Talk:George Washington/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Recent image changes in "Death" section

My thoughts are that the "funeral procession plans" broadside image is quite small and hard-to-read within the context of the article - unless I enlarge the image greatly on my computer I cannot read the broadside's text (and I think mobile views might be somewhat more truncated). The portal/link to the various George Washington-related Commons images (available within the WP "sister projects" box) introduces readers to the many George Washington images available at Commons, I think some editorial discretion needs to be exercised about which broadside/lithograph/portrait/etc. should be included within the main article. Also the previous appearance of the Death section (seen here) that alternated images left & right seems easier to read to me than the present version, the section now visually leans to the right with the three images in a row. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(Summoned by Talkback) I reduced it to "upright" size, as it was way too large and still unreadable. The left/right thing is largely a matter of personal preference, so it pretty much comes down to a local vote (the result of which will be unknown to many editors anyway. and ignored by many who disagree with it). My vote is for a careful and tasteful alternating, without a rigid adherence to that rule that is blind to other considerations. I'm fine with the alternating in the Death section.
As for whether to include this particular image, the fact that it's unreadable shouldn't be an argument for removal, since a thumbnail is really nothing more than a graphical link to the actual image. Readers should be expected to click through to the image if they want to actually read the document. Beyond that, I don't know enough about the article or the subject area to have an opinion; actually I'm not sure why I still have this watchlisted. I happened to add content about George's height a long time ago, and I've been correcting fixed-size and oversized thumbnails since then, but maybe it's time to let go. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't realized that the previous rendering was that size, I'll remember "upright" as a way to adjust such issues in the future. As to left/right, personally I think alternating the images (according to editorial preferences) can keep the reader's eye traveling within the article by framing the text, but you're right about editorial consensus etc.

Re: the particular broadside & its image, there are a couple of issues: 1)Along with its first caption of "Regulations for George Washington's funeral processions, New York" the image gave the errant impression that the single funeral/funeral-procession for Washington was held in New York City on December 29, 1799, when the simple funeral itself was actually held at Mount Vernon on December 18, 1799. This broadside is better understood as public instructions for the memorial procession in New York City that took place after Washington's death (which was one of many such memorial processions or mock funerals that occurred throughout the United States). 2)Beyond the image, nothing in the article-text had specifically mentioned the various memorial processions that took place (including the one in New York City)so I have adjusted the text, added a reference and placed the broadside's image further up the page next to the paragraph starting with "Throughout the world,..." For now, I am going to remove the "Washington's death-bed" print (published in 1856), at least the broadside is contemporaneous to the death & the country's reaction immediately afterwards. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. As to images, MOS:IMAGELOCATION states that images should generally be right aligned, so I right aligned the one image. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No problems on the placement. This article is so long, there is a sprinkling of left-side images to break up the lengthy text. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, IMAGELOCATION has long been out of step with community consensus and practice, evidenced by the fact that a majority of GA articles use left-right alternating. If the community actually put any stock in that part of IMAGELOCATION, those articles would never earn GA status. Guidelines are supposed to reflect community consensus, so that one should be updated accordingly. But I'm too old and tired to try to sell a change — that's largely a younger man's game — so I just ignore it instead, along with many, many other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected as to the preceding comments. After discussion elsewhere, it seems that GA does not represent a community consensus on this, so it's irrelevant in this discussion. It's up to local consensus, and note that IMAGELOCATION can be used to support either position with pretty much equal strength. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2015

George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731][Note 1][Note 2] – December 14, 1799) was the first (technically 11th because there were presidents under the articles of confederation, but the first under the constitution) President of the United States (1789–97), the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He presided over the convention that drafted the current United States Constitution and during his lifetime was called the "father of his country".[4]

Teknos22 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. This has been discussed here and at other pages. Calidum 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

According to List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves:

Washington was a major slaveholder before, during, and after his presidency. His will freed his slaves pending the death of his widow, though she freed his slaves within a year of his death. See George Washington and slavery for more details.

Yet according to George Washington#Slavery:

By 1794, as he contemplated retirement, Washington began organizing his affairs so that in his will he could free all the slaves he owned outright.[247] As historian Gordon S. Wood writes in his review of Joseph Ellis'sbiography of Washington, "He did this in the teeth of opposition from his relatives, his neighbors, and perhaps even Martha. It was a courageous act, and one of his greatest legacies."[239] At the time of Washington's death in 1799, 317 slaves lived at Mount Vernon: 123 were owned by Washington himself, 154 were held by his wife as "dower slaves", and 40 others were rented from a neighbor.[248]Washington's will provided for all of his slaves to be unconditionally freed upon the death of his widow, his heirs being expressly forbidden from selling or transporting those slaves out of Virginia. Hercules, who had earlier escaped Washington, was freed and no longer a fugitive slave. The will also provided for the training of the younger former-slaves in useful skills and for the creation of an old-age pension fund for the older ones.[249] George and Martha emancipated no slaves during their lifetimes and when Martha died on May 22, 1802, all of the slaves she was legally responsible for were not freed. Her human property Elisha went to her grandson George Washington Custis,[250] the slaves from her first husband's estate—the dower slaves as well as the slaves she held in trust—went to his inheritors.[234]

(Emphasis mine).

Okay, which one is correct?

 – Hop on Bananas (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Martha owned slaves of her own "dower slaves" and she also had the use of slaves in trust from her first husband. There was some sort of rule of law or prenuptial agreement for the second marriage. George Washington did not come into ownership of Martha Custis’ slaves on marriage, nor she of his, so she held them apart from him and he held his apart from her. Martha’s release of George Washington’s slaves was not during his lifetime, she had use of them after his death until her death in trust but she did not have title to George's slaves after his death. The Custis slaves in trust to Martha stayed in the Custis family after her death, and a last "dower slave" Elisha went to G.W. Custis. The original contributor may have a different take on it.

