Talk:George Washington/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Reductions

We are now down to 97k of readable prose. It was becoming increasingly difficult to remove text without cutting into context, but we did it. The only problem remaining now is that to keep the article at this size we will have to stand over the article and make sure no other editors tries to add content. This doesn't seem fair. I think the idea of Ignore all rules applies to guidelines also, which too often have proven to be a source for perpetual debate and disruption. Anyway, now we can turn our attention to other matters, including sources. We still have a couple of 'cite web' sources stuck in the text as citations, [375] and [378], for openers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

All we want is this article to be reviewed, without another "it's too large" comment, to get to FA. My view 95 kbs is the optimal size. It should be under 98 kbs. Why do(es an) FA reviewer(s) have a problem with websites as sources ? This is the Internet Age. The Mount Vernon Ladies Association website specifically concentrates on George Washington. As long as the links are available, readers can go directly to the source. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What would you propose to do if the article was down to 95k and some reviewer still made issue with article size? Roll over and continue chopping away at the narrative? I would think it's about time editors, who spend much time reading through multiple sources and contributing to WP, take exception to any reviewer(s), typically with a passing knowledge of the subject, that would attempt to push a guideline as policy and fail a nomination on page length alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No. I believe the article would be optimal at 95k. That is what I said. I never said I would roll over and continue chopping away at the narrative. Anything lower than 95k, I think, then content would be lost. I think the article can keep content at 95k. I still believe that the Final Days section is bloated. It is not really that controversial of a section. I think there is too much information. Throughout the article I think there is too much "opinion" in the article. Take for example Washington and Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. That to me is mere speculation and inaccurate. Cincinnatus was a Roman Dictator. He was a conservative against the right of the plebians. I personally would take that information out of the article. Do we really want to compare Washington to a Roman Dictator? It is unnecessary. Also Britain was taken over by the Romans, and was itself a Roman Colony. I just think it is bad analogy. In the slavery section, I think there is an effort to make Washington a "nice" slaveowner. That is just my opinion. How can slaves have "time off" when slaves are slaves 24/7 ? Aside from that, would you Gwillhickers want to remove the information on Cincinnatus comparison ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article needs more context. You removed the basic statement about Washington's death, along with his last words. Again, what do you propose to do if a reviewer insists on making page length an issue? Also, and once again, do you intend to revert any additional content that goes over 97k or 95k should an editor come to the page and want to add something? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually think the part about Cinncinatus is incomplete; there's no mention of th Society of the Cincinnati. YoPienso (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Various topics could use additional context. I will see what I can come up with here. I'm not that concerned about an exact page length count, esp since it is a problematic guideline if adhered to as a rigid policy. I'm hoping we get a reviewer who knows the difference between a guideline and a policy and concentrates on the quality of the narrative and basis his or her decision to pass the nomination on this premise foremost. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

In the Cincinnatus article his history is labeled as "Legend". That is not very reliable. It was the Society of Cincinnati who honored Washington. Also the Society of Cincinnati adopted hereditary membership. Washington changed the rule, but he was the head of its society. I recommend just taking out the information. It is too complicated for the reader and would require extensive narration. It is speculation concerning the actual history of Cininnatus the legend. That is why I put in the tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have more faith in readers of history and assume they are on the intelligent side. Washington was only compared to Cincinnatus, legend or not. This is a direct analogy of Washington giving up command and returning to his farm, mentioned by numerous sources. The tag was inappropriate. This is welcomed context to the intelligent and enthusiastic readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please Gwillhickers. The tag was not inappropriate. How many times have you reverted my edits ? Inappropriately without justification ? I got the article to 97k and you reverted my edits. You continue to be protectionist in the Last days section. You partially reverted my last edits. You are protectionist throughout the whole article. That disrupts natural editing. So I put in pre edits in the talk page. Only one was discussed. In this case I put in the tag for discussion. Was I suppose to ask you before I put in the tag for your permission ? That is evidence of editor control. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The removal of the tag was explained. Many historians have compared Washington to Cincinnatus, and according to Ferling, 2009, (so cited) Washington saw himself this way. This is a simple analogy, well cited. Now I see you stripped away three citations and tagged the sentence for no citations. This is wrong. You don't take away citations and then claim the sentence is not cited. The statement was very well cited, by noted reliable sources, and has been with us awhile. The cite tag was also inappropriate, as the statement was well cited. Please do not start an edit war over this simple statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Start an edit war ? Are you the dictator of this article telling editors not to tag the article ? I don't need your approval. Not allowing the natural discussion and editing of an article is what creates edit wars. That sentence was not well cited. Chernow 2010 mentions the Society of Cincinnati honored Washington for a legendary Roman hero, who apparently was a dictator, and was against the house of plebians. The Society of Cincinnati has not been put in proper context. You are creating a hostile editing environment. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't tell anyone to do anything. The statement is a simple analogy between Washington and Cincinnatus, which is well explained in our statement, and well cited. Mention of the society is not needed to support the simple statement here. Would you please lighten up with all these accusations and not turn the discussion into a hostile confrontation? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to ask for a simple citation for a sentence. That first sentence is not cited. It's only hostile when editors are not allowed to discuss in the talk page or put appropriate tags in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The first two sentences were cited. Now you're asking that every sentence be cited individually , no matter how short? Chernow p.444 makes the analogy between Washington and Cincinnatus, both giving up power and returning home after the war. Ferling, 2009, p.xx mentions Washington "came to see himself as a real-life Cincinnatus". Brumwell, 2012, p. 412, clearly outlines the analogy between Cincinnatus and Washington, again, both of whom gave up power and returned home. Yet you stripped all these citations away and tagged the section yet again, and then unloaded all these accusations in your wake. If you like we can also mention the society, named after Cincinnatus in honor of Washington, using the same citations. "Not allowed to discuss"? No one said you couldn't discuss this. You initiated the discussion and I have been responding all along. You're claiming the statement is not sourced, and you're claiming no discussion is allowed. What's going on here?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see you've rewrote the statement, mentioning the society, using the same sources. However, Ferling was used to support the statement that Washington came to see himself as a real-life Cincinnatus, which I re-added. Everything was sourced from the start, so the tags were uncalled for. Their removal was reasonable, explained in edit history, and at length here in Talk. This could have been handled in a much more friendlier way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Friendlier way ? Editors are allowed to put up tags in articles. Ferling merely cited another historian who thought that Washington viewed himself as Cincinnatus. The underlying speculation of Cincinnatus history is significant. Again his biography cites "Legend". Is it proven that Cincinnatus relinquished power and went back to his farm ? Is that fable, truth, or both ? Cincinnatus is called a dictator. Do we also equate Washington a dictator too ? The paragraph looks fine now. You too Gwillhickers are entitled to put up tags. I have no objections. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Editors are also allowed to remove tags, esp when they are uncalled for. You took away perfectly good citations, and cite-tagged the statement, twice. Then you simply rewrote the same basic statement, mentioned the Cincinnatus society and used the same cites that were there in the first place. The tagging action was clearly wrong and done out of spite. I removed the original tag like I would have done if any other editor had used it in the same manner. It was not done to annoy you or "control" the article. My advice would be to calm yourself and get a handle on these notions you carry around with you, and try to see the reasons behind the action, esp when an editor takes the time to explain in edit history and on the Talk page. Yes, the statement now looks fine. You could have made your edit in the first place without all the tagging and hostility. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhcikers. Sounds like you are the controlling editor. Need permission from Gwillhickers. I did not take away any citations. I just tagged. I kept the citations in my editing. "Calm myself" "get a handle on these notions" "clearly wrong and done out of spite". It was not clearly wrong and done out of spite. All your words sound like a managing or controlling editor, a Wikipedia boss. One second you thank me for my edit then the next I get a lot of negative talk. This happens on every edit or slightest change in the article. Whenever I make an edit you start up a talk page against the edit. That seems to be a pattern. You can submit your article to FA anytime you want. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"This happens on every edit or slightest change in the article."?? — In light of the 100's of edits you've made, which are still in place, your old hat accusations come off like childish rant. Yes, the tags were added regardless that citations were present, correct and obviously pertained to the two sentences, as is a common practice. If you checked on the cites you would have easily seen they referred to both sentences. Two and more sentences, sometimes entire paragraphs, are often cited with one or more sources at the end. You need this recited for you? With all the accusations you parrot it could just as easily be said you harass editors with compound and often ugly accusations in an attempt to control the article. It's not working. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

