Talk:George Washington/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Section is largely tangential

If any section needs to be scaled down, it's the Public credit and the nation's capital section. Washington's involvement here, aside from signing a law, is very minimal. The last edit to this section, involving Hamilton's former assistant no less, is completely tangential to Washington. Opinions are needed here.

This is what I propose for this section, reducing the existing text by more than half:

The most pressing fiscal problem of the new administration was the public credit of the United States. On January 14, 1790, Hamilton submitted his Report Relative to a Provision for the Support of Public Credit to Congress which culminated in the Funding Act of 1790 and the Residence Act, signed into law by Washington on August 4. Both laws established the creditworthiness of the new government, as well as its permanent location. Madison's objections of discrimination, however, were defeated by Hamilton supporters. Washington's congressional allies and Hamilton's behind-the-scenes lobbying enabled passage of the two laws.

A compromise was reached over the location of the nation's capital: it would be situated in Philadelphia for a decade, and then it would be permanently located near Georgetown on the Potomac River. The Residence Act authorized the President to select the specific location on the Potomac for the seat of the government. Washington personally oversaw this effort throughout his term in office. In 1791, the commissioners named the seat of government "The City of Washington in the Territory of Columbia" to honor Washington. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Keep a sentence on the naming a city after GW. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've merged pertinent info from the Public credit section into the Domestic issues section, which was too short, anyway. —Dilidor (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I readded information on the Panic of 1792 America's first financial crisis. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Mention of the panic is due, but it needed to be summarized with fewer details, with mention of Washington, at least in a general matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• I added a footnote about Duer. -- For those who may not know and are concerned, foot notes do not count towards page length and readable prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Why sugar coat the corruption? Duer was a thief. Hamilton allowed Duer to take $200,000 out of the Treasury. The way I had it was better. My edits being watched and relagated to a footnote. That is not how Wikipedia is suppose to work. The only hint of corruption is scheme. I had also has a link to another author. This behavior only leads to edit warring. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No one has sugar coated anything, we mentioned Duer went to prison for his scheme. Thanks to your last edit Duer was mentioned three times, twice in the main text, with a link, and in a foot note, while "run on the bank" was mentioned twice in two consecutive sentences, while you also mention $200,000 twice, once in the main text, once in a foot note. This is a bit redundant. I've condensed some text, and removed the redundancy, while keeping the names you've added. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Do readers understand "run the bank" ? Duer took the Treasury money and invested it. That is called theft. He could not pay it back. 25 banks closed. It is not the speculation that is the crime, it is Duer taking the money from the Treasury. Hamilton allowed this. The bank is called Bank of the United States BUS. Maybe it is best to go onto other things and get George Washington to FA. I appreciate your edits Gwillhickers. I think the article has improved signifigantly. Some of the "rough edges" have been taken out. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Washington's approval was necessary for the creation of the bank. however once it was created, it was a private institution & the president of the United States had no voice whatever or control in it. the more attention we spend on peripheral issues of little relevance to Washington, the more misleading is this article about his life. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, while historical context is important, there is a limit.