Perhaps the sentence should read “George and Martha emancipated no slaves of their own during their lifetimes…” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

I am a history buff who can provide some good info. 162.228.226.19 (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the offer. First, you are misusing the edit request facility; please refer to Wikipedia:Edit requests. Secondly, what you call providing good info is what Wikipedia calls "original research", and it is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. All article content must come directly from reliable published sources, not from personal knowledge. For more information, see Wikipedia:No original research. If you have new and relevant information that can be sourced in this manner, feel free to provide it on this page with information about the sources (URLs for web-based sources, author/title/page for books, etc.) To start a new thread (section), you can use the "New section" link at the top of this page. 68.97.47.26 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Slavery

Contradiction The following sentences are contradictory: "Washington came to oppose slavery on both moral and economic grounds. Before the American Revolution, he had expressed no moral reservations about slavery. But by 1779, he would tell his manager at Mount Vernon that he wished to sell his slaves when the war ended, if the Americans were victorious." If Washington opposed slavery why did he wish: "to sell his slaves when the war ended"? If Washington came to oppose slavery, he would surely wish to free his slaves after the war ended? You include evidence that Washington came to oppose slavery on economic grounds, but I see no evidence for his moral stance. Furthermore the article goes on to say that Washington freed no slaves in his lifetime, he merely denied his inheritors of them. This could be construed as an act of economic benevolence on his inheritors given that "maintaining a large, and increasingly elderly, slave population at Mount Vernon was no longer economically profitable", but I see no evidence of altruism towards the slaves. It could be construed that Washington simply wished to ignore arguments with relatives about whether slavery was an economic necessity. An unequivocal fact or quote illustrating Washington's change in moral position towards emancipation is essential in this section, to counteract the fact of the lack of emancipation during his lifetime, and his actions to reclaim escaped slaves. Otherwise his actions are merely indicative of a man acting solely on economic grounds, and easily swayed by acquaintances to maintain barbaric practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.18.82 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The major book on the subject is An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. (2003) by Henry Wiencek. As the young planter Washington showed no moral or economic negativism regarding slavery. He started changing during the war and by the 1790s made definite plans to free all his slaves had his death, despite strong opposition from his family. He was one of the very few southern planters to do this--They all faced the same economics, but neither Washington nor any of the others saw an economic advantage in emancipating their slaves. Washington made special provision to educate the young ones so they could make a living as free men. Wiencek emphasizes Washington's moral awareness. writing: "sickened by slavery, [GW was] willing to sacrifice his own substance to end it" (p. 274). and "His sense of justice knew no exceptions" (p. 357). Rjensen (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Rifle Battalions

Regarding the below section of the article the section highlighted in bold is actually incorrect. The British Army realised the potential of Rifles and Rifle units equipped for forest and irregular warfare long before the War of Independence and actually formed a Regular British Army unit specifically for this purpose in 1756 (the 62nd (Royal Americans), later renumbered the 60th (Royal Americans)). This unit numbered 4,160 men in four battalions and was equipped with rifles, hatchets and green jackets in the field (although red jackets were worn in camp). It was made up of a mix of British troops drawn from other Regiments, American Colonists recruited as regulars and Swiss and German forest fighting experts. So it is inaccurate to state that the success and example of American forces against the British during the War of Independence inspired the creation of Rifle units after the war. This process was actually begun to fight the Indians and French during the earlier American wars. Details of this can be found in the History of the Kings Royal Rifle Corps and other histories, some details can also be found on Wikipedia itself in articles dealing with the Regiment. I would recommend amending the last sentence of the below paragraph as it is historically inaccurate.

"The decisive defeat of Col. Patrick Ferguson's Tory Regiment at King's Mountain demonstrated the superiority of the riflery of American "over mountain men" over British-trained troops armed with musket and bayonet. These "over-mountain men" were led by a variety of elected officers, including the 6'6" William Campbell who had become one of Washington's officers by the time of Yorktown. Similarly, Morgan's Virginia riflemen proved themselves superior to the British at Saratoga, a post-revolutionary war development being the creation of trained "rifle battalions" in the European armies."2.26.6.91 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.6.91 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

i would like to add something i found out about him

Ebes15 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done That is not an edit request. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

POV pushers again

Upon adding some stamp images to the Legacy of George Washington article it was disappointing to see only one historical topic given so much attention: Slavery. This was one of very few sections on the page yet it was bloated out to absurd proportions. This is what the slavery section looked like up until recently. So many topics related to Washington, yet slavery was the only topic listed under the Public opinion section. The page needs much work. I'm posting here as few people know or knew of this page, including myself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Video games are part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia culture

One editor (not me) added this text which another editor deleted: under "Popular Culture"

• George Washington appears as an important character in the action-adventure video game, Assassin's Creed III.
  
• Washington also appears as a minor character in computer strategy game, Age of Empires III.
  
• Washington appears as leader of United States in computer strategy games, Civilization, Civilization IV and Civilization V.
  

--I don't play these games myself --But I note that they are deeply embedded in the Wikipedia culture, with 32,000 articles devoted to games and characters. For some evidence look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Readers click on them a lot – Minecraft got 151,259 hits last month. (7,563/day) That makes them part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia culture, and so to denounce them as encyclopedic is un-Wikipedian. Video games are the popular culture of the 21st century, and George Washington playing these roles means that he has a part in the popular culture today. Rjensen (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What RS coverage exists for George Washington's appearance in these games? That is the criterion, not whether computer games (in general) are part of the Wikipedia culture. The issue is WEIGHT, and to me this appears to warrant no weight in a bio of George Washington. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss is quite correct, anything to be included in the article must be referenced to reliable sources, regardless of the what may be perceived as Wikipedia "culture".  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And they should be reliable sources that impart some relevance, rather than, for example, some page simply listing the games and the characters in them. It's not enough to know that this is accurate, we also need to know that it is relevant. This bar should exist for all Wikipedia content, but, when it's allowed to slip, it shouldn't be in a serious historical article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long-standing policy for fiction, films, and games: the item itself as a reliable source when it is used to describe it. WP:FICTIONPLOT states: writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source....a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.... That is a reader can describe the content of the novel without going to an outside secondary source. In this case, I think the critic did not look at the videogame himself, but simply erased it, whereas the editor wrote the original entry actually did look at the videogame. That puts the original editor in accord with Wikipedia policy, and the deleter one following his own personal views without bothering to check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Your rationale would be valid if we were talking about the Wikipedia articles about those games. We are not. 2. Why would I (the "critic") want to or need to check it out? I don't question the accuracy, and the accuracy is not the issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

At issue is your analysis of the game you never looked at, in contrast to an editor who actually did look at it. That seems to be POV on the part of the person to leading the text. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

From your own quote: a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims. In other words, no editor can make their own judgments as to the relevance of the content to the subject in question; that must come from reliable secondary sources. The primary source (the game itself) can be used to show that Washington is a character in it, but, again, that is not the issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no there is no such rule. The rule is we need a RELIABLE source and in fiction the book/game itself is the reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Then we have a fundamental disagreement that will not be resolved by further discussion between us. Let's give it up to a week for further participation. If we don't get a quorum for a consensus, and you still wish to pursue this, we can then go to RfC. Thanks for participating constructively and not edit warring this. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There should be no problem in adding the propose passage, as either reviewers or product pages confirm George Washington as characters. There are many examples of biographical figures being represented in "popular culture" including stamps, monuments, books, films along with board and video games. That certainly cannot be at issue at Wikipedia as some might imagine elsewhere.

