river. Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Rjensen, don't get me wrong. I welcome these perspectives and any further illumination you can bring to the Washington biography. e.g. The boats that Washington commandeered give earthly and humanistic context to the ideas you mention, and as you know are articulated well by the many RS's. They are not mentioned here 'in favor of'. Both of these things give perspective to the other, imo. - Gwillhickers (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
My suggestions are to focus on the chronology of events during the American Revolutionary War that concern Washington. The last paragraph in the first part of the ARW section mentions his resignation before the war even began, kind of giving away the ending, before the war begins. The article should avoid repeating information. From my understanding of the ARW, it started out good at Boston, but was almost defeated at New York, and then there was a resurgence at Trenton. Also, who controlled the war in the South for the Patriots. How much was Washington involved in South in fighting the British ? I agree with Rjensen the ARW section should focus on Washington. Does Benidict Arnold deserve his own section ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Generally agree, moreover, the entire biography should focus on Washington, this doesn't mean we don't include points of context in the narrative. We want a well written and comprehensive narrative, per FA criteria. I believe any context the biography has doesn't get away from Washington, but rather adds to his life and various involvements. Let's not assume the notion that every sentence must mention Washington specifically. The very first items listed under FA Criteria are :
Also, while we want to focus on Washington, I don't believe an additional section for Benedict Arnold is appropriate, esp since we are at the 100k prose level. Besides, we already have an Arnold's treason section. This 'reminder' was just that, to perhaps condense some grammar and be mindful of adding lots of new information. It wasn't intended to prompt the rewriting of the article which is not needed. Imo, we should make any last improvements, tweaks, etc, and set our sights on the nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I was refering to Arnold's treason as Arnold's section. Does the article need a Arnold's treason section ? Can that information be blended into the article without having a seperate section ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
FA status requires "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." that is not met yet. I strongly recommend using JSTOR and QUESTIA (Wiki editors get free subscriptions--even without a subscription both give lots of info on a cite). I make heavy use of https://scholar.google.com/ which covers scholarly articles and gives links when they are online. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777 I am flexible about whether to have a separate section for Arnold's treason, so long as the important points are not lost.
  • Rjensen, as there are 100's of sources for Washington, I suppose there is no end to survey of the relevant literature. If you have any pertinent points, clarity, etc you can bring to the table on any given topic they would be most welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
indeed there is no end of improvements for the biography of a major figure on whom hundreds of scholars are at work. But the rules require a "thorough" search if we want FA status. --a 5-minute search is sufficient for most paragraphs here. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I own a fair number of bio's and other works on Washington, including Chernow, Ferling, Randall, Weincek, Davis, Fischer and Brumwell. If need be I have Fitzpatrick's works/writings of Washington as searchable PDF files on my hard drive which I can consult. I like to think that among this lot there are more than enough sources to refer to. As always, I am open to specific suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
that works for a "good article." But FA status requires rather more--basically we have LOTS of professional scholars at work on GW in last 20 years. there are about 300 scholarly articles published since 2000 (not including book reviews). Chernow cites about 60 articles pp 864-67.) I can provide the list of 300 if anyone asks at rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I realize you're a credentialed historian, but it would seem the list of works mentioned above, (and in our bibliography), mostly written by scholars of late, are more than enough sourcing needed for a comprehensive summary encyclopedia article. This is not to say we can't use the sort of the material you offer. If there are specific topics that would benefit from the scholarly articles you mention, by all means, list some of them in the bibliography here and let's put them to work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the Fitzpatrick article has one merit. It is in a summary biographical style. In that way it is simular to Wikipedia. I think Fitzpatrick would help in organizing the American Revolutionary War section. I am all for modern research. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the last three paragraphs could be moved or removed from the article in the opening of the American Revolutionary war section. The information is really a summary within a summary and steps ahead of the section. It is well written and sourced. It could possibly be moved the the Military career of George Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If they are a "summary within a summary" they need to be better written. The idea of moving the Yorktown section esp would not be a good idea. This was the end of the war, the surrender of Cornwallis to Washington, a landmark event in Washington's life. The biography covers Washington's entire life in summary, and then some, as this is going to be a featured article, filled with context and comprehensiveness. Dedicated articles are for taking the coverage further than we (will) do here. The Yorktown section needs more context and general improvement. Washington is just as famous, if not more so, for his leading role in the Revolution as he is for his presidency, which, as we know, there is also a dedicated article for. Dedicated articles don't relieve the responsibility of this (soon to be Featured) article to provide good coverage for the readers that will come here first. Esp since this is the only WP article that comes up in google search results when a potential reader searches for George Washington. I posted the two main FA criteria above. FA's do not leave out major details, let alone, entire topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Are editors suppose to be reducing content or adding to it ? I thought the American Revolution section was suppose to be trimmed. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently we are at 99k of prose. There was never really any consensus to reduce the Revolution any more than the Presidency. Both topics are corner stone topics. What I suggested was a reduction in some of the overall grammar, and an awareness that we are at or near the 100k mark. Rjensen's edits were badly needed in the Arnold's treason section. In the Siege of Yorktown section Lafayette and Arnold weren't even mentioned, so I mentioned their roles in relation to Washington — both were central figures during the siege. TVH improved on the lede. FA's overlook no major details. If editors are to present the topic in context we must do more than simply mention Washington in any given section. Bearing in mind that there is really no end to improvement, I believe the article is just about ready for nomination. --