• Cm' the common and widely familiar term is run on the bank, and used in context, as we have, most readers, save some grade schoolers, will get it. For those readers new to our planet, I added the link. I believe we've made it clear enough. Anyone that needs to further inquire on a given matter can do so in any one of a number of other articles. The Washington bio' is not the article for explaining the finer points of high finance, schemes, etc, as I'm sure you know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen. I agree that Washington had no control over the bank, but he did have control over the people he appointed. Also Washington himself was a speculator in land. The corruption took place under Washington's tenor in office. No one is blaming Washington for Hamilton's, Jefferson's, or Duer's misdeeds. Mentioning the corruption has been brief as possible. Banning (1974) is a solid source. I actually think readers like details, not just general statements. I also think details adds neutrality to the article. At some point a President has to take accountability for the actions of subordinates. Gwillhickers, when money is stolen from the treasury, readers understand that. Again. It is not the speculation that is the crime. It is the stolen money. The article is looking a lot better and I think headed to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a private bank and Washington did not appoint its board. He was NOT responsible for the bank's operations--no RS makes that claim. Including the episode will make readers think falsely that it was part of his job. It's one of a zillion things that happened during his Presidency and has practically no connection with the biography we are writing here. I have university students in mind. they budget their time when they study--say 30 minutes for this article. we can waste their time or even give them misleading info that suggests GW was somehow guilty-- as they take notes on Duer and mention Duer in their paper to the puzzlement of the professor. Rjensen (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen. I want this article to be as accurate as possible. The bank was called Banks of the United States BUS and I thought chartered by an act of Congress. As far as paper speculation goes, apparently Washington had nothing to do with that, except for land speculation. All I was interested in was that Duer took $200,000 from the Treasury and speculated the money. Are those facts right. Additionally was Duer appointed by Washington ? How much control did Hamilton have over the Treasury independant of Washington ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Cm', you lumped Jefferson in with Hamilton and Duer when you mentioned "misdeeds". Jefferson opposed the bank from the beginning for the very sort of thing Duer was trying to pull off, among other reasons, realizing bankers were inherently corrupt. Even Hamilton was weary of all the new banks that were popping up after the US bank was established. In Chernow's Hamilton (2004}, p.380-381, he outlines Hamilton's view of most banks, who referred to them as a "dangerous tumor" in NY's economy. Also, you're suggesting that Duer was 'only' trying to speculate and that he and his banker buddies weren't trying to profit from their little venture, which is of course patently wrong. Have you done more than a cursory read up on Duer yet? Yes, he was never able to pay back the money. Okay. Where did the money go? Do you think it ended up in some (foreign) bank? (!) Naw... Duer gave all the money away to charity, right? Also, your above stand alone statement that Washington speculated in land, in the middle of this discussion, seems to suggest that Washington, somehow, was guilty of the same sort of thing. Washington, nor any president, isn't God. Like Grant, he was trusting of the financial entities that were circling overhead and was kept in the dark until it was too late. As I said, the Panic of 1792 is due mention, so long as most of the details tie in with Washington more than remotely. Trying to answer all the questions you've just asked is far beyond the scope of this article. I can live with the few added details about Duer and Wolcott, but this should do it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Time to read up on Duer--http://www.common-place-archives.org/vol-10/no-03/matson/ --read it for free--has a short article by the leading specialist Cathy Matson that summarizes what happened. "George Washington" is not mentioned by her and there is no need to mention him in this article. We can mcover his story in the Hamilton article where it belongs. Rjensen (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I put information on Duer in a note. Bannon (1974) does cover Duer in Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct George Washington. This link: An Act To Establish The Treasury Department says the Secretary of Treasury appoints the assistant, not the President. So Washington had nothing to do with Duer. Washington's appointment Wolcott, the Comptroller of the Treasury, prosecuted Duer. Information on Duer, kept in notes, is worth keeping in the Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This was the version of the Panic, before Duer was re-added into the mix.

Under Washington, the young American nation experienced its first financial crisis in March 1792 when federalists under Hamilton used large loans to gain control of the U.S. debt securities, causing a run on the new national bank. Jefferson believed Hamilton was part of the scheme, in spite of Hamilton's efforts to remedy matters, and informed Washington who was caught in the middle of what was the beginning of a long standing feud between Washington's two secretaries, Hamilton and Jefferson.<Chernow, 2010, pp.673-674>