The source given at Assassin's Creed III is Gilbert, Henry (March 5, 2012). "Assassin’s Creed III release date and more in first trailer". GamesRadar. Retrieved March 5, 2012. confirmed at [1] viewed March 11, 20016.Age of Empires III includes George Washington as a "playable hero character” at “Ages of Empires Wiki: George Washington” [2] viewed March 11, 2016. In Civilization V, George Washington is “the leader of the Americans”. at Wikia: the home of fandom. “Civilization Official Wikia: Washington (Civ5)[3] viewed March 11, 2016. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems unlikely we will have a quorum here, and the question isn't unique to George Washington by any means. But it's not worth an RfC in my opinion, so I opened a discussion at WP:VPP, here. I hope this isn't seen as WP:FORUMSHOP, considering the lack of quorum here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to briefly echo my comment in the above-mentioned forum: Popular culture sections should explain the impact of the subject to popular culture rather than simply list appearances. The section here made no attempt to do so and its removal was justified. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. The secondary references should provide at least some analysis of the significance of the popular culture appearance, not just mention that it took place, and the "popular culture" section should provide a summary of that analysis, not just a list of bullet points. Especially for widely known figures like Washington, a section of bare mentions or appearances might get very long indeed and adds little if any value to the article. It's a consideration of due weight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: It would be helpful if you could add your comment to the discussion at VPP. The editor who added the section, Umtic, recently added similar content to dozens of historical bios. If the consensus goes the way it appears it will, those additions will need to be reverted, and the VPP thread will be the justification for the removals. Not to mention the many other abuses of "Popular culture" sections. I don't know whether an RfC will be necessary to make the result "official" enough to be effective, but I'm hoping not at this point. It's a very public discussion on the main policy page for the site, and that should be sufficient. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to meet all objections: In this case of the George Washington article, there is no "long list of minor or unimportant references" to justify the "article with "In popular culture" template. Simply placing the reference to three video games, with sources, in the "Legacy" section avoids placing the information in its own section. The introductory analysis, "George Washington as a prominent historical figure in world civilization and as a military commander is recognized in several modern video games." --- is sufficient to explain the significance of the references. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Then, without any objections, I take it that Mandrus now concurs with the proposal for the George Washington article until the larger issue is resolved to the contrary, --- As all expressed reservations have been answered, it may be that the George Washington proposal now serves as a model for the broader solution. It avoids the artificially narrow "popular culture" section, it is sourced, with few prominent examples (three), couched in an analytic perspective to avoid a mere listing of trivia factoids.

The figure of George Washington in Civilization V is featured in Gergo Vas' review of “The most Memorable Presidential Cameos in Video Games at [4]. Fox News published a story on a fictionalized King Washington as villain in Assassin’s Creed III at [5] George Washington is noted as appearing in the 2005 Age of Empires III on page 82 in the PediaPress “George Washington” discussion of “Cultural depictions of George Washington” including movies, television, coins and currency.

James Paul Gee in his book (p.56) “Why Video Games are Good for Your Soul: Pleasure and Learning”, notes that “These imaginings and visions — really perceptually-based simulations in your mind—are what give meaning to a fact like 'George Washington was the first president of the United States’", whether than scenario is with a King Washington as some called for at the time, or a George Washington "in civilian clothes bickering with legislators.”

George Washington is discussed as a character in Age of Empires on page 70, Empires III on page 148, and Assassin’s Creed on page 160 in Winnerling and Kerschbaumer’s “Early modernity and video games” and on page 73 notes, “Concerning Early Modernity, the player reflects the semiotic system and thereby gives insights in his historical consciousness…”

Tobias Winnerling holds a doctorate in History and is on the faculty of the Dusseldorf University, Austria. “Early Modernity and Video Games" is published by the academic press, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing in 2014 [6].TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen, Finnusertop, Philg88, and Mandruss: Revised proposal:

George Washington in popular culture is featured as a prominent historical figure in world civilization and as a military commander in Age of Empires III, Civilization V and Assassin's Creed III (as a counter-history King). These games are discussed in Winnerling and Kershbaumer’s “Early Modernity and Video Games” explaining that "the player reflects the semiotic system and there by gives insights in his historical consciousness.”

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As the editor that actually wrote the popular culture part, I would like to start this text with the fact that why I write popular culture parts on historical peoples' and events' pages. I write, because I believe that video games are a major part in our daily life and those games would help you to understand that period which that person lived or that event happened. The games I write on the pages might not be 100% accurate or with a lot of conspiracy theories, but in those games you can emphatize that person or that event's conditions at that time. The games I wrote are made by people who spent their time on researching about when that planned game takes place and what happened at that time.

Also, Mandruss said on the talk that what I write is weight and shouldn't be in a serious article. I don't agree at all. As I said in the beginning of the text, I wrote that games are good for emphatizing and understanding. Also, he said that Rjensen's rationale would be valid if we were talking about the Wikipedia articles about those games. It's not true. If I was a person who liked history and don't know anything about Assassin's Creed III or Age of Empires III, I would never know his appearance in those games. He also asked that why would he check it. Researching is the nature of Wikipedia. I believe what I written is sensible and does not spoil the page at all.