I thought it had been discussed to reduce Arnold's treason. I believe Arnold is getting to much air time for someone who betrayed Washington. I don't think that Arnold deserves his own section. Whose article is this Washington's or Arnold's ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I revised it just now to focus on GW--especially his failure to appreciate what Arnold was doing. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I restored one point of context, i.e.Arnold's reasons for going over to the British. Relating why Arnold committed treason is a major detail and important context for this topic. According to Chernow, along with being passed over for promotion, the tremendous debt Arnold had built up could be avoided by simply skipping town and siding with the British. We mention wife Peggy, at leaset we can do is include these major details behind Arnold's treason. We also have a section for the Jefferson-Hamilton feud, while this is not their article either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Arnold needs to be mentioned in the article. It is just how much. I don't think he deserves his own section, but that is just my opinion. As far as I know Washington was not that close to Arnold. He had to be told that Arnold betrayed him and the Patriot cause. Maybe the section can be named Betrayal and espionage or Treason, betrayal, and espionage without mentioning Arnold in the title. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't find any law from the Continental Congress that defines "treason" against the United States during the American Revolutionary War. Did Arnold infact commit treason, since he was born a British subject ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Chernow does not represent the RS consensus on why Arnold switched--there is no consensus actually--lots of historians emphasize the role of Peggy and her family. But we have full coverage of BA elsewhere, and in any case the reasons have zero to do with GW. The problem is that GW did not see it happening under his very eyes until the Andre documents were shown him a few hours after Arnold fled West Point. GW got fooled by Peggy Arnold --shows that GW was blind to both of them. That weakness almost cost a major defeat at West Point. --Philbrick wrote a 2016 book on Arnold that Chernow did not see. In a recent interview Philbrick says: Peggy Shippen....did have a significant role in the plot. She exerted powerful influence on her husband, who is said to have been his own man but who actually was swayed by his staff and certainly by his wife. Peggy came from a loyalist family in Philadelphia; she had many ties to the British. She ... was the conduit for information to the British. Dave Palmer comes to much the same conclusion about Peggy in his dual bio of GW and AB. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I think all of that is good for the Arnold article. The Continental Congress did say Arnold committed treason, but there is no definition of treason. It appears that anyone who was not a Patriot was the enemy. Why Arnold switched ? I am not sure that matters in the George Washington article. I am not sure why Arnold's wife Peggy has anything to do with George Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
no need for us to define treason. the RS are unanimous is using the term. (if he was caught it would be a military court martial for the charge of aiding the enemy and punishment = execution.) Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. That is true. But Washington executed a loyalist (Tory) to the King in New York in front of 20,000 people. Loyalists were tortured by Patriots in New York simply for being loyal to the King. The British never charged any American and hanged them for Treason. Washington did. Why did not the British courtmartial Patriots and charge them with treason ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The British wanted the colonies to come back--hanging leaders would prevent that. Did Washington hang someone for treason??? who? perhaps you mean mutiny or striking an officer-- as in the case of Thomas Hickey (soldier) or desertion in combat. Rjensen (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Washington hanged André, Arnold conspiracy, and I believe a British Tory in New York in front of 20,000 people. Why did the Patriots not view themselves as committing treason against the King. Isn't that what they were doing ? What was the purpose of hanging then, to create terror among Patriots not side with the British ? Wouldn't that make Washington a dictator and the British humanitarians ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Andre was head of the British spy system & knew what it meant to be caught disguised as a civilian. US was vastly more lenient during this war. Washington told Clinton that Andre he could go free in exchange for Arnold! The 20,000 crowd is the Hickey case--he was a US soldier planning to kill Washington. The Patriots said the king had violated their rights. rulers can only rule with the consent of the governed and George had no longer had that consent. Jefferson's Declaration said it best: Governments...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. Lots of English kings knew that story (Charles I and James II most recently). Rjensen (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen for your responses. Why did not the colonists insist on Representation in Parliment ? Did they do that before going to war ? It seemed there goal was independence from the King. The loyalists consented to be under the King. The 1787 Constitution says nothing about "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." I know this is going beyond the scope of this article. It seems that Washington was a somewhat an "Oliver Cromwell" type of General. Maybe the Colonists just wanted their own country. That would make sense. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
From March 12, 1652 to April 4, 1660 Virginia, a Royal Colony, had no King and was ruled by Parliment. That is eight years and 28 days without a King. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The basic American position – supported by many loyalists and many British leaders-- was summarized in "no taxation without representation". That was a core right of all Englishmen, and it meant that only representatives elected by Englishmen could impose a tax on those Englishmen. Each of the 13 colonies had an elected legislature that did meet this criteria, and did raise taxes. Parliament in England did not meet the criteria – not a single member of Parliament represented the colonists. So the main grievance was against Parliament, not the king, from 1763 until 1775. Then the king became involved, sending in troops to suppress the rights of the people of Massachusetts. In response to that, the 13 colonies set up their own Congress. The colonies revived their old militia units, and started drilling and preparing for combat. This came to a head at Lexington and Concord in April 1775. A major British raid on Concord in search of weapons, gunpowder, and to arrest patriot leaders, was a failure. Many thousands of militia marched to Boston, outnumbering the British Army there, putting the city under siege. Simultaneously, patriots in each colony took control of the governments, and ousted all royal officials. The King refused to compromise at this point-- he offered compromise later, but it was too late then. Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