Mention of the Panic is due in terms of what major events occurred under Washington, and in terms of what perpetuated the feud between Hamilton and Jefferson, with Washington caught in the middle. If anything, Duer can be mentioned in a footnote, which I see Cm' has done, but two foot notes for Duer is perhaps a bit much. Can we summarize this info better with one footnote? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to a one foot note summary on Duer. Jefferson's "misdeeds" would be appropriating federal money to start an anti-Hamilton newspaper. Washington did appoint three supervisors of subscriptions to the BUS. Here is the law: That a Bank of the United States be Established Washingtion appointed the banks supervisors. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My concern is not speculation, land or debt, nor even the Panic or 1792. The issue is Duer taking $200,000 from the Treasury. We can agree that Washington had nothing to do with Duer or his theft. Apparently Hamilton took care of the panic rather than Washington. Putting information on Duer in a note is the best option. On a more personal note, from a readers standpoint, I think from reading this article, questions arise, why was there a Revolution ? Was it just to extend and protect slavery, speculate on debt, a land grab, a newspaper war, or was it to establish a Republican democracy and the Bill of Rights. This goes beyond the scope of this discussion. But I think that is why this article is so popular. Washington was the central figure to starting the United States. Questions mentioned might also arise with other readers. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

edit break2

• As was explained, Duer was something of a nobody in terms of the Washington biography. -- Why was there a revolution?? With all due respect, if you don't know by now I gotta wonder. To perpetuate slavery?? It was Britain and its wealthy royal subjects that purchased slaves from the African tribal chiefs for the benefit of the Crown. Jefferson blasted the Crown about slavery when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, but that was edited out, much to the outrage of Jefferson and others. The debate to end slavery occurred in America, not in Britain, who reaped the benefits of slavery right through the Civil War, all the while they were funding and arming the Confederacy. I believe this was pointed out for you more than once.
• Jefferson put Freneau, the Gazette's editor, on the State Dept payroll, but the newspaper itself was supported by subscribers, which Madison had managed to summon. Perhaps it was inappropriate for Jefferson to put Freneau on the State Dept Payroll, if it wasn't for services rendered to the government, but this was all done above board, and wasn't a scheme for Jefferson to make profits, but rather a plan Jefferson believed would help the good of the country, unlike the plan devised by Duer and his cronies. Therein lies the big difference. Jefferson was doing this to counter all the bankers and speculators that were on board with Hamilton and his federalist ambitions. Well, comment if you like, but we need to get back to discussion aimed at specific Article Improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson did not need a French translator. He was fluent in French. Freneau was supported by subscribers and his federal salary. Isn't there a conflict of interest, Freneau's job as a "translator" and newspaper editor, mixed in by federal and private subscription funds. This had nothing to do with Washington. The Constitution orginally protected slave owners. Land was taken from Indians and slavery spread throughout the South. Washington was a land speculator and one of the wealthiest Americans ever to be President. Washington signed the Fugitive Slave law so Southerners could invade the north and take back their slaves. I believe readers, including myself, have a right to understand why there was a Revolution. I am digressing. Concerning this article, my personal opinions mean nothing. Let's just keep working to get George Washington to FA. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

What? Who said Jefferson needed a French translator? Maybe people in the State Dept did. No one said this has anything to do with Washington. And who was contesting that readers should know anything? "Invade the north"? You're sounding like you've just had a discussion with someone else and came away angry. Is it now your intention to rewrite history here in the Washington biography, and inform the readers of what you feel are the 'real' reasons the revolution was fought? Sounds like you're venting against Washington and the Constitution. It was the Constitution that formed the basis to abolition, it never "protected slave owners". Can you cite the Constitutional Article that "protected slave owners"? I'd recommend that you get back to trying to improve the article, but it seems you've revealed a lot of notions about Washington and the Constitution you need to work out first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I said none of my personal opinions mean anything for this article. Are you proposing Gwillhickers that readers not have personal opinions ? I can have my own opinions. Freneau was being paid a salary by Jefferson to run a news paper and be Jefferson's and Madison's Republican outlet. That certainly is a conflict of interest and misuse of federal funds. That is the corruption. How can you run a newspaper and work part time as a translator ? Fugitive Slave Clause Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 There was no abolition clause in the Constitution. My question was why was there was a Revolution ? I believe people who read the Washington article ask the same question since Washington is considered the founder of the nation. My opinions don't matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