About the argument on my edit on George Washington's page, I believe that what I have written was logical. I wrote only his appearance, because I believed that adding more facts would spoil the game's plot etc. I personally played those games and I know many facts about George Washington's appearance in them. If you decide to keep the Popular Culture part and think that more facts should be written about his appearance in those games, I would like to help. --Umtic (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• We have a whole article at Legacy of George Washington where this material might be more relevant (and where more material in the present article needs to move to, such as a postage stamps and currency stuff, the auction trivia, etc. – see Talk:Legacy of George Washington#Section merge) The fact that a piece of trivia can be sourced does not mean it must be included, if that's what this forked debate is about; see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:V, MOS:TRIVIA, etc. If there is an "in popular culture" section, the game is notable, and the character is a significant feature of the game, it's probably sufficient. But such sections, especially as lists, are strongly discouraged. They should instead be rewritten as prose treatments of the subject in fictional works and other cultural contexts. E.g., we might have a paragraph on filmic portrayals of George Washington and how they diverge from historical reality, and round it off with mentioning some video games in which Washington is a major character. That serves an encyclopedic purpose. A list of appearances of GW as a character in every known fictional work in which he appears is precisely the kind of indiscriminate trivia WP:NOT is about.

  The three video game line-items atop this discussion can be compressed into a single sentence, and omit the one in which GW is a minor character. The proposed wording "George Washington in popular culture is featured as a prominent historical figure in ..." doesn't make sense. Something more like "George Washington as a fictionalized character features prominently in...". However, the problem is that the underlying proposal – "George Washington as a prominent historical figure in world civilization and as a military commander is recognized in several modern video games." --- is sufficient to explain the significance of the references – clearly does not have consensus. The entire rationale seems to be based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: Because some poorly written articles here have pointless trivia in them, "therefore" we should include some here. But, no, we shouldn't. As isolated factoids, these inclusions are not encyclopedic.

  A comprehensive treatment of GW as a fictional character (at the Legacy article) would necessarily include the major VG appearances, but we don't seem to have that; someone just wants to insert VG material because they're into VGs and because some young academics are trying to make humanities professor careers for themselves doing literary-style analysis of video games (good luck; they will not go very far unless they integrate that with a generalized approach to analysis of fiction, which is precisely the route WP should be taking here, and which it takes in excellent articles here). There's no difference between this VG inclusion proposal and wanting to especially include GW as a subject of comic books, in isolation, or as a subject of XXX movies, in isolation. As discrete facts, it's just pointless product-name-dropping; as part of an entire section on GW in fiction, written as prose, not a list, it might make sense to include it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I support your proposal at Talk:Legacy of George Washington to merge the detail of George Washington#Legacy into the Legacy of George Washington article. Perhaps a one- or two-paragraph summary could be left behind at the “Legacy” section heading. Until the entire section migrates, a brief sourced narrative of the three video games will suffice here. There is ample editorial support for the inclusion. Your comments here make a certain kind of sense. I suspect a bit of tongue in cheek and straw man argument in your posting. Nevertheless, I will try to respond collegially. I agree that listing cultural artifacts in isolation amidst the biographies of historical figures is bad style. I like your idea to craft a comprehensive treatment of GW as a fictional character at Legacy of George Washington, including comic books and video games --- the learning media of the future it seems.

In response to your critique, the current proposal has evolved from the initial editor’s posting of an unsourced list. It is no longer a "list of discrete facts", but a prose paragraph referenced to a scholarly publication which is a reliable source placing the video games in cultural context. — So now, as you say, "it might make sense to include it.” On the other hand, we should use WP:reliable source. We should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging "young academics trying to make humanities professor careers" by attempting literary-style analysis. That sort of POV consideration of insider baseball in the English department faculty lounge is irrelevant to determining whether a source is a reputable academic publication at WP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

editbreak (side discussion about postage stamps & currency)

Don't want to get wrapped up in 'video games' (most of which become obsolete and forgotten about in a few years), but the currency and postage stamps should remain in this article as they do in may other president's articles. Appearing on the country's currency and postage is one of the highest posthumous honors given to a president and should remain in this article. Inclusion of these things was part of what made the George Washington article a Good Article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't agree. Because, nowadays most people use e-mail or credit cards. But, a video game cannot be forgotten anymore due to the game platforms selling them and even a game made in 2003 has optimizations. Postage stamps and currency are becoming collections rather than being used in real life. --Umtic (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington's face on the one dollar bill and on the country's first postage stamp has always been and continues to be world famous. Most people don't even know Washington exists in a few video games. The greater majority of adults don't play video games, let alone play the few that include Washington. Appearing on currency and postage has always been an honor given to presidents, unlike videogames. And believe it or not, mail and postage stamps are still used, esp for Christmas, birthdays, weddings, etc, etc.. and you can't send a package by email, nor can you put an e'mail in your family album. Also coin and stamp collecting remains one of the biggest hobbies around the world and serve as sort of a testament to famous people and events in history, etc. Stamps and coins are tangible and still exist and can be used even when the electricity goes out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It is true. But, a post stamp cannot tell you motives of George Washington in Valley Forge. Nor a dollar banknote can. I write video games on pages not because that person appears. I write video games on pages, because you can view his characteristics and emphatize them in those video games. Which nothing else, except books, films, etc. can show. Also, majority of adults might not play video games, but majority of teenagers play video games. By the way, I don't mean banknotes or stamps should be deleted from the page. I only mean video games should be there as well. --Umtic (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No one claimed a postage stamp is supposed to tell you anything about Washington's motives, character, etc -- anymore than do the photos of monuments, statues, etc. They are created in his honor. Often times postage stamps (and perhaps coins) are issued on an anniversary of birth, important battle or event, etc. If I want insights into Washington's character, I'll read books written by historians, or I'll come to Wikipedia and read an article hopefully written by mature and intelligent adults. In any case, not enough people play video games, let alone the few games that may feature Washington, that warrant them for inclusion in a historical biography. Yes, many teenagers play video games. Relatively few of them read books, which is part of the reason why the vocabulary of teenagers gets smaller with each passing generation. Parents and children who watch television all evening instead of conversing with each other doesn't help either.