One sentence was not cited, the first one. I can't check an uncited sentence. I checked the Ferling cite. Ferling said that a historian believed Washington believed he was Cincinnatus. Ferling, the author, does not say Washington believed he was Cincinnatus, but another author said it. What Ferling's opinion is I don't know. Chernow mentioned the Society of the Cincinnati, but that was not in the orginal edit. It is this constant defending the text in the article, unwilling to change, that makes editing extremely difficult. Let's be real. The first FA review was a failure. Hopefully it won't happen again. I merely tightened up the narration for FA. Then there is Cincinnatus himself a "legend" or "historical figure"? I am tired of constantly defending every edit made. This heated rhretoric needs to stop. It is only hurting the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• The first step is to stop making sweeping generalizations. The second step is to contain your notions and stop making accusations and listen to explanations. If there is a disagreement, then explain it without crying wolf at every other turn. The third step would be to stop reaching and splitting hairs, e.g. as to what Ferling chose to cover and cite in his biography. Virtually all historians refer to other historians. Again, this all could have been avoided if you just made your edits covering the Cincinnatus society, etc, from the start. I don't resort to empty rhetoric and concocted accusations to carry my discussion. Truth and reason are your most influential resort. I like to think that this is what editors of good will aspire to. Even if they disagree, they would stand by your side to get to the bottom of matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• The analogy to Cincinnatus began with Henry Knox, when he created the Society in Washington's honor. Washington: A powerful and influential soldier, a general, who foiled Britain's greatest generals and admirals, who then gleefully relinquished power and came home, as did Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus was a real person and a legend, not a fuzzy myth. Chernow devotes an entire chapter to the Washington–Cincinnatus comparison, covering all the related issues at that point in Washington's life. i.e. Chapter 37, entitled Cincinnatus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Foot note

@Yopienso: I would restore the prior version. The statement you put in a foot note pertained to Washington's own estimation of himself at that point in his life, which imo belongs in the main text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded it and restored the info to the main text. I'm not sure Byron's poem belongs there, though. Other people wrote similar poems. Charles Henry Wharton (See Section 7.) Philip Freneau: Thus He* whom Rome’s proud legions sway’d, with the footnote, * Cincinnatus. YoPienso (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Byron's poem does tend to overstate the point. I went ahead and removed it, though I have no strong opinion about this item either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It is best to keep historical context of Washington. Lord Byron was not a historian. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the kind of writing that will keep the article from FA status:

In 1783, Henry Knox formed and named the Society of the Cincinnati as a tribute to Cincinnatus who commanded Roman legions, relinquished command after saving Rome and returned home, to honor Washington, who also gave up command after the war and returned home. 

YoPienso (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the passage, sort of a first draft, was a little too wordy. Thanks for improving the flow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Farewell Address or orders?

I tried to copyedit this paragraph toward the end of "Demobilization and retirement," but find it troublesome:

Not wanting to leave the new nation vulnerable, in August Washington advised Congress to create a national, a navy, and a national military academy. Washington circulated his "Farewell Address" that discharged his troops, whom he called "one patriotic band of brothers." Before his return to Mount Vernon, Washington oversaw the evacuation of British forces in New York, and was greeted by parades and celebrations where Washington announced that Henry Knox was promoted the new commander of the Continental Army.

Was is August? I think these are the farewell orders, not an address, as such, so this might confuse some readers. (It confuses me.) Did Washington oversee the evacuation? I think he waited until they left to make his grand entrance. Did Washington announce he was leaving Knox in charge of the army? YoPienso (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It should be Farewell Orders August is the month. 1783 is the year. The British left. I think Washington was there to keep law and order and then he handed the Continental Army over to Knox. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington wasn't there in a military capacity actually looking over the shoulder of the British as they were evacuating, but rather to make sure the evacuation and all that was involved was coming along in an orderly and proper manner. Somewhere along the line he announced that Knox was the new commander. If anyone feels that the actual time and place of the announcement is in order, I'll double check the sources for this info and include it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It all depends when Knox was given command. Why would Washington be there when there was no military need ? Did Washington and Knox go by themselves or did he have an army ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Flexner information

The following information is suspect in reliablity: "Before returning to Mount Vernon, Washington was concerned that under a Pennsylvania law his slaves residing in Philadelphia would become free, having lived in that state for the required amount of time. However, he used the law as a legal means to manumit a number of his slaves and did so in a manner that kept the matter hidden from history until the mid 20th century. Sourced by Flexner (1972) page 432. Chernow 2010 does not mention Washington freeing his slaves while he was President. Diputed is this "secret letter" July 3, 1796 apparently only read by Flexner ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Where is this July 3, 1796 secret letter that only Flexner has ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, laws in Pennsylvania set the ground for gradual abolition of slavery, they did not just free the slaves. Pennsylvania still had slaves in 1810. See History of slavery in Pennsylvania and An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (1780) :

• "In 1780, the abolition act provided for the children of slave mothers to be born free. It required that they and children of African-descended indentured servants be registered at birth. Some Quarter Sessions records of Friends Meetings include births of children identified as mulatto or black. ... The federal censuses reflect the decline in slavery. In addition to the effects of the state law, many Pennsylvania masters freed their slaves in the first two decades after the Revolution, as did Benjamin Franklin. They were inspired by revolutionary ideals as well as continued appeals by Quaker and Methodist clergy for manumission of slaves. The first U.S. Census in 1790 recorded 3,737 slaves in Pennsylvania (36% of the Black population). By 1810, the total Black population had more than doubled, but the percentage who were slaves had dropped to 3%; only 795 slaves were listed in the state."
• "The Act prohibited further importation of slaves into the state, required Pennsylvania slaveholders to annually register their slaves (with forfeiture for noncompliance, and manumission for the enslaved), and established that all children born in Pennsylvania were free persons regardless of the condition or race of their parents. Those enslaved in Pennsylvania before the 1780 law entered effect remained enslaved for life." Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The statement said that Washington used the law to free his slaves. According to the statement, some secret letter, read by Flexner said Washington freed his slaves while he was President in Philadelphia. Chernow (2010) says the opposite that Washington bipassed the law to keep his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Flexner, a noted, award winning and highly recognized Washington biographer, came upon the information inadvertently while going through Washington's correspondence in a letter dated July 3, 1796. Whom are you quoting when you say "secret letter"? Flexner doesn't say this. Washington's letters are all in the public domain. Flexner didn't own it. Washington only left behind, or freed, (once the terms of the Pennsylvania law allowed for it), one slave, named John Cline. Washington was also going to free Hercules, his favorite slave, but not wanting to return to Mt. Vernon after living in a presidential mansion for eight years, Hercules ran away before that ever happened, never to be seen by Washington again. Also, we need more than "Chernow doesn't say this" to delete a reliably sourced item. On what page does Chernow say Washington "bypassed the law", and was he talking about all the slaves Washington had in Philadelphia? Does he outright claim Washington did not leave any salves behind in Pennsylvania to become free? You've put the cart before the horse. The info should remain in the biography until someone can, if ever, refute Flexner's account in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Where is this letter ? Who was set free ? There was no paper manumission from Washington. I looked for the letter online. Chernow (2010) does not mention this. Chernow says Washington moved slaves every month to avoid the law. That is called bypassing the law. There certainly needs to be clarification. There seems to be a concerted effort an Washington an abolitionist prior to 1799 will. Washington wanted to capture slaves secretly to avoid controversy from the abolitionst. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington and Slavery New York Times James Thomas Flexner February 22, 1973 Flexner does not mention slaves freed prior to his 1799 will: "Washington went no further with manumission during his lifetime. But in his will he freed all his slaves, with generous provisions for support." Those are Flexner's words, not mine. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