this is not the proper place to discuss Jefferson. As for an editor's personal opinions I recommend this format: "I agree with reliable scholar ABC regarding Washington's poor policy regarding XXX." If the RS are not calling an act "corrupt"/illegal/immoral then we should not do so. Rjensen (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Cm', actually I addressed your opinions squarely, I didn't say you couldn't have any. It would help if you addressed what was actually written, not what you wish was written. Agree with Rjensen, let's just stick to the sources. We don't need to entertain ill inspired notions about why the Revolution was 'really' fought. The article covers the revolution quite well, per numerous sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My initial question was why was there a Revolution ? Since Washington was the father of this country, so this article, I believe would, possibly should, answer that question. As I said none of my personal opinions matter. Corruption is the same thing as misconduct. Banning (1974) said Hamiliton questioned whether Freneau was being paid to be editor of the newspaper or translator. This would lead the reader to make up their own mind on the subject. The book is titled Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Here is more on Jefferson: Scandal & Civility: Journalism and the Birth of American Democracy Marcus Daniel (2009) page 78. Freneau was being paid $250 a year by Jefferson's State Department. This is a free open editing format. Editors can't tell other editors not to have personal opinions or force them to agree with one historians view of history. In a business setting yes. But not Wikipedia. Historians are not always clear on what they are saying or implying, thus leaving interpretation to the readers. In the case of Banning (1974) the book title contains Misconduct. That means that what is discussed are allegations of misconduct. Banning does not specifically say Jefferson paying Freneau was misconduct, but from the title of the book, one can infer that it was an allegation of misconduct. The reader can decide if it was misconduct. I am not proposing or suggesting to put in the article that Jefferson's payment to Freneau was misconduct. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, no one has told you you can't have an opinion -- it sounds like you're talking to someone not of this Talk session. Also, you are all over the map with this last bit of run together Talk. We need to concentrate on actual article improvement concerning Washington. If there are any topics in the article that are in error, or missing important details, please point them out. If at this late date you are still wondering why the Revolution was fought there's nothing anyone can tell you, except that the Talk page is not the place to further your education, and that you should read up on the Revolutionary War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You know what I am saying Gwillhickers. This article says there was an American Revolution. It does not really answer why there was a Revolution or why Washington fought for Independence from England. You have not said why the Revolution was fought. Was the Revolution just to make people wealthy through speculation, land or debt, and the extention of slavery, or empower slave owners ? Those are legitimate questions in my opinion. I said this discussion went beyond the scope of this article. There is no need to continue it. As far as Jefferson goes I think it can safely be said that Jefferson's connection to Freneau's newspaper was controversial. I am more than happy to get back on track and get George Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Footenote is overkill

Trying to cope with the massive foot note in the Washington's Crossing image, I couldn't help but be reminded that it is far too big and only lends itself to the painting and the opinion of one art critic, and will be a source of perpetual instability, esp when it comes time to nominate the article. It will only be a matter of time before someone else makes this an issue. I copied this footnote to the ' Crossing image in the Emanuel Leutze article. Since this is the Washington biography the footnote should simply read, —— Historical discrepancies exist in the painting See: Emanuel Leutze article. —— The Washington biography is not the place to delineate the opinion of one art critic, esp when some of those opinions are sketchy e.g. wrong type of boat, Washington looks "older". This is the footnote in question, a paragraph!