• Having said that, I believe there are too many stamps in the Washington biography. I would limit it to four stamps at the most. Also, the current gallery with the 'hover' function is tacky. In one case, you can't click on a stamp because the caption text pops up covering the image completely the instant you hover over it. (top row, 3rd from left) I'd recommend displaying all the images with the standard image-caption display where a reader can view the image and read the caption at the same time without having to hover over each and every individual image to do so. See images below: -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Selected issues

• 
  Washington,
  issue of 1862, 24c
• 
  Washington,
  issue of 1895, 2c
• 
  Washington-Franklin
  Issue of 1917, 5c
• 
  Washington at Valley Forge,
  issue of 1928, 2c

Selected currency

• 
  Washington quarter dollar
• 
  1928 dollar bill.

This is what the Postage and currency section looked like back in 2012, when the Washington biography became a Good Article. Clean, simple. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all I would like to say that the subject is not how many stamps there should be on a page or decrease in use of vocabulary. Also, teenagers reading less books has nothing to do with George Washington appearing in video games. Why do you even compare stamps and video games if the subject is about video games? The issue has nothing to do with stamps or currency.

--Umtic (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Gwillhickers proposed trimming of the stamps and currency section, placed under "Legacy"

The larger issue raised at the Village Pump and proposed at Legacy of George Washington relates to merging all Legacy material here into Legacy of George Washington, including any material about video games. If the merger goes through, I would still want two paragraphs or so on "Legacy", perhaps illustrated with a stamp.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

[continued atop next section; refactored by me to separate the discrete topics in this TL;DR thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)]

Back to video games

My proposal (as amended) is a narrative of a couple of sentences noting Washington's legacy in three video games sourced to a reliable source in an academic publication noting how they are used in modern society. Until such merger is approved, there need not be a moratorium on editorial changes in this section pending the merger. The proposal is not a list as previously objected to, the reference is a WP:RS despite objections to the authors as "young humanitarian professors" trying to make a reputation outside traditional English literature departments. Let each university faculty decide whether to have a department of humanities. WP editors are not in a position to decide which university department has "real" scholars or not.

George Washington is featured in modern video games as a prominent fictionalized character from world history in Age of Empires III, Civilization V and Assassin's Creed III (as a counter-history King). These games are discussed in Winnerling and Kershbaumer’s “Early Modernity and Video Games” explaining that the player manipulating the games' semiotic system of communications thereby "gives insights in his historical consciousness.”

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am away from WP for a while. I leave it to others if a poll needs to be conducted to establish further consensus on the proposal, but unless there are new thoughts, all objections raised have been answered. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• If there is a consensus not to do so, I will trim the number of stamps in the biography and use the standard format, allowing the reader to view the image and read the caption without having to mouse around. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• The video games do not warrant their own subsection! This raises serious undue weight issues. We have subsections for major topics, e.g.Commander in chief, Valley Forge, etc -- topics that don't begin to compare in weight and importance to any video game. Moreover, the games in question are fictional and most likely are only known to a handful of teenagers. The greater majority of adults don't play video games, let alone, these particular games. They are not anything that warrants mentioning, by name, in the George Washington biography. A dedicated subsection for a few fictional video games is ridiculous. It should be removed from this article and moved to the Legacy article as proposed above, that is, if editors there will have it. There still will be undue weight issues regardless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Several editors, including myself, have expressed reservations about covering video games in this article. With all due respect to TheVirginiaHistorian I am going to remove the dedicated subsection given to a few obscure video games. There is no broad consensus for this, and again, it raises serious undue weight issues and makes the page unstable, which may threaten the GA status many editors have worked to achieve. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• There are serious problems with that prose: We would not capitalize "king", and we would not give undue weight to a lone piece of primary social-"science" research, nor we would quote anything that opaque and meaningless to 99.9% of our readers, especially when the point it tries poorly to make – "what the player has absorbed about history is interesting to some people" – is an encyclopedically irrelevant statement of the obvious, worded in buzzword-bingo language to sound important.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Merging pop-culture material from George Washington article to the side-article for that

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Legacy of George Washington#Section merge.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section edits

Looking at the Legacy section, I’ve (a) reduced the unencyclopedic block quote in the introduction, and reordered some sentences, taking care to maintain all references. (b) moved the Masonic Memorial image to its section, resized it, then deleted a duplicate image of the Masonic Memorial from the monuments gallery. (c) Removed monuments gallery images of Mount Washington and State of Washington's flag as clutter, and noted Mount Washington in place names. (d) removed a duplicated side profile image in the stamp gallery and substituted Washington as President of the Constitutional Convention to give a representation of Washington in a civilian role alongside an image from his military career.

Washington, issue of 1862

Washington-Franklin Issue of 1917

Washington at Valley Forge, issue of 1928

Washington as President of the Constitutional Convention, issue of 1937

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

George Washington was the first president under the constitution we use today,but the very first president was John Hanson! And after John Hanson there were 7 more presidents the Washington came! Pinkladyapple2 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, there's a difference between the President of the Continental Congress, which Hanson was, and the President of the United States Cannolis (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a recurring issue. Please see the comments about it, near the end of the light-brown talk header box at the top of this page. If you have difficulty finding it, use your browser's Find function to locate "Hanson" on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of small for DOB

Re: [7]

The justification for this given by GoodDay is consistency with other similar articles, and I feel that, by itself, is insufficient justification for anything. Lots of undesirable things are widespread, and their existence does not justify yet further spread. Has there been a discussion about this with enough participation to constitute a community consensus? If not, WP:Other stuff exists and we need more justification than the cited precedents.
As I said in my edit summary, it makes little sense to shrink the dates of birth just to save a little page real estate. DOB and DOD are of equal importance and should be the same size. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to fuss over it. But, it would help if we 'at least' enlarge the old style dates on the Adams, Jefferson & Madison bios intros. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but others at those articles might. Sans an MOS guideline or other community consensus, we can't expect a lot of consistency across articles on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as the old style dates weren't minaturized at the veep article Elbridge Gerry. I enlarged the old style dates at the veep article George Clinton, aswell as prez articles Adams, Jefferson & Madison. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: In my humble opinion, the ideal would be for the {{OldStyleDateDY}} template to unconditionally shrink the old style date only, since it is in fact less important. Thus:
(February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799)
But I'll let someone younger fight that battle. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As long as all 6 bios-in-question are consistent, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I decided it was at least worth a proposal. If it becomes a battle, I'll stay out of it. That's at Template talk:OldStyleDateDY. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section

The Legacy section was quite lengthy in terms of weight for a biography. I moved a considerable amount of content to the Legacy of George Washington article. Further editing may be needed here and in the Legacy of G.W. article in terms of chronology, redundancy, citations, overlinking, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest additional transfers of the "Cherry Tree" and "Personal property auction record” subsections to Legacy of George Washington. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd leave coverage of the cherry tree in this article, as it's quite a famous story, whether 100% true or not. However, it can always be mentioned in the Legacy' article regardless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone know if William Whann Mackall and George Washington are related? Ryanrobison (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Honors?