George Washington Never Set a Single Slave Free in His Lifetime! The Legacy of His Silent Condemnation of Slavery Harry Schenawolf (September 15, 2015) African-American, Essays, Life & Times, Slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Cline (Klein) was an indentured servant, not a slave. Flexner was mistaken. The information needs to be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

James Thomas Flexner also contributed to the confusion about the enslaved Africans in the President's House. He discovered a letter that he misinterpreted to mean that Washington had freed an enslaved African named John Cline at the end of his presidency.79 Washington wrote of having granted Cline (Klein, see above) "his freedom," but this meant having released him from the months of service remaining on his indenture contract, not having free him from slavery. Flexner also jumped to the conclusion that Nathan, a cook at Mount Vernon, had worked at the President's House.80 Although Washington wrote of his intention to bring either "Hercules or Nathan from the Kitchen at Mount Vernon to that in Philadelphia,81 only the former made the trip. The President's House Revisited Edward Lawler, Jr. (October 2005) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"but this meant having released him from the months of service remaining on his indenture contract, not having free him from slavery." Curious. Indentured servitude contracts had a typical length of 5 years, but the masters could at times prolong the servitude period, under the excuse that the servant was still in debt to them. Why did Washington release a servant prematurely? Dimadick (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The more reason to have the information removed. Schenawold says Flexner "misinterpreted" the letter. Cline of Klein was an indentured service. Was it set in stone all indentured servants were five year contracts. Since Washington was leaving the White House it would make sense to let him out of the contract. The history of the Philadelphia House is not well known. The Philadelphia House does not exist anymore. We can't put false statements in a Wikipedia aritcle. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This definitely needs more research, so I removed the Flexner account for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I was not trying to rock the boat on this. I appreciate the removal of the information. Sadly. The Philadelphia was either torn down or destroyed. It looks as if research has been done on the house or what took place at the house. Apparently Washington signed official legislation there and that house no longer exists. Flenxner made a mistake. I would get the article to 95 k, go over any neutrality issues, narration, and references. Then submit to FA review. The "Farewell address" can be reduced, since there is a dedicated article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Undo weight resignation 1783

There is undo weight on Washington's military resignation. He retired to Mount Vernon. Yes. He became president, Commander in Chief, in 1789, and served for two terms. He also was Commander of the Army during the Quasi War. In fact he died while he was Commander of the Army. Even citing a King George III partial quote. There are also references just "thrown in" to make the point. We are adding to the article. To get to FA the article needs to be trimmed. Is there any effort to get Washington to FA anymore ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Washington's resignation and transition into civilian life is a turning point in his life and that of the country. Sources have much to say about the transition and all that's involved. As recently pointed out, Chernow devotes an entire chapter to this series of events. Our biography here only lends a few passages to the actual resignation. If anything, more context might be in order here. I'll check to make sure we're not overlooking any important context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Priority number one is context and comprehensiveness, per FA criteria. If we get stuck with a reviewer who is going to hold page length as the sole reason to fail the nomination then we inform that reviewer in the error of his or her ways, rather than tearing out pages of a book to make the shipping weight lighter, so to speak. Page length guidelines makes allowances for exceptional articles. It would seem anyone who would not take advantage of this provision is more concerned about a gold star rather than the readers and the inclusiveness of the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• We're still avoiding inherent problems by fixating on an exact page length number. I had asked this question before but apparently it was avoided. Again, what do we do when we get the article to a given page length number? Do we post a sign at the top forbidding other editors to add new material? Any editor that is going to fixate on a page length guideline like it was a rigid and unyielding policy needs to address this issue. We don't want to come up with a 'solution' that is only going to create other problems. This is one of the reasons why guidelines allows for editor discretion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, you clearly haven't a clue wrt how the FAC process works. You cannot "inform that reviewer in the error of his or her ways", or "choose another reviewer", as you said earlier. I was an FAC delegate for several years, that is I was one of the editors who makes the final decision on promotion. If this article were submitted at WP:FAC at this stage it would be archived (i.e. failed) quickly. It is not stable, it is too long and it has issues with WP:NPOV and and you. FAC is about reaching a consensus, and, in my long experience, arrogant, stubborn, rude editors never produce an FA. Our standards for FAs are high. The article is still a mess. You could start with deleting unused sources in the Bibliography; there are several. And stop arguing with editors who clearly understand much more about the FAC criteria than you. Graham Beards (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

FA criteria is not written in hieroglyphics and is rather straight forward. Notice the first three items at the top, which I've always stressed, and which have been routinely threatened by this page length obsession — a guideline, even some reviewers hold up as policy. The article is unstable because of frequent major changes, not only with the text, but with context, which I've worked to preserve, thank you. What are the chances of an article passing a FA nomination when the reviewer expresses a rude and arrogant attitude at editors and a flagrant bias towards the subject, not to mention the country involving that subject? Answer not necessary — you really have some nerve coming around here preaching and barking orders, but thanks for your opinions just the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we please be civil ? Don't throw stones in glass houses Gwillhickers. You know a lot about "preaching and barking orders." No one is disregarding the importance of Washington relinquishing power as a military leader. Bringing up Cincinnatus brings in the other issue of Washington joining a society where membership was determined by heredity, or a royalist society. The French relinquished power too. They did not ask for land for their help with defeating Britain. The article does credit Louis XVI. Washington and Cincinnatus were two different people Cincinnatus did not start another country nor rebel against a King. The history behind Cincinnatus is shakey at best. He was also known as a dictator. Was Washington a dictator too ? Page length is an issue. I had suggest 95 k. Graham Beards has said the article is too large right now. We need to allow room for readers to make their own decisions on Washington. It is your dedication to "preserve" the article that interferes with article improvement by other editors, Gwillhickers, and keeing this article from getting to FA, in my opinion. 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Membership to the Cincinnatus society was not determined by "heredity", but by one's service in the military, which is another issue entirely. Washington was likened to Cincinnatus by Knox and other contemporaries for an obvious and renown reason, and one reason, the likes of which have been followed up by analogies and coverage from nearly all of Washington's biographers. Once again, the title of chapter 37 in Chernow's 2010 biography is Cincinnatus. Evidently this means little to you. We cannot ignore the sources. We are only interested in the reason for the comparison to Cincinnatus, not the detailed history of Cincinnatus. (i.e.he did this, but he didn't do that.) This is not even an issue, as our coverage is brief on this topic.

Previously I had said I would go along and try to bring down the page length to 97k — now you want it brought down to 95k. You've ignored the question of what will happen when we get this page length number fixed at an agreeable level. What then? Do we revert any new contributions from other editors? This is a fair question and a legitimate concern. As for civility, it's a little difficult to have faith in such an offer when it comes from someone who has habitually made compound and often not so nice accusations. At this point I have very little interest in working towards FA in the present atmosphere, esp when it only involves removing text over a page length number. Much writing was added before our recent arrival here, and much has been added since then. It's a bit difficult to sit back and watch the work of many editors get thrown out the window over a page length number. My primary concern now is to keep the context of the narrative in tact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillickers. Heredity members The article link mentioned heredity members in the Society of the Cincinatti. It was a controversial society. Chernow discussed the controversy on pages 497-499. It was a hereditary society. Apparently it is that way today. Do you want to bring that into the article ? The historical Cincinnatus is important to the article. You mentioned previously, I believe, that you would prefer a George Washington article that is in context to one that is FA that lacked content. You have very little interest in working to get Washington to FA. I had a feeling you had. Does this mean that you will do anything you can to defeat this article to getting to FA, such as block edits from other editors or any editors who want to get Washington to FA ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Members were first admitted because of military service, which is why Washington aspired to the group, even though he had no eldest son to pass membership on to. Yes, there was controversy over the group, esp from Jefferson and Franklin, that it began to take on tones of a privileged class and other forms of royalist snobbery, but this is of no avail to the only point we mention in the biography here, that Washington was compared to Cincinnatus. The other issues about the society are tangential to Washington and are of little concern to the biography, unless you chose to make them an issue. Are you suggesting that we add more context about the society?