Minor historical inaccuracies in Leutze's painting include the Betsy Ross flag, which was created about
one year after the event; soldiers used a different type of boat for the crossing; and Washington is depicted older
than he was at the time of the crossing at age 44. The soldiers' uniforms are accurately depicted, and the painting
correctly conveys colonial unity and pride.[106] The official United States flag was adopted by Congress on June 14, 1777.[107]

These highly questionable opinions should not be aired here in the Washington biography. We've discussed this at length before so we should just conduct one final survey and be done with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Agree -- I suggest NO FOOTNOTE at all. the footnote is entirely inappropriate here. Wikipedia articles use paintings (by historic artists) to illustrate the MEMORY of an event decades later, which the painting does very well. Our TEXT, written by editors, is used to give exact details of what happened on that day in 1776. Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree -- The footnotes were made out of compromise. The MEMORY of an event is very subjective. The painting was analysed by a Professor of Art History, not an "Art Critic". The artistic quality of the painting is very high. It is not a memory of an event either because the artist was not there. It is what the artist wants us to believe of Washington. Is this article turning into a blog? Is criticism of any painting forbidden ? Is George Washington above criticism ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Memory is where historians are at these days. the memory of GW is much more important than the date of the flag shown in an artwork. Indeed, memory is often visual--that's why we have galleries. If we tell people all about trivia (which boat was he really in?) then we are wasting our time and our reader's time. Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Parrish is an expert in his field, Art History. Memory is subjective and is not history. People can remember Washington as a great general and President, but Wikipedia is a website that uses reliable sources, not memory. Leutze painting is a "memory" that Leutze wanted Washington to be. A noble hero, on a ship, a god like man, similar to Moses or Jesus, crossing the Delaware. Jesus walking on the water, Moses parting the Sea. Artists portray events as Artists want us to see them. But that is not history. It is important to keep Memory and History seperate. Art can be used as propoganda too, such as Nazi Germany. Memory can be dangerous. This article is not about feelings and impressions of Washington. People believe what they want to believe. One person's Memory is different from another. Let's stick to the facts. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I added this compromise: Leutze's artwork invokes a deep sense of American national pride.

The second photo is unnecessary. There only needs to be one photo. Let's go with Leutze. There is a link to the Parrish article to find the artwork's historical inaccuracies. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree — This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. The painting is merely an illustration of an event that is described—accurately—in the body of the article. Keep the painting; kill the footnote. —Dilidor (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A book source on the photo would be the best thing, especially describing any historical inaccuracies. I don't think historical inaccuracies should be ignored. The Parrish web source does that, gives examples of inaccuracies, but web sources can disappear. It works for now. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone that interested in the details of the painting can go to the dedicated article where there is now a foot note. Some of Parrish's opinions are highly questionable and shouldn't be passed off as fact and mixed in with established reliable sources in this biography. Having said that, your last edit to the caption is nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I would not knock Parrish too much. Most of that edit in the caption were his words. I suppose that is what Rjensen meant by MEMORY. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

New section

The new section Election of 1788-1789 only includes a few short sentences. It seems this information would be better placed under the general Presidency section. Even though Washington wasn't technically the president yet, the election info leads right into his presidency and is directly related to it, and would serve as a good opening paragraph to Washington's presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Was Washington President before he was elected in the 1788-1789 election ? That is why I put it in the new section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox inconsistencies