not a RS

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Adams, Randolph Greenfield (1928). Arnold, Benedict. Dictionary of American Biography. pp. 362–367. is no longer a RS on the treason issue-- Adams was unaware of the key documents discovered in 1930s & published by Van Doren Secret History in 1942. For example those docs showed Peggy Arnold was a major player and initiated correspondence with Andre that led to Arnold's defection. see review at https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/van-doren-carl/secret-history-of-the-american-revolution/ the Van Doren book is online free for borrowing at https://archive.org/details/secrethistoryofa00vand Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Has Cm' cited something that isn't supported by Adams' text? What in particular must we discount about Adams' work in light of the discovery made in the 1930's? Is there a statement in the section cited by Adams that is in error? I have no problem upgrading the Adams cites if it's really necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
using poor outdated cites is bad for FA status--Adams simply was unaware of the sources that opened in 1940. I strongly recommend the new Philbrick book. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You are correct. However, I would have to register to borrow philbrock book, but will consult the various modern sources to provide the cites in question. Thanks for bringing this to light. So intriguing is the issue I've just purchased several books on Arnold-Washington, including Flexner, Palmer and Randall. Online viewing of these books was disappointing. Btw, the link to the review you offered, at least from my end, is 404. Will also look into Philbrick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Adams said that Peggy corresponded and was paid by the British. How does that contradict current research ? Discounting one historian can lead to others being discounted. Adams specifically said why Arnold committed treason. Did Peggy force Arnold to take the £6,315 paid for by Clinton ? Did Peggy force Arnold to become a British General and attack Virginia and Connecticut? I am all for adding current research to update Adams, but Adams is a reliable source, at least for his time period. Not having unvailable sources does not make immediate dismissal of Adams. Without Adams we would not know the exact amount Clinton paid Arnold for his treason. "Modern research" does not always equate to historical accuracy. Historians should be judged by their own merits and not for the times of their published works. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Willard Sterne Randall (2014) Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor says that Peggy knew and gave her support of Arnold's treason. Randall also says Jonathan Odell was the go between Arnold's treasonous correspondance with the British, not Peggy. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know Van Doran is an out of print book and not very accessible. Adams was part of a team of historians under the editorial supervision of Allen Johnson that is very accessible online. I disagree that Adams is "no longer RS on the treason issue." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually Cm' makes a good point. While Rjensen is rightfully concerned about the latest research I think we would be taking the idea a bit too far by discounting Adams' account entirely, esp where it concerns items not related to e.g.Peggy's letters. Agree that a new discovery shouldn't be used to write off an entire work. I have no problem with using Adams to cite the things not related specifically to Peggy's complicity, which we only mention in passing anyway. However, we still might want to replace Adams with the most prominent modern sources devoted to Arnold and/or Washington, (Flexner, Palmer, Randall, etc) as we go along -- or at least use them to corroborate Adams to demonstrate that most of the historical accounts over the years have remained the same. New discoveries aside, facts don't change, just the opinions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Washington wanted Arnold in exchange for André, not Peggy. The question is how much was Peggy involved ? She was paid and she herself wrote treasonable information to the British. Adams mentions this. What new information does Van Doren add ? She initiated correspondence with André. Adams says she corresponded with the British, but not to whom, specifically. That does not directly contradict what Adams said. In fact, Adams is saying both Peggy and Arnold were treasonably corresponding with the British. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. This is all interesting, and we've made efforts not to concentrate on Arnold as a single entity too much, so we certainly don't want to get into any more coverage of his wife than we've already done with a summary statement unless directly involved with Washingtom. Imo, Adams is fine for now, I'm hoping. Meanwhile, it wouldn't hurt to at least corroborate Adams with noted modern biographers, as we do with many other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Over-linking

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

This article is over-linked, and I've begun the monumental task of repair. Please refer to the manual of style on this topic here. I've gone through the infobox at the top, removing links to "United States" and "Lieutenant" and other such self-evident stuff. In the intro, "civic virtue" etc. were formerly linked.

Also please note that the MOS clearly states that something should be linked only once per article. Technically, that would mean that we should not link "Second Continental Congress" ever again in the article—which is probably too extreme. But certainly these terms should not be linked again and again throughout. Please use restraint on links. —Dilidor (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Good advice, keeping in mind of course that something can be linked in the lede and then in the body of text, and in a caption, when appropriate i.e.for important topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The MOS Suggestion about over linking is certainly valid for the great majority of shorter articles. However for long complex multi-part articles like this one, I think many readers will be looking only at sections that especially interest them. Political-minded readers may want to look at the presidency and ignore the French and Indian war, for example. Therefore it is helpful to double or triple link to very important sites that tell additional information about Washington. I completely agree that linkage to ordinary words and geographical places is a bad idea in the first place. My suggestion is that link to a word only if it is helpful to give the reader a fresh perspective on George Washington. Keep in mind that if the readers jump to a link, they may not come back-- I think links are way to lose casual readers. Rjensen (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Remember that MOS are guidelines, and exceptions and discretion can apply. In very long articles certain important topics would do well to get another link. Often times a reader is not inclined to click on a link when the given topic first presents itself, but when that topic comes up again and presents itself in a different context the readers will often be inclined to look into it then. i.e.The link in the lede aside, Continental Congress might do well to get an extra link in the body of text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Topics to link more than once

@Rjensen, Cmguy777, Hoppyh, Dilidor, and TheVirginiaHistorian: (and any one concerned) — In light of Rj's suggestion, we should list a few key topics more than once in the body of text. Imo, Continental Congress should be one, as this topic occurs numerous times. If this is acceptable, please list a few below. We should keep suggestions to a bare minimum, however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

There are eleven major sections, it seems to me that no topic should be mentioned more than once in each section, but that someone like Alexander Hamilton might be linked in three sections: American Revolution, and Constitutional Convention and Presidency depending on the narrative as adopted. Thomas Jefferson might be in three sections: American Revolution, Presidency (linked once), and Retirement. One exception might be linking Hamilton and Jefferson a second time in the Presidency section at the subsection "Hamilton-Jefferson feud". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur completely with all that's been said above. I have been going through addressing the over-linking issue a little at a time, but I have not been removing pertinent links, such as "Continental Congress". I view each section as a stand-alone in the sense that it's acceptable to link to "Alexander Hamilton" even though he was linked in the previous section. But only once per section.

The bigger issues that I've been finding are:

  • links to military ranks or titles ("Lieutenant General" getting linked as well as "John Doe", "President" as a separate link from "George Washington")
  • major geographical locations ("Virginia", "Great Britain")
  • common or self-evident concepts ("civic virtue" mentioned above)
  • unnecessarily complicated links when the basic article title is sufficient.