I've made my intentions and concerns clear, yet you continue with the assumption that page length is the paramount idea on which the nomination will pass or fail, while you seem to ignore the inherent problem with this rigid adherence to page length, and the legitimate concern over editors making contributions after a page length number is settled on. As I've always maintained, I am for getting the article to FA by not ignoring the most important items in FA criteria. You wish to get there over a page length number while you ignore FA criteria, as you've repeatedly removed context, most recently a major detail. Getting the article to FA? Civility? You say one thing, but your actions tell us quite a different story. — We are now down to 97k, which is what I agreed to when we recently began condensing text again while keeping context. The Ulysses S. Grant article, a Featured Article, is at 102k, and there are no issues there because no one has made it an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Two other editors, Graham Beards, and Hopphy have mention editor control or article control concerning you Gwillhickers. I have looked at FA criteria:well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, a lead, appropriate structure, consistent citations, Media, Length I have complied. My editing has never gotten the article under 97 kbs. And 95 kbs, in my opinion, is the optimal size. And no. I am not for "hacking" the article to any size just to get to FA. I believe 95 kbs will keep content and is the right size to get to FA. Graham Beards said the article is too big and his personal opinion(s) of Washington does not disqualify Graham Beards to review George Washington for FA. Hopphy had supported my editing in the Final days section. My suggestion is a collaborative effort by all editors to get Washington to 95 kbs. And then once at 95 kbs to go over neutrality, submit the article to FA. I don't know what Graham Beards believes the optimal size of the article should be, but 95 kbs is the best size for this article, in my opinion. Will you help or hinder getting the article to FA Gwillhickers. We need you on board Gwillhickers. This article needs stability. I believe 95 kbs is the right size and when editors work together it creates article stability. The lead of the article looks good. But my main contention is that editors do not have to defend Washington. Neutrality is an FA criteria, not defensive language. No one is putting Washington on trial. Personal opinions are to be left out of the article. Can't we work together ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

An opinion from an editor that has expressed an acute bias to the subject, moreover against the very country involved, can not be trusted, esp since he ignores the fact that, while pointing a finger at Washington, his country has an extended history of torture, oppression and exploitation to its subjects and neighboring countries, not to mention its major involvement in the slave trade. You've just recited GB's name four times, and I don't recall @Hoppyh: accusing me of "editor control" in the same manner and tone that you have, repeatedly. Given the long litany of accusations, some of them rather derogatory, it could just as easily be said you're trying to control the article through harassment. Context and comprehensiveness are paramount to FA quality, not a page length number. If you're truly concerned about stability the flagrant accusations need to stop, which they have in the past few days. Okay, thanks for that at least. We are at 97k. Did you know that Washington, president of the Cincinnatus society, because of mounting criticism, reconsidered matters and took serious exception to the heredity aspect of society membership? Review Chernow, pp.498-499. I'd like to cover that also, it reflects on Washington directly, but we have this guideline that has us, you and I mostly, walking on eggshells, in terms of adding content that will increase article size. Again, I have never gone against a clear consensus, and we don't have one here. However, if we can keep the context we have now, and concentrate on cites and sources and improvements on flow and grammar I will by all means help to bring the article to FA. Right now, given some of the visitors that have emerged this past month, it seems like it's going to be an uphill effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There has to be some organized goal such as 95 kbs. We can keep adding to the article. The Cincinnatus society was an embarrassment for Washington because of the heredity clause. There really is just too much weight to the subject. The Final days section could be trimmed up. My view is to get the article to 95 kbs. I don't really care what nationality, British, Canadian, or American works on this article. I don't care what peoples opinions are and everyone has an opinion from time to time. GB's opinions don't bother me. Your opinions, Gwillhickers, don't bother me, but I sense there is this need to defend or protect Washington's reputation in the article. I just believe in editing neutrally. There is nothing in the article that says Washington was a bad person. Nothing in the article calls Washington a speculator. "The bottom line" Gwillhickers is that editors need to have the same goal or goals to get Washington to FA. We simply can't keep adding to the article. Can we at least agree to get the article to 95 kbs ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : — As was already pointed out, there is no magic page length number — it could be 100k, 97k, 95k, 90k or less, and it would still be pot luck if a reviewer would use this as the sole reason to fail the nomination. I cooperated with you in removing text to get to 97k. At this point our common goal should be keeping context, dealing with cites and sources and improving grammar flow if needed. Also, your notion that Washington is being protected has been addressed numerous times, yet you're still attempting to make this an issue, also. We say what the sources say. That you have repeatedly taken exception to adding important context is beginning to look like you're searching for ways to condemn Washington, so if that is the case I would give up that effort if you're really interested in less confrontation and more stability. Last, I am not concerned about the nationality of any given editor, but only if that editor has harbored, and flaunted, an acute bias. That the acute bias and contempt expressed by GB seems to be of no consequence to you raises questions, as you have recited his name, overall, some ten times more than any other. Best to stand on your own platform. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"He was also known as a dictator. Was Washington a dictator too ?" Do not confuse terms here. The Roman dictator was an office-holder, typically appointed by the Senate to deal with "a military emergency or to undertake a specific duty". We have an entire List of Roman dictators, and Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus reportedly served two short terms in the office (458 BC, 439 BC).

On the first occassion, Cincinnatus was appointed to contact a war with the Aequi, which the Roman Republic was in danger of losing. It took him 15 days to win the war, and then he immediately resigned. On the second occassion, he was appointed to deal with a supposed conspiracy, orchestrated by Spurius Maelius, to restore the Roman monarchy. It took Cincinnatus 21 days to kill Maelius and end the conspiracy, then he immediately resigned.

The term was not associated with the abuse of power until the self-appointed dictatorships of Sulla and Julius Caesar. Both men ceased power in civil wars, and used the position to eliminate their enemies, and to reshape Roman legislation to match their ideology. Caesar was also controversial because he held the office for 5 years, and attempted to turn it to a position held for the holder's entire lifetime. Dimadick (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick, for the sake of argument let's say everything said is true of Cincinnatus although there is not conclusive evidence he held his second "dictatorship". Cincinnatus was a royalist fighting to protect a monarchy and was against the house of plebes. Washington was fighting a King's Army and Navy. Washington was Commander of the Army from 1775 to 1783, about 8 years. Cincinnatus in total held his military position for 36 days. Washington went beyond Julius Caesars reign of 5 years, but that was due to Caesar's assassination. Then Washington was elected President and he was Commander in Chief of the military for about another 8 years. Then there was the Quasi-War when Washington was Commander of the Army again, about a year, until his death. So Washington's total military and Commander in Chief career was about 17 years. Cincinnatus total war days were less that two months. Washington died while Commander of the Army in 1799, and he was not in retirement. Is the comparison between Cincinattus and Washington accurate ? All I was asking is not to put too much weight on the issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Tack on Washington's six year military career in the British coloninal regiment, Washington served 23 years in the military or as Commander in Chief, not 36 days of Cincinattus' military career. And remember, Washington, was angered at not becoming a British regular army officer. All I am requesting is that Cincinnatus comparison not be emphasized in the article. There is too much weight given to the comparison. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There's really no need to outline the differences between Washington and Cincinnatus. All we are saying in the biography is that Washington, like Cincinnatrus, relinquished power after the war and went home to his farm, and that he has been noted for doing so by contemporaries and historians since then. That's all that needs to be said. We could mention that Washington came to take a certain exception to the society, but we could do without that if that is the consensus. I'm not pushing it. There is really no issue here, unless someone wishes to create and perpetuate yet another issue. It's about time for all of us to move on and deal with cites, sources and any grammar that may need improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

editbreak5

The article should be at 95 kbs. Are editors on board ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Cincinnatus was a royalist fighting to protect a monarchy and was against the house of plebes." Quite the opposite. Cincinnatus was hailed as the hero who saved the Republic, by killing (supposed) monarchist conspirators. The main reason he appealed to writers from later centuries was that he did not use his authority for personal gain. "Cincinnatus became a legend to the Romans. Twice granted supreme power, he held onto it for not a day longer than absolutely necessary. He consistently demonstrated great honorability and integrity. ... "The legend of Cincinnatus's selfless service for his country has continued to inspire admiration, including by Niccolò Machiavelli."