Seems like some of the portraits show George Washington is wearing a blue ribband of an order diagonally on his chest. Is that the Order of the Garter? Or some other? I can't find anything in the article itself describing awards or honors that he held during his life that would entitle him to this decoration. I wonder what order this was or if it was just artistic license? JByrd (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation/Bibliography convention

If the Washington biography is ever to pass an FA review it will have to adhere to a single citation convention. Currently several approaches to citations are employed and there remains numerous 'cite book' and other such templates and url's mixed in with the body of text. Little by little I will attempt to move cite book templates, etc and url's from the body of text to the Bibliography. Looking ahead, it seems this will take some time. Request that any new citations added to the article employ currently used citation convention. The Harvard citation method is what is predominate, so we should align all citations with that format. Example: <ref>{{harvnb|AuthorLastName|2005|pp=23–24}}</ref> -- See also: Harvard citation markup examples
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: There are a number of variations in harvard citation producing slightly different results in format. To maintain consistency in format the harvnb template is being employed, producing a Name, year, page# citation with nothing enclosed in brackets. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation issues

1. The source for cite [19] in the caption for Washington's Coat of Arms, (Pottinger, Don, 1953; Moncreiffe of that Ilk), doesn't even mention Washington. The WP article Coat of arms of the Washington family wasn't much help as it's tagged for lack of citations. I did a quick search with no luck. Hopefully the editor who added this item will be of some help, otherwise we'll have to tag it shortly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)    Fixed

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/bible.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Chernow quote

There is a quite lengthy quote by Ron Chernow in the Religion section. While quotes are welcomed in various instances to reaffirm a point, issues arise (1, 2) when they run at length, as is the case here, and when the point can be made with Wikipedia's voice cited by reliable sources. Do we really need this one particular quote, one of many other perhaps better sources, to make the point in the article about the politically motivated controversy regarding Washington's religious beliefs? The 'reliable source' for the quote is oddly a podcast from Chernow, not any of his several works. The source for this quote is only reliable if the reader loads and plays the podcast on his MP. As an aside most url's have a questionable life span before they go 404. More importantly, the quote is not needed and tends to undermine Wikipedia's voice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Added to the section is a statement that says the historical estimations of Washington's religious views have typically reflected that of the person or party/source asserting that view, and is cited by a RS used extensively in the Washington biography. Since Chernow's lengthy quote, taken from his podcast, is already in the dedicated article, Religious views of George Washington, that statement has been removed from this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavery section

It seems the slavery section is over done in terms of Washington's biography -- it is the largest section by far than all others, with the exception of the section on Death which is slightly smaller. Since there is a dedicated section, George Washington and slavery, for this topic we should trim many of the lesser details here, leaving of course the basic premise of Washington and slavery in place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems to be a thing where controversial aspects of a very famous persons life manage to attract the most attention. Slavery isn't what he is notable for, and the size of the section should reflect that. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

We have the section hat, Main Article: George Washington and slavery. The first paragraph probably suffices for this summary article omitting the references to white indentures, and the detail here in the last three paragraphs of the section, not now included at "George Washington and slavery" can be added there at its deletion here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Compassionate727: -- Generally agree. I would simply delete the last two paragraphs in the lsavery section here, already covered (+ -) in the main article and then add the following statement, a rather important one that somehow has escaped our notice all this time. This statement is in the main Washington-slavery article, but should by all means be included here.

In 1794, Washington signed into law the first Slave Trade Act, which limited American involvement in the international slave trade.

If anyone here, or elsewhere, wishes to make the change/reduction to the section that would be okay by me. Meanwhile I'll not deviate from what I've been doing, i.e.upgrading the citations, bibliography and making some contextual edits where needed. Much still needs to be done there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I deleted all but the first, which I felt was sufficient. The second really just elaborated further on his opinions on the matter, which is what the separate article is for. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Washington the surveyor

There seems to be an inconsistency in the source used to cite this statement: At the age of 17, in 1749, Washington would receive his surveyor's license from the College of William & Mary. The cite [22] for this statement is from William and Mary College. In an effort to find a published alternative to this web site source I've looked through a fair number of Washington biographies, books, and so far none of them mention that Washington received his surveyor's license from the College of William and Mary in 1749. However, Ferling in his 2009 book, The Ascent of George Washington ... claims, on page 12, that Washington learned surveying from hands on experience and, in 1749, was immediately appointed Surveyor of Culpepper County, getting the appointment because of his experience and through his friendship with the influential Fairfax family -- with no credit given to any training at William and Mary. Evidently Ferling chose to leave this important piece of info out the equation. Puzzling even more is this source, from Ambler, Univ. N.Carolina Press which claims Washington never attended this college. After looking through many sources, it would be nice if someone could find a published (book) source that mentions (or clears up the claim) that Washington received his training and license from William and Mary.
Btw, our biography only gives cursory mention to Washington's surveying career. He spent four years working as a surveyor and conducted more than forty major surveys throughout Virginia and for the Ohio Company. It also doesn't mention whether Washington attended the College of William and Mary. If this is so, it should get a fair mention. -- -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As I assumed from the College of William and Mary source, Washington did attend this college, but did not train as a surveyor there. The college in its charter of 1693 had the official authority to appoint all Virginia county surveyors, and through its function Washington received his license after working for Fairfax. i.e.Washington received some basic education in this field but obtained a professional capacity by his experience in the field. I've expanded coverage of Washington's career as a surveyor and have given the topic its own subsection which is warranted because of his extensive experience and because it's something he is widely noted for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not quite so. The website states "A 17-year-old George Washington received his surveyor's license through W&M and would return as its first American chancellor." This does not clearly state that GW attended classes there, it says he received his surveyor's license through William & Mary and that fact would seem to me to be something different. Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: I vaguely remember something to the effect that GW never paid the monies to the colony/government that he was supposed to (as part of his surveying fees). Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the entire passage: A 17-year-old George Washington received his surveyor's license through W&M and would return as its first American chancellor. Thomas Jefferson received his undergraduate education here, as did presidents John Tyler and James Monroe. -- The section only says he received his commission there so I suppose we should mention these other items.  Done I've been trying to replace web site sources with published sources, so I'm a little reluctant to use such sources to cite these items. The original url for the W&M web page already went 404, so I had to go back, do a search and upgrade the url. Still looking to published books, whose page numbers never change, to cite these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Death