I'm not being draconian in stripping these out, but I do think an article is much easier to read if it doesn't link every other word. As others have already suggested, a link is intended to help a reader delve deeper into a topic, not to function like a spider's web with tendrils connecting to everything on Wikipedia. —Dilidor (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't see a lot of overlinking in the article. Are there repetative links or is there link crowding in a paragraph ? I don't think it is overlinking when Alexander Hamilton is linked in three seperate sections. He only needs to be linked once per major section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Overall Dilidor has done a good job working on over-linking, and frivolous linking, but the issue here is more than one link for just a few key topics. I would suggest we keep the topics so linked to just a few and in appropriate sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Source

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Cmguy777, thanks for your latest edits in the West Point plot and treachery section, however, the source for this material, written by Steve Sheinkin, is an "adventure tale" written for "young readers", so I would recommend finding a different source for the otherwise good additions you made to the section. Also, Palmer, 2010, p.304 refers to Stransbury as a "society merchant" rather than a "poet" as Sheinkin claims. This seems to be a more befitting reference to Stransbury, given the context of the episode in question, as Arnold was wheeling and dealing while he was commandant in Philadelphia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed Sheiken as a source, but it was a biography, not fiction. I had removed Metz. That was fiction. One problem is that so called "modern sources" are written for young adults or are simply fiction. I am not sure if historical standards are declining. I added Philbrick. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Getting away from Washington

Let's keep in mind that all the details about Peggy, Stransbury, etc, is beginning to get away from Washington a bit. Some context is welcomed, but I believe we're at a point where we've added enough. If we're going to add anything more to this section it should relate to Washington directly. Concern was expressed that this is not Arnold's article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It was Rjensen who insisted on information concerning Peggy or her involvement. Peggy was a spy. She did give information and was paid for by the British. She did influence Arnold to defect to the British. Stransbury was Arnold's initial go between. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I said some context is welcomed, needed for a FA. Stransbury was removed altogether. He was a merchant and tied in well with Arnold's business ventures in Philadelphia, and made contact with Andre. Your edit tied the narrative together nicely at that point, so I restored it. Whatever the case, we have to stop treating the section like one's personal sketch pad. Sometimes improvements and changes are needed, but at this point I've lost count of the things you added and then deleted or changed, while points of major context were washed away in the process in two instances. All I asked was to limit any new additions to things directly related to Washington. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the section has stabilized. It is time to go on to other sections of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
While there is virtually no end to the things we could add, I agree. The section for purposes of the Washington biography covers the main details, is contextual and appears stable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Arnold's treason

Latest comment: 5 years ago27 comments3 people in discussion

Rjensen — 99% of people may of heard about Arnold's treason, but I suspect many of them don't really know why, let alone the finer details. In any case, we must present the topic in context, leaving out no major details. Not even mentioning why Arnold switched over leaves a big hole in this section. We can't do this in a Good and esp a Featured Article. Chernow said that being passed over for promotion and the tremendous debt he left behind were 'among' the reasons. This sounds very likely. If there is any other reason why you didn't mention it. You spoke of historical consensus about what the reasons were. We should mention them, and if there is debate on that point we simply state the surrounding circumstances and make no concrete and conclusive statement, with perhaps a footnote about historical debate. Not all points of context in the narrative are directly tied to Washington, but we mention them so the reader knows what's going on. We simply can't go along and claim 99% of the readers know about this and skip over the item. 99% of people know Washington was the first president, but we still mention it. We need to cover this central point of the topic with something, at least a sentence. Any thing you can offer on this point would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy — the section name change is actually a great move! Arnold being mentioned by name in his own section, on retrospect, is perhaps overstating his part in the Washington biography. My analogy to the Hamilton-Jefferson feud was not the best, as these two men were intimately tied with Washington and warrant being mentioned by name in a section title. I agree we shouldn't focus on Arnold too much, but if we're going to mention his treason, which ties in with his motivation behind his West Point dealings, we must include this major detail. Readers need to know why Arnold acted as he did. A brief sentence on this point is called for, as we can't leave this gap open in a Featured Article. I am going to survey the sources available to me, as it seems Chernow all of the sudden shares a lone opinion not reflected by historical consensus. I'm skeptical on that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Ferling, 2007, Almost a Miracle, p. 447, claims, as does Chernow, that Arnold had many enemies, both in the military and among politicians, and with many good reasons, as Arnold was considered "hot and impetous" and an "evil genius" among fellow army officers. With a wounded leg still preventing Arnold to ride a horse and function as a field commander, Washington assigned him a post in Philadelphia, which Arnold considered the worst assignment. He later took part in the naval battle for Lake Champlain and emerged a hero, yet Congress passed him over for promotion, largely due to outside influences among Arnold's many enemies, which infuriated Arnold to no end. In 1779 Arnold appealed to General Clinton and Congress about a naval command and was again passed over. Ripe for the picking, Arnold was offered a bribe of 20,000 Pounds from the British and a command over Loyalist troops. He jumped on it. Being passed over for command several times, and the back-biting involved, were the central reasons for Arnold's treason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Randall, 1997, George Washington, p.363, 370-387. Randall commits many pages to Arnold in his Washington biography. Arnold was criticized by Congressman Reed for his associations with Loyalist merchants, and was very influential when Congress later passed Arnold over for promotion. We need to at least say that Arnold felt betrayed from being passed over for command on several occasions.
  • Lengel, 2005, General George Washington: A Military Life, p.322, also maintains that Arnold "seethed with bitterness at the lack of respect Congress and Washington had supposedly shown him".