"Washington went beyond Julius Caesars reign of 5 years, but that was due to Caesar's assassination." In Caesar's case, the main problem was that he violated the term limit of the office. In the Roman Republic, a typical term in office only lasted 1 year. "The annual magistrates—tribune of the plebs, aedile, quaestor, praetor, and consul—were forbidden reelection until a number of years had passed. ... Also there was a term limit of 6 months for a dictator." The offices Washington held, had no similar term limits. Roman laws were designed to prevent any individual from wielding absolute power. American laws... don't bother with the topic.

See the Constitution of the Roman Republic.: "... the early Republic was a time of violent change, with the word rex carrying the same connotations as tyrant and laws which declared forfeit the life and property of any man who plotted to install himself as a king or tyrant."

"Is the comparison between Cincinattus and Washington accurate ? All I was asking is not to put too much weight on the issue." The comparison between them by 18th-century people seems to have been politically motivated. The probable aim was to turn Washington into a living symbol for Republicanism, and to emphasize his Cincinattus-like "integrity". I can see why Washington had to be lionized in his lifetime, (every new regime needs its heroes). I am not so certain if later generations understand what was the big deal about peacefully relinguishing power. Contrast Washington with Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, just a century earlier. Not only had Cromwell the constitutional right to stay in office for life, but he also had the right to appoint his own successor. Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Did Washington relinquish power ? He died while Commander of the U.S. Army. His military career including Commander in Chief lasted 23 years. Washington was Commander of the Army or Commander in Chief about 17 years. That is well beyond the Roman standard of six months or one year. That would make Washington more like a Caesar compared to Cincinnatus who served in the military for 36 days. I don't want to belabor the issue. I understand the importance or relinquishing military power. You mentioned the comparison was politically motivated to make Washington a hero. The article says that Cincinattus was a consevative against the House of Plebes. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing two time periods. Washington relinquished power after the Revolutionary War and went home. Later, with no plans to do so, he was encouraged to become president, and was elected President, and hence, Commander in Chief of the military. This still doesn't mean that Washington wasn't compared to Cicinnatus. Once again, you're attempting to belabor the analogy while claiming you're not trying to do so. i.e.'Cincinnatus was this, but he wasn't that'. As was explained several times, the two were simply compared because they both relinquished power after the war and returned to their farms. For some reason you've been reaching for ways to say Washington was wrongly compared to Cincinnatus or to remove the analogy from the biography entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The Presidency is irrelevant here. In relation to the American military, Washington held the office of Commanding General of the United States Army, the "senior-most officer in the United States Army". Wikipedia's list mentions two terms for Washington in the office (1775-1783, 1798-1799).:

• In the first case, Washington was appointed by the Second Continental Congress, after being nominated for the position by John Adams. We already mention that in Adams' article. "In June 1775, with a view of promoting union among the colonies, he nominated George Washington of Virginia as commander-in-chief of the army then assembled around Boston."
• In the second case, Washington was appointed by John Adams, as a replacement for James Wilkinson. Wilkinson's loyalty was considered suspect at the time, due to his not-so-secret affiliation with Spain. "Adams found himself pressured by Federalists to appoint Hamilton, who had served as Washington's aide-de-camp during the Revolution, to command the army. Distrustful of Hamilton and fearing a plot to subvert his administration, Adams appointed Washington to command the army without consulting him. Washington was surprised, and as a condition of his acceptance demanded that he be permitted to appoint his own subordinates. He wished to have Henry Knox as second-in-command, followed by Hamilton, and then Charles Pinckney."
• In both cases, Washington received a legitimate appointment to the office, he did not cross the Rubicon and start a civil war to get to power. For whatever reason, Adams considered him trustworthy. Dimadick (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Constitution is not irrelevant. Commander in Chief. Washington can order generals to fight. The President is head of the military. The presidency is a combination civilian-military office, but it is military. The President has tremendous power militarily. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, WWI, WWI, Civil War, War of 1812. Washington did not relinquish power. The Presidential office was more powerful than his being a General. The President can overturn orders from Generals, fire Generals, and stop any actions implemented by Generals. The President can author executive orders. Roosevelt ordered Japanese Amerian internment. It was implemented by the U.S. military. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Executive Power Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington was a general for 9 years, or 3285 days. That still surpassed Cincinattus who was a general for 36 days. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Even more comments

Sorry for the slow pace.

• "The British defeat at Saratoga led to Howes' resignation, and command departure, in May 1778." I might cut ", and command departure,"

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Washington and Gates were rivals and the former was concerned that Gate's victory was going to given impetus to his critics.[179] " in addition to the obvious error, this is poorly phrased.

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "By late February, there were adequate supplies flowing throughout camp." I might end "... flowing to the camp."

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Washington recruited regulars" a bit unclear.

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "he discovered it was best to protect his army than to keep the British from occupying towns," maybe "he deemed it more important to preserve his army than to keep the British from occupying towns"

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "which brought the army’s worst suffering of the elements during the war. The temperatures fell to 16 below zero, " I don't think "suffering of the elements" is good English. Also, what temperature scale? You should have a conversion to both major scales commonly used.

 Done (Sort of) Alden doesn't mention which temp scale is used, no doubt the farenheight scale, so I just mentioned that the temperature was well below the freezing point. Don't think we need to cut it any finer than that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "the New York Harbor was frozen over" I'd cut the "the"

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Gates failed in South Carolina, was replaced by Greene, and the British seemed to have the South in their grasp. " this sounds by turns vague and dramatic.

Not sure I understand this one. The prose is simple and I don't see anything dramatic. Are you suggesting "grasp" is too dramatic? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. Maybe use that space to say where the British had forces and why this was a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• "returned from France with additional naval assets and forces.[194]" suggest "returned from France with ships and men."

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "During the summer of 1780, helped by his wife, Arnold began his plot of treason, supplying André with sensitive information intended to compromise Washington and capture West Point, a key defensive position above New York on the Hudson River.[203] " I would change "capture" to "betray" and add "American" after "key".

 Fixed Added 'American', but left 'capture' in place. i.e.A location can't be betrayed, only people can. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "New Windsor" where? New Windsor, New York

 Fixed-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• The account of Yorktown seems very disjointed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Improved grammar flow and trimmed Washington quote a bit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The British defeat at Saratoga led to Howes' resignation". The surname is "Howe", not "Howes". The man in question was William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe. He seems to have resigned in protest. "In October 1777 Howe sent his letter of resignation to London, complaining that he had been inadequately supported in that year's campaigns. He was finally notified in April 1778 that his resignation was accepted. ... On 24 May, the day Howe sailed for England, General Clinton took over as commander-in-chief of British armies in America, and made preparations for an overland march to New York. Howe arrived back in England on 1 July, where he and his brother faced censure for their actions in North America. It is likely that the resignation of both William and his brother Richard was due to their desire to hurry home to vindicate their conduct during the campaign."

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The temperatures fell to 16 below zero". Is that -16 in the Celsius scale? "Before 1954, the Celsius scale was based on 0 °C for the freezing point of water and 100 °C for the boiling point of water at 1 atm pressure" In the Fahrenheit scale, -16 °C translates to 3.2 °F.

 Fixed per Wehwalt's request, above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Gates failed in South Carolina, was replaced by Greene, and the British seemed to have the South in their grasp" The situation in South Carolina was poor to begin with. The British captured Charleston, South Carolina in May, 1780, and Benjamin Lincoln was forced to surrender, along with his soldiers. In July, Congress placed Horatio Gates in charge of the remaining Continental forces. In August, Gates led his troops in the Battle of Camden, where they were defeated with heavy casualties. Gates apparently made the key error of positioning "inexperienced militia" against the "strongest troops" of the opposing British forces. With Gates' military reputation ruined, Congress replaced him with Nathanael Greene.
• "*"New Windsor" where?" Possibly New Windsor, New York, a "major depot for the Continental Army".