The article section on death starts with "Washington spent several hours inspecting his plantation on horseback, in snow, hail, and freezing rain; later that evening he ate his supper without changing from his wet clothes". By inclusion before his illness, there is a strong implication that his illness was caused by him being in cold, wet weather, and sitting in wet clothes. However, there is no evidence that being in cold wet weather or sitting in wet clothes causes illness. My concern is that this passage reinforces a common but disproved myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcelis555 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has proved or disproved anything, "myth" or otherwise. Do you know of a source that says 'wet cloths' had nothing to do with it? In all likelihood the wet cloths didn't help matters and may have been sort of a catalyst that triggered or aggravated an already present condition. All we can do is mention what facts are known and let the implications fall where they may. Did you have a better wording in mind? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Those occurrences - that Washington rode his horse around Mt Vernon, weather was bad, didn't change out of his damp/cold clothes before sitting down to dinner - are the facts of Thursday, December 12, the last day Washington could be said to have been "well". The next morning, Friday/December 13 he woke up with a sore throat that got only worse as the day went on and then died the following Saturday night. Whyever would WP delete the known facts of Washington's last few days before his death? We don't know exactly *why* Washington became ill, though most experts have agreed that he probably died from a variety of conditions, the main factor being a severe sore throat known as epiglottitis complicated by bloodloss through medical bloodletting. I'm with Gwhilickers on this - that the weather and Washington's wet clothes probably didn't help matters and that the facts should stand on their own and let readers' conclusions fall where they may. Shearonink (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote convention

There were two footnote conventions being used in the article. i.e.

<ref group=lower-alpha> note text </ref>

and

{{refn| note text |group=lower-alpha}}

The former example was used the most, however, it didn't allow for references (which also employ <ref> and were conflicting) within the parameters of the note itself. Therefore I switched all the footnotes using {{efn| note text }}. Much simpler. To keep the footnote convention consistent please use this latter format, which allows references within the note text. Thnx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

College education?...

George Washington's Papers at University of Virginia - FAQ:

"Washington was not a college graduate but he received an honorary LL.D. from five educational institutions: Harvard, 1776; Yale, 1781; University of Pennsylvania, 1783; Washington College (Maryland), 1789; Brown, 1790. Although he did not complete college, Washington did maintain a large library at Mount Vernon."

Christian Science Monitor

In fact, Washington had no formal education at all. Just like their father, Washington's two older brothers were sent across the Atlantic Ocean to attend school in England at Appleby School. But when his father died, the promise of George's formal education ended. Instead, he received the equivalent of an elementary school education from a variety of tutors, and he also spent time at a school run by an Anglican clergyman in Virginia.

Washington Post

First on the list is George Washington, who vies with Abraham Lincoln as being the greatest president in U.S. history. Washington earned a surveyor’s license at the College of William & Mary in Virginia but not a bachelor’s degree.

The Early Republic and Antebellum America: An Encyclopedia...

President Washington received his surveyors license from the school (in a paragraph where the author explicitly names the various alumni)

Gentlemen Scientists and Revolutionaries: The Founding Fathers...

George's next schooling of record was four years later, when he attended the College of William & Mary for a short session that, given the school's fiat, must have been devoted to training and licensing rather than to the classical education that the college provided to regular students.

Swem Library Special Collections, The College of William & Mary

In the 18th century, the College of William and Mary served as the Surveyor-General of the Colony of Virginia and its faculty were given the right to examine and license surveyors. United States Presidents George Washington and alumnus Thomas Jefferson received licenses to survey in Virginia from William and Mary. *NOTE: The College itself calls Jefferson an alumnus but not Washington.

Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia (official)

Washington's career as a professional surveyor began in 1749. He received a commission from the College of William and Mary to become surveyor for the newly formed Culpeper County. Washington immediately traveled to Culpeper, the county seat, to be sworn in. Washington completed his first survey within two days, measuring a tract of 400 acres. At seventeen years of age, he was well on his way to a lucrative career. ... In October 1750, Washington abandoned his position as an official surveyor, though he continued to work diligently over the next three years at his new profession.

A History of American Higher Education

...when I learned that the College of William and Mary issued a surveyor's license to George Washington. ... The issuing of a surveyor's license by the college proved to have no connection to the curriculum. It was merely a convenience that benefited the college: the crown and the colonial government allowed the college to both to issue the license and, more important, to keep the licensing fee as well as some percentage of the proceeds from a surveyor's land sales.

I just wanted to find some sources that laid-out Washington's status regarding his education. It seems clear to me that he was given a surveyor's license or commission from W&M but he did not attend classes there as an undergraduate or as a candidate for a bachelor's degree. He attended a subsidiary type of class or a technical-education type of class that the school operated as part of the requirements for them to give out surveying licenses. This was a lucrative business for W&M to have - subsequent to a license being issued the institution would then receive a percentage of that surveyor's fees or income.

@Shearonink: Good leg-work. Yes, the article only says that Washington received his surveyor's license through the college, which was commissioned by Virginia (colony) to act in such an official capacity. We might want to add a footnote to this effect, making this distinction clear, as it would be easy to assume that Washington was indeed enrolled at this college. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, claiming that Washington "received his undergraduate education" at W&M is perhaps an overstatement. However, one of the sources you provided (Shachtman, 2014, p.5) claims that GW returned there four years later and "attended the college for a short session". However, there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence or sources that support the idea that GW only received a surveyor's license and training there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misreading Shachtman's statements - the timeline of the events must be kept in mind. Schachtman has just stated in the previous paragraph that "George's own school attendance ended abruptly in 1743 when his father died." He then discusses an apparent passage of time with "the tall eleven-year-old" then coming under the influence of his half-brother Lawrence and Lawrence's father-in-law Llord William Fairfax. The next paragraph starts with "George's next schooling of record was four years later, when he attended the College of William & Mary for a short session that, given the school's fiat must have been devoted to training and licensing as a surveyor..." Your four years later is the short surveyors' vo-tech training Washington received at William & Mary.