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion historians debate many multiple reasons for BA's treason--a sentence or two in this article suggests falsely that the issue is easy. It's a bad mistake --it's misleading and will hurt the FA goal. Some historians stress Peggy, others his court martial, others his debts, others his jealousy of other generals, others his "betrayals." We have BA articles that discuss the issues and that's where it belongs. In my opinion, Chernow does a poor job with BA. Ferling does much better. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Merely saying " ...egged on by his new wife Peggy, he felt extremely dissatisfied" is obtuse and leaves out major context. This statement begs two questions: 'Why' did Arnold feel dissatisfied, and 'what' was it that Peggy was telling him? I'm sorry but this statement is not good at all for a FA, and overlooks major details cited by several notable sources. Arnold's feelings are nothing amazing, and we should stay away from any source that attempts to turn this issue into something cryptic, strange or fantastic. We need to see one source that says in so many words that Arnold's reasons are something of a mystery. I haven't seen one, including Ward, the source you brought to the table. If we don't find one we need to make the general statement, supported by multiple sources. If "betrayed" is not quite to your liking we can say 'disappointed' or 'dissatisfied', but we need to at least present the facts. e.g.Before turning to treason, Arnold was turned down for promotion twice by Congress, and egged on by wife Peggy. This way readers can decide what 'the' reason was. I'll wait for further comment, before correcting this issue, but this glaring gap in the narrative needs to be fixed, per FA criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Better not try to excplain Arnold here--it's VERY difficult because historians have so many different answers. 1) uncertainty among historian is clearly stated: " Benedict Arnold turned down a chance to restore his honor by taking command of the Continental Army's left wing. Instead, he chose to betray his country. To this day, historians are still not certain why." King, Benedict Arnold and the American Revolution - Page 53. 2) look at the range--Brian Boylan, "Benedict Arnold 1973. Daniel Burt in The Biography Book says of the Boylan book: "Justifies his treason as a morally responsible act of a man convinced that the ideals of the revolution had been betrayed and the war was unwinnable." 3a and 3b) JSTOR Daily Historian: Andy Trees states" "Arnold was said to have a love for finery and all things British, proceeding to wrack up large debts which his deal with the British would have absolved." 3b) others argue, "He opposed the growing alliance with France, fearing that a Catholic country would never respect freedom-loving Protestant Americans. In a nation becoming tired of the war—morale was at its lowest point in 1780—Arnold believed he could be a peacemaker." 4) Clare Brandt The Man in the Mirror: A Life of Benedict Arnold" (1994). Burt summarizes Brandt's argument that Arnold was "brought down by self-delusion and a reckless unconcerned for anyone but himself." 5) Flexner, The Traitor and the Spy (1953). Burt [The Biography Book] says "at the core of Flexner's analysis is the fatal relationship of Arnold, Andre, and... Peggy Shippen." All this and much more belongs in the Benedict Arnold article. It would be fatal to FA status for the GW article to oversimplify the huge scholarship on Arnold. Better to have no explanation and send people to the several Arnold articles Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Historians offer 'some' different, and often lesser reasons, but they are not opposed to one another overall. Some of the things mentioned above for Arnold's treason are highly speculative — like losing faith in the revolution, and his love for fine things British, so don't let these things cloud the big picture. After distinguishing himself in battle, several times, risking his life, it's rather difficult to embrace the idea that Arnold didn't believe in the revolution, at least during the first years. What has been established as fact is that Arnold was passed over for promotion at least twice at the hand of Congress and his military and political enemies. Chernow, Lengel and Ferling, not to mention Arnold's dedicated article, mention these things foremost. After being passed over for promotion by Congress, twice, and with all the back-stabbing involved, and along with the chance to abandon his debts, while being bribed 20,000 pounds, it's not at all difficult to see why Arnold finally sided with the British. We need to say something. Anyone half awake is going to ask why. We can't leave that space blank in a Featured Article. We should at least mention the established facts that occurred before Arnold's treason, without saying that any one idea was 'the' reason. (i.e.passed over for promotion twice, enemies, Peggy, bribery ) things mentioned by most of the sources, and let the readers decide what factored into Arnold's decision the most. We can accomplish this with one well cited summary sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Arnold betrayed Washington and the Revolution for the money, pure and simple. It is quite possible Peggy reinstalled some loyalist sentiment in Arnold, who was born a British subject. Wives can be very influencial. I don't think it is good to idealize Arnold. André paid the price for Arnold's fool hardy plan. The British knew Arnold could be bought. Arnold being passed over for promotion really belongs in the Arnold article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No one has "idealized Arnold". Where are you getting this from? Rjensen says the reasons are complex. You're saying the reason is "pure and simple", money, but then you mention Peggy. I say there are several main factors which many of the major sources (e.g.Chernow, Randall, Lengel, Ferling) stress foremost. We abide by FA criteria and say what the sources say foremost. Once again, dedicated articles are for in depth coverage. This doesn't get us out of the responsibility of summarizing major details in context here, so let's not get into the old hat habit of pawning off something to a dedicated article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
instead of private speculating about Arnold's motivations, better read up on them--there are a dozen or so books to read focused on him, and several on GW plus BA. Explanations? Peggy for example was close to the loyalists and was courted by Andre and wanted to boost and help her husband get glory. Arnold had multiple possible motivations--including several he claimed in writing (eg he claimed he was trying to be the peacemaker bringing US and GB together again). If readers are interested in Arnold's motives they can find a few thousand words on this issue in other articles. This is an encyclopedia with hundreds of articles that deal with GW in one way or the other. and we can assume that our many many links to other articles will help readers satisfy their curiosity. the article is NOT a one-stop deal like biographies by Chernow, Ferling etc. In my own opinion, Arnold was a bitterly unhappy person who almost always feuded w people nearby in status-- he needed $$ and prestige and heroic status and he often cheated to get it. I will insist that the biographies of GW alone (such as Chernow) are NOT RS about Benedict Arnold--oh--better look at the recent work esp Philbrick (2016).Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Speculation about Arnold's treason could be unending and belongs in the Benedict Arnold article. Money is a powerful motivator. £20,000 pounds in 1780 would be £2,523,000.00 in 2017. I would say that was his main motivation. His wife influenced him. Does anyone really know ? But this is the George Washington article. We need to save speculation for Arnold in the Arnold article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As I said, we can list a few of the facts covered foremost by the sources in one sentence without any "speculation". We must not overlook any major details or leave out definitive context. Blocking this from the section with the opinion that it's all speculation would be an affront to what the sources say foremost, FA criteria and good writing. We say what the sources say, and this doesn't mean we entertain each an every one of their speculations, like 'Arnold likes nice things British'. We stick to the main points covered by the major sources, used extensively in our biography. We can't cherry pick items from the sources with mere opinion. The section still asks the question 'why'. We can't send the readers off packing without anything at all to say about this missing context. Arnold was livid about the back-stabbing involving Congress and not being promoted after serving in numerous battles. This was witnessed and is well established among historians. All those other things, like "nice things British", wanting peace between US and Britain (after fighting in numerous battles against the British, and then against the US??), and Peggy's nagging are secondary. We should settle this now, or the nomination will never occur without the same debate erupting all over again. We should put our opinions aside, compromise and say what the sources say foremost, in a summary sentence, without saying 'this is the reasons for Arnold's treason. No one wants to cover this in depth. Enough sources have been outlined that concentrate on the major events preceding Arnold's treason that easily allow a summary sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: this latest edit: "Arnold believed he was under valued by America for his war service". This sentence was a step in the right direction, thank you, but it still begs the question 'why'. As Lengel and others point out, Arnold was bitter over being passed up for promotion, and yes, obviously felt he was not appreciated, but we need to present the facts in context and point out why. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, the answer for why is the potential £20,000. I am not sure how much King George III paid him, maybe £10,000. He wanted the money. He wanted to make his wife Peggy happy. Nothing suggests he did it for Britain out of some renewed patriotism for the mother country England. Maybe he felt guilty about rebelling against the King, but I seriously doubt Arnold had much of a conscious. There simply was not a lot to Arnold. He seemed to be a very shallow person. Patriotism for England may have been a factor, but speculation. Ten months were spent haggling over the price for West Point. I suggest we concentrate on Washington. The best answer is that he did it for the money. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