New Windsor, Maryland was established in 1797, New Windsor, Illinois was probably established around the 1860s, and New Windsor, New Zealand was established in 1865. Dimadick (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed — (Washington was in New York at this time.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"Whippings"

If we are going to embrace Schenawolf to the point of removing one of Flexner's accounts then it would go that we now use him as a source that asserts that whippings never occurred under Washington, except in one incident, when a slave brutally beat his wife, causing Washington to direct an overseer to "give a good whipping" to. Schenawolf claims, this phrase has been typically taken out of context by many modern day accounts to support the idea that Washington resorted to whippings as a matter of routine.

Here is an excerpt from "Schenawold's essay.

• "There is but a single statement in all of Washington’s writings in which he urges one of his overseers to “give a good whipping” to a slave. Several texts and articles quote this out of context to prove that Washington used the whip on his farms. Reading the entire passage, one leans that Washington wrote in response to a slave who had badly beaten his wife."

Our biography here says, "Although discouraged by Washington, harsh punishments for slaves, that included whippings or increased work, were implemented by overseers, some of whom were slaves."[324]
"that included"? This sentence easily leads the reader to believe that whippings were common — it's sourced by Ferling, 2002, p.46, where he misrepresents this phrase by saying — "when a slave was too idle Washington directed his manager to "give him a good whipping". Ferling has taken this phrase out of context, completely. (!)

The other cite [97] for this statement comes from an essay from Mt. Vernon, which says :

• "What is clear is that Washington frequently utilized harsh punishment against the enslaved population, including whippings and the threat of particularly taxing work assignments."

"that included"? Notice how they lump in "whippings" with "harsh punishment", leading the reader to believe that whippings were standard punishment.

Also, cite [325], "Slave Control", another essay from Mt. Vernon says, "In addition to having overseers monitoring work on site, George Washington utilized a number of methods to try to control the labor and behavior of the Mount Vernon slaves. ... Violent coercive measures were used as well, including whippings and beatings. — "Including whippings"? Here again, the idea of "whippings" are lumped in with a general statement, again, leading the reader to believe that "whippings" were common place. — The statement in the Slavery section is something of a distortion, implying that slaves got a "good whipping" every time they were idle.

Schenawolf also states..

• "Prince Louis Philippe’s first visit to America occurred on April 5, 1797. He visited Mount Vernon and was an overnight guest of Washington. He later wrote a ledger of his travels. He states that the whip was not used on Washington’s estate."
• "General Washington has forbidden the use of the whip on his blacks, but unfortunately, his example has been little emulated."

As we did with Flexner, per Schenawolf, we need to remove or clarify the misleading statement, erroneously sourced by Ferling and two redundant essays from Mt. Vernon that offer an over generalized and fuzzy account on the issue of whippings, esp since the idea of "whippings" is one of the very few things that is routinely associated with slavery by too many "modern day" tv viewers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Schenawolf is speaking about Washington saying "Give him a good whipping". That is not even in the article. Schenawolf does not directly say Washington did not use the whip on his farms. Ferling 2000 says whippings occured for both male and females. The Mount Vernon Ladies Association said Washington used whippings on his farms. Please do not disqualify Schenawolf as a source for Flexner, whom Schenawold specifically names. Flexner and "whipping(s)" at Mount Vernon are two different subjects. Schenawolf is saying that historians can't use one command from Washington to prove their were whippings at Mount Vernon. Again. All this is protectionist speech. Nothing in the article says Washington was a bad guy. It is clear Washington's overseers used the whip. Would they disobey Washington, had there been an order from him not to use the whip ? That is doubtful. What do you want the article to specifically say Gwillhickers ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As clearly indicated, we were using Ferling as a source on p.46, where he used the phrase completely out of context. An erroneous and out of context statement by Ferling was an inadequate cite for the prior statement as it read (see above, in bold). Also, the section, now, only says that Schenawolf maintains there are no accounts from Washington directing whippings except in the case for a slave who brutally beat his wife. Washington wrote numerous letters to overseers in managing his farms while away, yet there is only one directive from him concerning whippings. Given that written permission was required, this tells us Washington only sanctioned one whipping. The section still maintains, however, that Washington's position regarding first warnings and written permission were not always followed due to his prolonged absences, which tells the readers that whippings still occurred, but now it's presented in better context, i.e.that they occurred without Washington's knowledge or approval. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. You talk as if Washington was on trial. The quote of Washington is not being used in the article, in this case a trial. Hey. Thanks for using the source I found. No one is disputing Shenawolf or that there is only one account of Washington directing a whipping. It is this protectionist speech that makes Washington look guilty. There is no trial. Let Washington be Washington. Let History be History. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

We let "history be history" by adding the truth in all its context. Esp when it involves controversial issues. "Protectionist"? with certain individuals taking exception any time context is added, such labels makes it seem they're eager to condemn. I'm hoping you're not disappointed that Washington was not the stereotypical slave master many were led to believe he was. In any case, it's disappointing to see notable historians make mistakes, like Flexner, and take things absurdly out of context, as Ferling did. I'm going to search other texts to see how the phrase "a good whipping" is used, or abused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

History is a business. "Steriotypical slave master" I am not sure what that is. "Protectionist" is a word I used to describe attempting to make Washington a "good" slave master as opposed to a "bad" slave master. Neutrality is not to take sides in the article but just tell was what took place at Mount Vernon, or put in what the "reliable" sources say. This is a summary article. It's not a book or a blog. Protective speech assumes Washington is viewed as a bad slave owner. Nothing in the article says Washington was a bad slave owner. All the reader needs to know is that there were whippings that took place at Mount Vernon. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• That sounds a little naive. The readers should know all the important facts. We say what the sources say, and all of them cover context. Featured Articles present the topics in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• I restored the statement that Washington discouraged harsh treatment. Why would you remove this important context? Also, I restored, at least for the third time, that some of the overseers were slaves. Please stop trying to subvert the truth and distort the context. You keep saying that Washington is not on trial, but you're determined to make the section read like an indictment, devoid of context.

"All the reader needs to know is that there were whippings that took place at Mount Vernon." ??