So:

Washington did not attend William & Mary. He simply took a surveying class at that location. And, really, where else could he have done so within Virginia? There really were no other colleges/universities in the Colony at that time and contrary to many people's impressions, Washington was the poor son of a second marriage and didn't stand to inherit any large portion of the family's moneys, that's why he didn't get to go to England for his education like his half-brother Lawrence - the money had run out.

Washington participating in a single surveyor's certification session could be thought of as somewhat the same thing as people auditing classes at a university or taking evening classes as part of community college or adult education. These folks take classes at the physical location but those classes are not part of a degree program and they really cannot claim that they are alumnus of that particular university. All the sources I can find (including those above) agree that George Washington did not attend William & Mary as part of a degree program so it would be incorrect to assert that he was an alumnus of that school. That's all I am trying to say here. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Schachtman must be the source I was thinking of with old George not paying W&M the fees that they were due... On page 6 he says that "Aside from paying his chairman he kept all of the £100 or so he earned each year, sending none of it to the College of William & Mary". Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Shearonink and TheVirginiaHistorian: Shearonink, it would seem that if surveyor training and certification/licensing were handled at W&M college it would have been part of their overall curriculum. In any case, it seems your last edit to the section is fine, for now anyway, until, if and when, there is something else that says otherwise in no uncertain terms-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, Ferling, 2009, p.12, doesn't mention W&M at all and that GW learned surveying through field experience and that in 1749 he was immediately appointed Surveyor of Culpepper County. This OTOH seems to support the idea that W&M didn't offer such a course. Again, the section is fine for now at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

We note under Religion that Washington served as a vestryman and as church warden for both Fairfax Parish in Alexandria and Truro Parish, (about modern Fairfax City). — We do not note the years of this service, which would be relevant here. The vestry's were self-selective, electing their own membership when a vacancy occurred, so it seems George benefited from the introduction to the community by his mother and older brother. Brent Tarter in his “The Grandees of Government: the origins and persistence of undemocratic politics in Virginia”, that the 1662 law was updated in 1705 and again in 1748 (when George was sixteen) to require church wardens to record their “beating the bounds” each year, when the landowners were called together to walk their property boundaries in each parish. (p.45) There were generally three or more parishes in each county, and these were the community equivalents to New England townships. Burgesses to the General Assembly were elected in each county from among the vestrymen in the county parishes. This was Washington's path from "middling gentry" to Virginia-wide arena. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Tarter's book only offers very limited viewing on line, so it's difficult to ascertain the capacity of GW's attendance at W&M. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

One last thing on GW and W&M - direct from the Archives of the United States (**subsequent bolding mine):

"GW’s career as a surveyor owed much to the Fairfax family. Close acquaintance with the proprietor, Thomas, Lord Fairfax, and with Fairfax’s relatives at Belvoir assured GW of receiving profitable surveying assignments in the Northern Neck, and it was probably at the behest of Lord Fairfax and through the agency of William Fairfax, who sat on the governor’s council, that GW obtained the surveyorship of Culpeper County at the start of his professional career. Young men of 17 usually did not serve as county surveyors. Most novice surveyors began as apprentices or deputies to county surveyors and did not become county surveyors themselves, if ever, until they had had some years of experience. Before 20 July 1749, nevertheless, GW received a commission from the president and masters of the College of William and Mary appointing him surveyor of newly formed Culpeper County. The college in its charter of 1693 had been granted the power to appoint all Virginia county surveyors and the right to collect one-sixth of their surveying fees, but in practice the college authorities were more concerned with their income than with who was appointed to the surveyorships. They regularly deferred to the wishes of powerful men in commissioning surveyors, and in the case of Culpeper, which lay in the Northern Neck, they were undoubtedly open to any suggestion that Lord Fairfax might make for the county’s surveyor. GW did not study at the college to qualify for the commission or stand any examination by the president and masters of the school. There is no evidence, in fact, that GW went to Williamsburg in the spring or summer of 1749. Most probably, William Fairfax, who attended council in Williamsburg from March to May 1749, secured the commission for him. On 20 July 1749 GW appeared before the justices of the Culpeper court and, after presenting his commission, took the oaths of public office for the first time and became the county’s first surveyor."

SO. George Washington received a surveyor's commission from William & Mary and never attended any classes there, never studied there. To call him an alumnus or use wording indicating he was a student there - of any type - is incorrect. I think the present wording of this section is fine.
If anyone else wants to dive down this rabbit-hole of research then I would suggest leaving "George Washington" out of it and looking in to the licensing/commissioning of county surveyors in Colonial Virginia. Otherwise you will come across information, as I did, that is either a misreading of the source materials, misunderstanding of authors' interpretations of those sources or even wishful thinking on the part of W&M enthusiasts, etc. Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: Looks good. I added a footnote that mentions W&M's charter, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Re: deleted statement. We should restore mention that GW was the 1st American chancellor at W&M, if not in the surveyor section, somewhere else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a better fit as part of the general timeline of this article (it seemed like an editorial aside & somewhat jarring within the Early life/surveyor section). Washington became Chancellor in 1788 after the end of the American Revolution and served in that capacity until he died in 1799 W&M website - maybe it could be placed within one of the later-life sections (like "Domestic issues"). Shearonink (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Unless someone can find 'the' right place to mention this, we can always add it in a footnote in the 'surveyor' section, as W&M is not mentioned anywhere else in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Redundant/additional info box

Removed the Washington Series info box which was below the existing and standard info box and whose links already exist in the standard info box and throughout the article, esp since there are numerous 'main article' links in many of the sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Elected President

Two suggestions for the lede:

Insert "by the Electoral College" so the text reads: "Washington was unanimously elected president by the Electoral College in the first two national elections..."

Remove repeat of "unanimous" so text later in the lede reads: "Following election as president in 1789...."

My suggestion rests on the idea of elminating any puzzlement or confusion readers (U.S. or non) may have over the word "unanimous." I note that the first sentence of the Presidency section explains the situation, but I think it would be good to make the fact clear in the lede. DonFB (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)