editbreak

Your estimation of Arnold seems a bit simplistic, and differs greatly from the account Rjensen just added to this section in the Arnold biography. Historians generally agree that Arnold was a man of great pride, courage and made many enemies in the process. The prospect of bribery was certainly a factor, but it would be sort of a reckless deduction to say this was the only thing that made Arnold turn. Wife Peggy seems to have been a significant contributing factor and was complicit in the communications between Arnold and the British, while she sympathized with his loss of promotion(s) and feelings of betrayal. Suggest you do as I have been doing and hit the books. So far, I've seen the most emphasis placed on Arnold's feelings of betrayal at the hand of the Continental Congress and Arnold's rivals who coached them -- giving five junior officers promotions instead. There were other factors that contributed, of course, but this is what pushed him over the edge, just before he asked Washington for a command position at West Point so he could effect his treasonous deeds there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Historians just don't know why he committed "treason" against Washington and the Revolution. Gwillhickers, please don't tell me to "hit the books." We are getting side tracked with Arnold. I feel this is the Benedict Arnold article, rather than the George Washington aritcle. He met with André and gave him the plans to take West Point. When André got caught, Arnold fled to a British ship for safety. It was not much of a plan. None of this sounds heroic. Arnold was given £6,315 pounds (£10,000 was worth about $1.5 million today). He was also later awarded 13,400 acres of land in Canada in addition to being a British General. Does that sound like a hero to you or a man of conviction and complication. It does not to me. Arnold was extremely self centered and it ended up getting André hanged. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Historians just don't know why..."?? — This statement tells us you haven't read much about the topic, and have ignored the outline of sources that was posted here in plain view only a couple of days ago. It was already pointed out to you, also, that Arnold had committed treason and was in communication with the British long before he fled to the British side. Wife Peggy was complicit in his efforts, also emphasized by most historians. This too was already explained for you. We're getting side tracked mostly because you typically ignore or forget what was outlined and explained to you while you belabor and argue things out of what appears to be disgruntled habit. Historians have long since pointed out and emphasized Arnold's feelings of betrayal, starting with Jared Sparks, the first to write a major biography on Benedict Arnold in 1835.

"every effort was now making to fill up the Continental regiments, and reinforce the dwindled army under Washington at Morristown, as well as to prepare for the expected invasion from the north in the spring.
While Arnold was engaged in this service, an incident happened, which made him begin to talk of the ingratitude of his country, and which had an important bearing on his future destiny. In February, 1777, Congress appointed five new major-generals, without including him in the list, all of whom were his juniors in rank, and one of them, General Lincoln, was promoted from the militia. It may well be imagined what effect this tacit censure and public slight would have on a person so sensitive to military glory, and whose reputation and prospects rested on that basis alone." — J. Sparks, 1835, p. 85.

Many other historians have made the same emphasis, but apparently you feel you know better than they do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope you checked out my recent edits. I am entitled to my own opinions in the talk page. I sometimes feel Gwillhickers you start talk pages to single out and ridicule. Are you the commanding editor ? Just say so. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
There were four reasons why Arnold committed treason: 1. He was angered at repeated slights from Congress 2. He was being investigated for war profiteering in Pennsylvania by court martial. 3. He was in debt 4. He was a New England Protestant appalled at Catholic French alliance in the War. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't try to confine the number of reasons to a specific number, (i.e.'four') but thank you for your edits! It was the last thing I expected. Don't know why you need to arm-wrestle with me so much. I'm just another editor with a goofy user name. In any case, Arnold was active and committed to his duty regardless of any French-Catholic alliance throughout his service under Washington, so unless this is noted by more than one modern historian I would strike that as something that was a significant reason as to why Arnold became a traitor. Lafayette was a French catholic. Did Arnold hate him for that? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned the promotion issue specifically, as this is emphasized by modern sources (now cited with three) and has been since J.Sparks 1835 biography of Arnold. I tentatively struck the Catholic-French Alliance as among the significant reasons, unless we can find more than one source that emphasizes this reason. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Historians do not know whether Arnold had loyalty to England. Adams mentions the anti-Catholic reason for defecting. Puritan New England was not the hub of religious toleration. It was only during the Revolutionary Period that Catholics became more acceptable, probably since America needed their help militarily. I was just going by what Adams said. You are welcome to make your own edits too Gwillhickers. But again is this the Washington or Arnold article ? We seem to be talking so much about Arnold and not very much about the man he betrayed, the father of this country, George Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Let None Dare Call it Liberty: The Catholic Church in Colonial America Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D. (2002-2018) Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This language is really uncalled for. Apparently you're still making issue about coverage of Arnold, then turn around and give us a source about Catholic relations re Arnold. We've changed the section title to a more inclusive one. The section could say alot more about Washington and Arnold on this issue. e.g.Washington investigated the promotion issue, inquiring to members of Congress and exchanged letters with Arnold over the matter. There are many definitive quotes we could include, but haven't. He gave Arnold command of West Point thinking this would help to appease Arnold's anger and feelings of betrayal, even though he didn't know what Arnold was up to. Arnold is central to the West Point conspiracy, and we don't get into Arnold as a singular entity separate from Washington other than to add a couple of points of context, so the reader has something of an idea about the bee in Arnold's bonnet. The language you, and then I, added/condensed is neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Why are you going after me Gwillhickers ? It was Adams who said Arnold was anti-Catholic. I am trying not to add my own opinion to the talk page. That is why I cited the article about Catholics in New England. The fact that Arnold may have been involved in corruption would be a good reason not to give him command of West Point. There is no need to keep going over this. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Onward