You're obviously trying to make the section promote the falsehood that Washington routinely authorized whippings and that they were common place. The sources were good enough to include context, so are most of us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. No falsehoods. I used references for my edits. All that is said is there were whippings at Mount Vernon by Washington's overseers. That is not a falsehood. Nothing in the article says whippings were routine or common place. Stop spreading falsehoods in the talk page. Are you saying there were no whippings at Mount Vernon ? Where are your sources that say that ? The article only says Washington authorized one whippings. But the slave control article says Washington approved of a few whippings. That is not even in the article. You are set on making Washington into the slave holder you want him to be. That belongs in a blog, not a wikipedia article. Nothing in the article says Washington is a bad guy. Historians continue to rank Washington high, top ten presidents, whippings or no whippings. You are protecting someone who needs no protection.s Do you really think a wikipedia article will change historical view of Washington ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : It is the "historical view" that I wish to fully embrace, as most sources provide the context in which Washington practiced slavery. You should save the empty rhetoric for someone that doesn't know any better. And yes, Wikipedia is a highly visible source and can either change or help to confirm various historical views as the case may be, as Wikipedia is read more than most books combined for the simple reason that it is a free encyclopedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I see my edits were demolished again by you Gwillhickers. That is edit warring. You are disrupting the natural editing process of wikipedia and continue to establish article control. That is keeping Washington from getting to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : You are more guilty of this than the rest of us combined, as edit history will confirm. You've removed the sourced statement about Washington being born into a world accustomed to slavery, and didn't question it, and the statement about Washington's disapproval of harsh punishment. You also removed the statement about slave overseers, three times. For openers. You really need to keep this blithering hypocrisy off the talk page and stop ranting like the rest of us can't remember past yesterday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Violent coercive measures were used as well, including whippings and beatings. In some instances, physical restraints were utilized to ensure that slaves would not run away. Slave Control Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• In 1758, Washington—while serving in the French and Indian War—received a letter from his farm manager explaining that he had "whipt" the carpenters when he "could see a fault."3 In 1793, farm manager Anthony Whiting reported that he had "gave…a very good Whiping" with a hickory switch to the seamstress Charlotte. The manager admitted that he was "determined to lower Spirit or skin her Back."4 George Washington replied that he considered the treatment of Charlotte to be "very proper" and that "if She, or any other of the Servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered."5 Slave control Cmguy777 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• What is clear is that Washington frequently utilized harsh punishment against the enslaved population, including whippings and the threat of particularly taxing work assignments. Perhaps most severely, Washington could sell a slave to a buyer in the West Indies, ensuring that the person would never see their family or friends at Mount Vernon again. Washington conducted such sales on several occasions. Ten Facts About Washington & Slavery 4. Accounts vary regarding Washington’s treatment of the Mount Vernon’s enslaved population Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert, "that included"? This ideas was already addressed, and qualified by a source Cmguy777 introduced. Again, notice how they lump in "whippings" with "harsh punishment", leading the reader to believe that whippings were standard punishment. Schenawolf clearly indicates there is only one account where Washington sanctioned a whipping. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• When Washington was 11, he inherited 10 slaves from his father; when he died five decades later, he owned 123 of the 317 slaves who lived and worked at Mount Vernon. In that time the estate grew from a fairly modest farmhouse with 2,000 acres to a 21-room mansion and nearly 8,000 acres. It was in this way that the first president became rich: by buying, owning and sometimes selling people and by forcing them to work for him, under pain of flogging, beating or being sold away from their relatives and friends. The spectre of slavery haunts George Washington’s house Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This article as written should be neutral and accurate. All that needs to be said is that there were floggings or whippings at Mount Vernon to keep slaves working in forced labor. Nothing in the article says Washington was a bad person. And Washington did not get rich on slavery alone. He was a land speculator. Washington's wealth did not completely rely on slavery. He was paid a salary while President. He did work as surveyor and got paid in either money or land. I am all for neutral and compromise wording to get Washington to FA. We need to stop edit warring in the talk pages and the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Just from experience, there's no point in trying together the article featured unless you're confident you've resolved issues in a way that is not going to fall apart under the stresses of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was my edits that were constantly being "demolished" (i.e.revised, turned around and sometimes removed outright) in a slow-mo' edit war fashion. There was no neutrality issue, a term that now has little meaning around here, given the number of times it's been parroted in edit history and Talk, by one editor alone. All statements were sourced by reliable sources, while whippings were mentioned, in context. Nothing was or has ever been removed, or blocked, that reliable sources have presented in context. Now we have a statement that more than implies that Washington authorized numerous whippings, while we have another statement that clearly says there is only one account of Washington doing so that involved a male slave who brutally beat his wife. These ideas should not contrast each other. Cmguy777's last arrangement here is better than before but in his apparently angry state has removed the first sentence which was sourced by two reliable sources. There are, however, a few items that still needed tending to. I had to restore the opening sentence about Washington being born into a world accustomed to slavery and accepted it without question. This statement hardly "protects" Washington, and it was sourced by Flexner and Ferling, yet Cmguyy777 tagged it, and then removed it completely, as somewhere along the line it's citations were removed. This reckless editing approach needs to end. However, this time he has not removed the statement indicating that Washington disapproved of harsh punishment, and that some overseers were slaves themselves, as he did three times before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

editbreak

The statement says whippings took place at Mount Vernon. Washington approved of two and ordered one. Mount Vernon Ladies Association says whippings took place "frequently". Washington was born in Colonial Virginia. "a world accustomed to slavery" What does that mean ? Britain was the number one slave importer in the 18th Century. I have used compromise language. We can't disregard the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : The statement in question uses fuzzy language, and lumps in whippings with "harsh punishment", once again, leading the readers to believe that whippings were commonplace, and that Washington approved of them all. This has been explained for you twice already. Thanks to other sources, one of which you recently introduced, we can qualify this idea. We can not permit Wikipedia to resort to activist-speak, with vague and generalized statements while ignoring other truths. This is, quite frankly, underhanded and dishonest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There were no sources in the first sentence that was tagged. You added the sources later Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I added the source the first time the statement was included. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, Gwillhickers, that one person cannot wage an edit war alone--there must be at least two opponents. You are edit-warring as much as Cmguy777 is. Because of the ongoing edit war, I'm not going to try to help. I'm taking a moment here, however, to point out once again that for a featured article, not only content but style matters. This sentence is poorly constructed:

Insert : — Almost all of my reverts or revisions were in response to my edits getting "demolished" or removed, so please bear that in mind with this simplistic idea that "it takes two to edit war".

I don't much like this Insert format, but you seem to need a reminder of what edit warring WP:EW is: "An edit war (/ˈɛdɪtˌwɔːr/ (About this sound listen)) occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." You're overriding his as much as he's overriding yours.

Gwillhickers and Cmguy777 need to STOP EDIT WARRING NOW. YoPienso (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Although discouraged by Washington, sometimes harsh punishments, that included whippings or threat of hard labor, were implemented by overseers, some of whom were slaves.

Wrt to content, the following sentence is either misleading or outright false, because Washington did support the perceived need for whipping slaves. Bear in mind that "correction" is a euphemism for punishment, which was often whipping. The sentence is also stylistically lacking; the real need is to remove it.

However, historian Harry Schenawolf maintains that there is only one account from Washington authorizing a whipping, given to a slave for badly beating his wife.

It may be the only recorded instance in which Washington ordered a severe whipping, but that's trivia and doesn't belong in the article. YoPienso (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The historian who included this in his account didn't think it was "trivia". It is a revealing piece of context, esp since Washington managed his plantations through letter writing when he was away, which was often. There are hundreds of such letters to overseers, people who actually managed slaves, yet only one is known to authorize a whipping, for a slave who beat his wife. This is very revealing context, in terms of frequency, and the sort of things whippings were last resorted to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This reliably sourced info was only recently removed:

He allowed whippings of both male and female slaves for idleness, stealing or fighting, but opposed severe or excessive punishment by overseers, some of whom were slaves themselves.[327][97][328] Washington required that a warning be given to first offenders before resorting to whipping, which also required his written permission, although the practice wasn't always enforced due to his prolonged absences.[329] Washington several times sent unruly slaves to the West Indies to work in hard labor. Other methods of discipline were used that included "admonition and advise", cash payments, and material incentives.

YoPienso (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. We are not saying that only one whipping ever occurred in the article, but are only qualifying these events with context. Yes, he approved, but only after first warnings, with written permissions, which our article specifies. I will however, re-add this passage to the existing sentence.

"He allowed whippings of both male and female slaves for idleness, stealing or fighting, but opposed severe or excessive punishment by overseers, ..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your openmindedness and the restoration of relevant context. Now the paragraph needs radical copy editing. YoPienso (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that Washington's restraint was largely theoretical--when he was gone, as he often was, overseers didn't exactly toe his line. So Washington, in practice, did not always (and probably rarely) give specific permission for each whipping or even necessarily know it had happened. We have to differentiate between theory/aspiration and practice/reality. YoPienso (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• We can't come right out and say so, but it seems some of the whippings, done in Washington's absence occurred without his knowledge, and needless to say, without his approval. All we can do is say what the sources say, and provided as much context as is possible so we at least give the readers half a clue. Given his other benevolent treatments of slaves, i.e.care, consent before splitting up families, much time off, etc, it shouldn't be difficult for the objective and intelligent reader to get the picture, hopefully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• "radical copy editing" doesn't sound quite right. I already made improvements to the narrative flow by moving a couple of sentences and using better terminology in a couple of places. While there is always room for improvement, this "radical copy editing" idea is perhaps overstating matters. As always, I've no qualms about copy editing so long as context is left in tact. Anyways, thanks for your attempts to defuse matters, but I'm hoping we don't initiate the same process all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Yopienso: is right. Cmguy777 and myself need to come to terms and move on. I left many of the things in place Cm' has added and made a few changes. Are we close to settling now? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The slavery section is the most controversial. I propose all editors use compromise wording. What source says Washington opposed slavery morally ? He opposed slavery economically ? Do we really need to add the names of any historians to the slavery section ? Washington is not on trial. There is no judge or jury. Remember slavery was part of the British Empire. Washington was not a born a U.S. Citizen. Washington probably bears more responsibility while he was President. He signed laws. The Fugitive slave law allowed states to invade other states. Did that create instability for the nation ? But all we have to do on the aritcle is put in the basic facts. There is a dedicated article on the subject. We are assuming the readers think Washington was a bad person for running a slave plantation, and that somehow Wikipedia has to convince them otherwise. The slavery section has to be stabilized before FA. Also. Non controversial information can be reduced to get the article to 95 K. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You could have cleared up a lot of these questions for yourself by reading the sources. Once again, dedicated articles are for in depth coverage. They are not an excuse to present the topic here in anything less than a well written comprehensive summary. — "All the reader needs to know is that there were whippings that took place at Mount Vernon." — Is this your idea of compromise? The empty, contradictory talk and endless questions are only compounding matters. Also, you attempted to conduct a survey regarding your preferred page length number of 95k. No one responded since I explained for you that there are no guarantees with any number, be it 90k or 100k. Please don't start another edit war by using your preferred page length number as an excuse to remove context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Slavery