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

It appears we are getting close to the point of nominating the article for FA. Tweaks and such can go on forever it seems, but at this point we should make sure there are no pressing issues to deal with before the nomination occurs. If there are, now is the time to deal with them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The overall style could be better. I suggest moving the personal life section after the historial reputation section. The Revolutionary War section seems too long or has too many titles. The final days section should be after the retirement section. I think it will be confusing to the readers. Washington is retired, then there is his personal life, then there is his final days with a hodgepodge of sub sections. It looks sloppy and ruins the chronology of the article.. I suggest using the Weincek George Washington (1732–1799) article as a guide. These are my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The Final Days section is already after the Retirement section. Your sweeping opinion sounds generally disgruntled, which is odd since you are one of the major contributors. Do you feel your work is sloppy, or were you referring to the efforts of everyone else? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I gave an honest assessment. I am not blaming any editors. I am not above criticism as an editor. I have made some changes. "It looks sloppy..." That is what I said. I did not say editors were sloppy. Am I sloppy as an editor? I try not to be. You can call me out when I am. I don't care. The Final Days section is too long. I suggest putting his death in the Retirment section. I am just trying establish chronology. And again I suggest using Weincek article as a guideline. I have been doing so. I am trying to reduce or trim the number of titles in the article. I have been doing so in my last edits. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The current format is Retirement-Personal Life-Final Days-Historical Reputation. That is confusing to the readers. That is what I was trying to say. This would be my format Retirement-Historical Reputation-Personal Life. I would get rid of the Final Days section and incorporate it into the Retirement section. All that is needed is to explain his death and his will setting his slaves free. The information from the Final Days section should be moved to its own article or to a branch article such as Later life of George Washington. It is just too much information. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
A new article was created: Post-Presidency of George Washington. The Final days section of this article can be moved to that article. Then Washington's death can be mentioned in the Retirement section of this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Combined sections

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Combining some of the sections was a good move. Esp the short section for the Election of 1788-1789, which now works well at the end of the Constitutional Convention section, which influenced and led right into this election. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Redundant new article

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Washington only lived two years after he finished his terms of presidency, and other than taking sick and dying suddenly, not much happened, certainly not enough that warrants yet another article for Washington. The biography here is under 99k of prose. We shouldn't use a needless article as an excuse to start chopping down this article. This information would also work well in the Washington presidency article, as it was his presidency that greatly influenced the last two years of his life and his continued interest in politics, which he was no longer involved in. Unless there is a clear consensus to significantly change and drastically reduce a section that has been with us since this article became a GA, we should leave well enough alone. This is another needless effort that, given the way a couple of editors dragged their feet for weeks over a painting seldom viewed, will only cause another lengthy and belabored debate, will not help the article, and will put off nomination for who knows how long. I see this effort as needless, meddlesome and disruptive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Disruptive, meddlsome, and needless. The same goes for your own editing, since you are accusing me. You constantly interfere in my editing. It is always Gwillhickers way or the highway. The Final Days section can be moved to that article. That was why it was created. It is not a needless article. You attack editors for their criticism of the Leutzes painting and were extremely reluctant to putting in a compromise note. You went even as far to remove a compromise note. Don't cast stones is a glass house. I am not trying pick fights because I want Washington to get to FA. Every time you pick a fight Gwillhickers, you are hampering this article. Why can't we cooperate? The real issue is not the new article it is getting Washington to FA. I am only using strong wording because you are using accusatory language. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Weincek spends little time on Washington's death in his biographical article of Washington. Why should this article devote a whole section ? That was why I created the other article. Can we please have some sort of a truce ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Asserting false accusations isn't helping your debate. I always abide by consensus and discuss matters, sometimes more than I would like to, often having to repeat things that were forgotten just a few days prior, thank you. The retirement section is not large, however, if you can find information to add to your new article, that will help to justify having such a dedicated article I wish you luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weincek is one biographer, out of many dozens for Washington. That he commits little to Washington's retirement and death only strengthens the idea that a separate article for Retirement is not needed. Again, the retirement section is short, and in summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Final Days section is the closing chapter to the Washington biography. It belongs here far more than it would anywhere else. It only seems that you're trying to reinvent the wheel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I was right. It is about the Final days section. Yes asserting false accusations does not help. So please stop asserting them about me. You seem to have the final say Gwillhickers. Weincek is a reliable source. Why are you committing a whole section to Washington's final days, if he just up and died: "sick and dying suddenly, not much happened" ? You attacked the new article. It is not redundant. It can expand what is said in this article. It is impossible to edit on this article so I started one on my own. The "Final days" section is too long and drawn out. It would be appropriate for the new article. You can offer George Washington to FA. You requested editorial opinion. I gave mine. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've already explained the matter. Yes, I asked for opinions, but not a belabored effort to rewrite the article and move important sections elsewhere. Once again, the Final Days topic is a major and closing chapter to almost anyone's biography. We commit a "whole section" (as opposed to someone who would create a whole article) on the topic because this is the Washington biography. Please don't expect editors to repeat and belabor such a simple topic over and again. This is the time where you make "sloppy" accusations to editors while overlooking the fact that the Final Days section was already after the Retirement section when you asked that it be moved there. Then you expect us at this point to go along and restructure the entire article, according to one biographer, and move entire sections into a redundant and newly created article. Then you wonder why your reception has been less than cordial. I think I'm done with yet another one of your ridiculous and repetitious talk sessions. If you can get a clear consensus to go along with your newly conceived ideas then please do it. There's no sense in talking about moving on with the nomination when there's chronically argumentative talk constantly hitting the fan and an editor about who never seems to be happy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I moved the Cherry tree and Papers sub sections from the Final Days section to Historical reputation and legacy section. Hope this helps. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed the merge tag in the Post-Presidency of George Washington article. See talk page there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Gwillhickers Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sections

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The Personal life section is in between the Retirement and Final days sections. That was what I was refering too. I suggest the following Retirement, Final days, Historical legacy, Personal life. That is only a suggestion. Nothing has to be merged. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(?) The Personal life section is currently placed before the Retirement and Final Days sections. The topics covered in Washington's Personal life, overall, occurred before his retirement and final days. Aside from the Legacy section, the Final Days section should be, and is, the final chapter in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Had that been changed ? The Personal life section should be after the Historical reputation and legacy section. Here is what I suggest: Presidency-Retirement-Final days-Historical reputation and legacy-Personal life Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You didn't say what your reasons were, but as I explained immediately above, Personal life is part of the biography, covering issues and events that occurred throughout Washington's life. Why would we want to stick this section at the end of the biography, even after Final Days? Final Days should be the closing chapter to Washington's life, with the Legacy section following, reflecting on the post life Washington. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The Personal life section throws off the chronology of Washington's life. That belongs after the Historical reputation and legacy section. The Retirement section is not completely accurate either. Washington was appointed Lieutenant General by Adams during the Quasi-War. Washington died a soldier. I am not sure that is made clear in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
We can make clear any thing that may need it. Very few long articles are not in exact chronological order, per items covered. This is not an outline we're writing. Certainly putting the Personal life section at the very end is not going to correct anything in terms of fixing the overall chronology, assuming it needs fixing. If chronology is a major concern for you then we should keep the Final days section at the end, save the Legacy section, which covers Washington after death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Chronology would be Retirement directly followed by Final days. I believe I had changed it that way. It was reverted. There are no rules to this, but I am only expressing how I would chronologize the artcile. Washgington goes from Retirement to a bunch of other subjects on his personal life. Then the article jumps right back into his sudden illness and death. The reader reads all of his personal life, and then forgets he was retired and then reads he died. There is no need of any edit warring over this. Just giving my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Retirement is directly followed by Final days. I'm sure you realize that many narratives, biographies, jump forward or back, briefly, to shed light on a given event or issue. Religion is not an event, it is an ideal or belief, as is Enlightenment, etc. This is why they're covered as topics under a major section near the end of the article, but before the Retirement and Final Days sections. It would be a little odd to see coverage of Final Days followed by topics that involved Washington throughout his life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Now Personal life is between the Presidency and Retirement. I suppose that is better. It looks like Personal life had been moved up. I still think it would look best if Personal life followed Historical legacy. I am not pushing this. Just a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Who was President ?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

From March 4, 1789 to April 30, 1789 who was President ? Who was constitutionally in charge of the country ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The United States had no President for 1 month and 27 days. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Since Washington was the first President, there was never any president before April 30, 1789. Your above question suggests that there was a President before March 4. — Anyway, are website sources the best we can do here, given all the sources on Washington? Not only do these sources take the reader away from the article, they take them away from Wikipedia altogether. As I've mentioned before during my weeks of cleaning up website sources from this article, sooner or later the url addresses will go 404. Page numbers in reliable sources never change and can be relied on 1, 2, 5, 10 years from now. Good writing, but let's see if we can find better and more stable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The use of website sources was necessary for this particular issue. I did not ask who was the first President. I asked who was President ? There was none, so the reader will ask who was in charge of the country ? It turns out no one was. There needed to be further explanation on this subject. For 1 month and 27 days the United States had no President demanded by the 1788 ratified Constitution. What was running the country ? Was the President of the Confederation still in charge until Washington took the oath ? I felt in good faith that this was not adequately addressed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe George Washington is on the verge of FA. I think the firt election is signifigant. It might also help to mention there were ten Presidents before Washington under the Articles of Confederation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
There are more than enough published sources on Washington (which is where website sources get their information) to cite anything, esp the basic stuff. As for "ten presidents" before Washington, we had better make a clear distinction between them and 'The' President of the U.S. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Verge of FA

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

As was said before, there is virtually no end to the improvements, tweaks in grammar, etc that can be made. A summary statement about the "ten presidents" under the AOC wouldn't hurt, so long as Washington is the central subject in such a statement. Other than correcting citations, fixing any errors in the narrative that may still exist, I have nothing else in mind. It would seen we're about finished here. If any editor sees something that needs urgent attention, now is the time to deal with it i.e.before the nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


Nomination

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Do the photos need "alt" descriptions for FA nomination ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I remember a FA reviewer, once, maintaining that the images needed ALT's, but FA criteria only lends itself to major concerns and doesn't mention things like this specifically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
When would a review start ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
As soon as an editor picks it from the list of nominations (candidates) and initiates the review. Could be tomorrow, or next month. Btw, editors who have made recent contributions to this article cannot conduct the review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington/Archive_18&oldid=1055594730"