Cmguy777 is correct that the Slavery section is the most controversial (at least at present). We need to keep his comment in mind: "We are assuming the readers think Washington was a bad person for running a slave plantation, and that somehow Wikipedia has to convince them otherwise." We aren't supposed to either accuse or defend Washington.
I've done quite a bit of copyediting, but hesitate to tackle the very difficult paragraph which is currently the third of that section:

Although discouraged by Washington, sometimes harsh punishments, that included whippings or threat of hard labor, were implemented by overseers, some of whom were slaves.[318][97] As President, Washington closely supervised Mount Vernon through letters to his overseers.[319][320] There is only one account from Washington authorizing a whipping, given to a slave for badly beating his wife.[321] He allowed whippings of both male and female slaves, but opposed cruelty by his overseers.[318][97] Washington required that a warning be given to first offenders, and then his written permissions be given before resorting to whipping, although the practice wasn't always enforced due to his prolonged absences.[322] In severe circumstances, Washington shipped unruly slaves to the West Indies. Washington also used non violent forms of discipline, including "admonition and advise", cash payments, and material incentives.[320]

This article doesn't have consistently adequate topic sentences. (The reviewers mentioned the low level of writing.) What's the topic of this paragraph? Harsh punishments at Mount Vernon, right? Here's a start:

Harsh punishments, include whippings, were not unknown at Mount Vernon. Washington discouraged them; after a warning to first offenders, he required overseers to obtain his written permission before resorting to whipping. This policy, however, wasn't always enforced due to his prolonged absences, despite frequent correspondence with his overseers.[322] He allowed both male and female slaves to be whipped as deemed necessary, but tried to avoid cruel treatment.[318][97] He also used non-violent forms of discipline and motivation, including "admonition and advise", cash payments, and material incentives.[320] Washington occasionally sold incorrigible slaves to slavemasters in the West Indies.

I'm not altogether pleased with it, but it's a start for discussion. YoPienso (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"were not unknown" What does that mean ? There were whippings at Mount Vernon. We have to state that fact. As far as "discouraged by Washington". When did he ever discourage whippings ? He approved of whippings. From what I gather from the sources is that he wanted the overseers to use non violent methods. The next resort would be whippings or hard labor. The next step is shipped to the West Indies. There was a hierarchy of rewards and punishments. That makes sense since Washington was a slaveholder. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"Were not unknown" means they happened. You guys have discussed to death the fact that Washington tried to keep whippings to a minimum. You answered your own question in the very next sentence--"he wanted the overseers to use non violent methods." I can't understand what you are saying or asking. YoPienso (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yopienso, you've removed several points of context, including the account of Washington's correspondence only authorizing one whipping. This is a very revealing piece of information. Although it is not conclusive in terms of overall whippings, it does narrow things down considerably, since Washington wrote 100's of letters to overseers - yet there is only one authorizing a whipping. However, I greatly appreciate you effort to discuss the matter first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Why should "the account of Washington's correspondence only authorizing one whipping" be included in the article? What does it reveal? YoPienso (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Cmguy777 We say what the sources say, in context, regardless of individual editor opinion that anyone is defending or condemning Washington. We can not ignore the facts because some editor 'feels' like Washington is being defended. You've "demolished" some of my edits. So much for your concern for an edit war. You started the process all over again. i.e.I had moved a statement about Washington's correspondence to overseers just before the statement saying there is only one written account where Washington authorized a whipping of a slave who beat his wife. You turned around and moved this sentence clear away from the other. I left your other edits as they were but moved the statement back where I had it before, for better narrative flow, as the two sentences are connected. Yes, Washington is on trial, because certain individuals around here have put him there and earnestly work to remove all context. Hence your revealing statement : "All the reader needs to know is that there were whippings that took place at Mount Vernon." — We present the topics in context and in a comprehensive fashion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Regrettably, I don't see any of us moving forward, only around in the same circle, still disagreeing about context, even though it's well covered by reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Ferling says the slave was beaten for idleness, not because he beat his spouse. The Mount Vernon Ladies association say slaves were in shackels at Mount Vernon. Washington is not on trial. You are using that as an excuse to defend Washington. That is obstruction of the article. There is too much information that does not need to be there. I suppose you are the judge and jury of editor content Gwillhickers. That is article control. The only context that counts is the truth. Washington approved of whippings and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association said the whippings were frequent. But you won't allow that information because you want Washington to be a "good" slave holder. You would rather have GW fail FA than pass to keep your context. The article won't move forward because you won't let it move forward. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Schenawolf, a source you introduced, clearly states that Washington authorized the whipping in question because a slave beat his wife. He also claims this is the only written account of Washington doing so. Which of Ferling's publications, and on what page does it say the whipping in question wasn't over a wife beating? Was Ferling referring to a different incident? Does he specifically say it was not over wife beating? As for the Mt. Vernon Ladies Associate, they do not trump recognized sources with established names. It is an online essay with no name attached that yields fuzzy and generalized statements, and lump in whippings with harsh treatment and don't distinguish from those that Washington knew about. Now we have slaves in shackles? I suppose we should just make the blunt statement and let readers assume that slaves walked around in shackles all the time.

"The Mount Vernon Ladies association say slaves were in shackels at Mount Vernon."??

The slave control essay only speaks of a slave being handcuffed before being shipped off to sea, and a reference to one other incident. Yet look at your above statement. This would be consistent with your statement.

"All the reader needs to know is that there were whippings that took place at Mount Vernon."

Please don't ever lecture me about the truth again. Given your editing practice I am no more in control of the article than you are, so please stop kidding yourself. Once again, we present topics in context, and we tell the truth. Given your above statements you are clearly not interested in that. You wish to present Washington as a merciless slave owner, which is why you have consistently scoffed at context and have made the sort of statements outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"In some instances, physical restraints were utilized to ensure that slaves would not run away." slave control "Some", not "one". One example was given. But the article says some not one. Why can't that be in the article ? Washington was suppose to have Republican values, but these did not apply to the black race. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777 — We just drove @Yopienso: away. Seriously, you and I have gotta cool it. Yes, in some instances slaves were no doubt put in restraints, just like people, who were not slaves. This occurred in the army, navy and in civilian life — yet should it happen to a slave, some individuals react twice as strongly, because of race. This affair, involving "some instances", is hardly accurately covered with your general statement.: "The Mount Vernon Ladies association say slaves were in shackles at Mount Vernon." If you feel it is necessary to mention this, along side whippings and other forms of punishment, I'll mention it in the proper context, as this is the truth. After that, you and I should come to terms.
Currently the Slavery section mentions Washington never even questioned slavery up until the Revolution, whippings, Washington's view of an "inferior race", earnest attempts to retrieve runaway slaves, (even Ona Judge), poor clothing, sending slaves to the West Indies, and it also presents these things in context. If the both of us are not satisfied at this point then it seems we'll never be. I would also like to mention baptisms of slaves, and many other things that occurred under Washington, and I'm sure you have other things in mind. Again, we both need to step back from the Slavery section and get on with the task of bringing the article to FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)