Throughout numerous items in the infobox are the words "position established". However, about mid-way down the box, the phrase goes from being lowercased and italicised to being capitalized and in normal script. I am not eligible for semi-protection and therefore ask you guys to make this consistent. 209.124.235.79 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, using all lower case letters, no italicization, for each occurrence -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on whether or not the painting known as "Washington Crossing the Delaware" should be included in this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus to retain the image of Washington Crossing the Delaware. There is no consensus to substitute any of the offered alternatives nor for any suggested corrections to captioning or explanation of the image. These latter points can be refined through the normal editing cycle, if required. While closing discussions is not merely a case of counting noses, the only types of !votes that can be discounted are: ...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue... None of these grounds apply here and there is ony one clear call for removal of the image. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the Crossing the Delaware subsection (of the American Revolution (1775–1783) section) of this article include the 1851 Emanuel Leutze painting known as Washington Crossing the Delaware? Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep as is. This is a historically important event, and the painting (with all it's inaccuracies) is very famous. I think it belongs here. An encyclopedia like Britannica has an article with paintings that are also inaccurate (not the painting in question) yet it includes them without having to describe the faults of those paintings. The Philadelphia Encyclopedia does use this painting and again doesn't see fit to elaborate on things that are wrong with it. Everyone realizes that artistic license takes place with paintings and I don't think there is a more famous painting on the subject... they go hand in hand. And there is a link right below the added picture to go to the Wikipedia article that tells of the inaccuracies. That should be enough for our readers. Does the painting have to be in this section?...of course it doesn't have to be, but I feel it's a nice addition just the way it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Everyone realizes that artistic license takes place with paintings and I don't think there is a more famous painting on the subject" The famousness of the painting doesn't make it an accruate representation of history- why muddle the historical facts of the military career of George Washington with an anachronistic image? Can we relegate it to a section about culturally significant depictions of artwork since it includes a blatant anachronism? Thanks for your comment! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This survey section is where people state their opinion and why. You answering each and every one of us looks really desperate. Leave this for the yeas and nays and discuss down below in the threaded discussion. This is for those of us who have looked at the facts, and made up our minds. If for some reason the threaded discussion changes a mind we will strike through and re-evaluate. In answer to your query... No, it works well right where it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep As I stated above, a little research could likely turn up a good source discussing this, and the previous disclaimer could be restored. I'm neck deep right now, but Rjensen cited an article above (which may not be strong enough itself), surely something suitable is out there. But again, this is a very noteworthy depiction of the event. I seriously doubt many readers are relying on every detail to be historically accurate; that would not be the case for countless historical paintings. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"I seriously doubt many readers are relying on every detail to be historically accurate" I understand what you are saying, but why should we introduce what you admit to be historically inaccurate material into a section about the factual history of the military career of Washington? Why include a misleading image in a history section? Can we relegate it to a section about culturally significant depictions of artwork since it includes a blatant anachronism? Thanks for your comment! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll answer every comment here, but you won't do one Google search to find a source discussing the painting. smh Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello ??    There is already a clear consensus, past and present, to keep the image. The idea that the flag may not be 'the' proper one doesn't constitute any POV issues. If the flag in the painting was e.g. a British flag, or some other non American flag, then there might be a POV issue here. Since it's an American flag, regardless of its design, there are no POV issues. The POV tag in the section is quite inappropriate and should be removed, regardless of the outcome of this debate. It's like saying there's a POV issue because the boat Washington is standing in is not accurately depicted. Frankly, the allegation of POV is rationally incompetent. 2+2 does not equal 100. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"If the flag in the painting was e.g. a British flag, or some other non American flag, then there might be a POV issue here." My point here is that this was not the American flag at the time this event happened and that therefore this painting should not be included in a history section. Can we relegate it to a section about culturally significant depictions of artwork since it includes a blatant anachronism? Thanks for your comment! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Look, I get the nature of the criticism here, and if there were such a thing as a photograph of George Washington crossing the Delaware, obviously we would prefer that image. But what we do have is a highly notable work of art which has become the iconic representation of the historical event in question. I feel confident in saying that anyone with the cognitive ability to at least read this article is thereby also intelligent enough to understand that paintings (particularly those made by parties not directly witness to the events they capture) can deviate substantially from reality. None of that stops this from being the obvious choice for augmentary imagery to accompany the prose in question. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"I feel confident in saying that anyone with the cognitive ability to at least read this article is thereby also intelligent enough to understand that paintings (particularly those made by parties not directly witness to the events they capture) can deviate substantially from reality." Yes, but why include a painting that substantially deviates from reality in the history section? Can we relegate it to a section about culturally significant depictions of artwork since it includes a blatant anachronism? Thanks for your comment! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I suppose you could move it to a lower section. I suppose it's the type of thing I might consider as an acceptable middle ground solution in a long protracted dispute that wasn't going to gain consensus otherwise. But we change the question to whether I think that is warranted in these circumstances, then I would have to answer in the negative. For one thing, the anachronism is equally an issue no matter where you put the image in the article. And, per my previous comment and the apparent consensus here so far, I don't think it is such an issue as to overwhelm the benefit it brings to the article as an iconic work representing the event. But, I'm just curious: has anyone floated the idea of mentioning the misrepresenatative flag in the caption? That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach and it seems like it would address the priorities of both sides of this debate, as I understand them. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral This is a propaganda painting, reflecting the political beliefs of German artist Emanuel Leutze. "he conceived the idea for this painting during the Revolutions of 1848. Hoping to encourage Europe's liberal reformers through the example of the American Revolution... " It bears a minimum resemblance to the historical event, and is noted for historical inaccuracies which have little to do with the flag depicted.: "Artistic concerns motivated further deviations from historical (and physical) accuracy. For example, the boat (of the wrong model) looks too small to carry all occupants and stay afloat, but this emphasizes the struggle of the rowing soldiers. There are phantom light sources besides the upcoming sun, as can be seen on the face of the front rower and shadows on the water, to add depth. The crossing took place in the dead of night, so there ought to have been little natural light, but this would have made for a very different painting. The river is modeled after the Rhine, where ice tends to form in jagged chunks as pictured, not in broad sheets as is more common on the Delaware. Also, the Delaware at what is now called Washington Crossing is far narrower than the river depicted in the painting. It was also snowing during the crossing. Next, the men did not bring horses or field guns across the river in the boats, but instead had them transported by ferries. Finally, Washington's stance, obviously intended to depict him in a heroic fashion, would have been very hard to maintain in the stormy conditions of the crossing. Considering that he is standing in a rowboat, such a stance would have risked capsizing the boat.see AP article on more accurate version. Or to quote TVTropes on its criticism of Leutze's works: "Artistic License – History: Washington Crossing the Delaware alone had at least a dozen historical inaccuracies." Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as long as the artist and date are kept. Neutral It was a highlight in Washington's career. It was done on Christmas Day and demonstrates the boldness or aggressiveness of Washington. There could be some revolutionary propaganda elements to the painting by German artist Emanuel Leutze, but that is not enough weight to ban the painting from the Washington article. Is it a historically accurate painting. No. Adding to the caption would be good, such as it was snowing during the crossing is not depicted in the photo. Unless there is a suitable alternative then keep the photo. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: You voted to keep and then before the issue is resolved here, you change the image. This is premature and disregards the opinions of editors who have given their time to resolve this issue -- hence my less than friendly remarks in edit history, for which I apologize. Both images are being used now. I do agree that the POV tag should be removed, but we must do so one step at a time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: "Unless there is a suitable alternative then keep the photo." I said this in my original message. I had found an alternative photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be suitable also, but again, you took it upon yourself to not only switch the image, but remove the POV tag before the issue was resolved, right in the middle of an RFC, which is why I was a bit frank. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if you are frank Gwillhickers. My feelings are not hurt. I believe I did the right thing. This is a really popular article. It is best to get this resolved as quickly as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It's iconic and completely synonymous with the historical event in the eyes of most who have seen it. It would be odd not to have it included. Dbrote (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• keep Its appropriate. BTW what is with this support and oppose ONLY stuff?(Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (Summoned by bot) – When you search washington crossing the delaware and skip the Wikipedia results, what you have left pretty much all references Leutze in some manner. An obvious keep. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment—I think the painting can be left in the "Crossing the Delaware" subsection but that language should be included in proximity to the image detailing the inaccuracies. A painting is inherently interpretive, in contrast to a photograph, which is inherently objective. There are exceptions to this. But we should be handling the inclusion of painted imagery in articles that aim for historical accuracy with special effort taken to correct known errors found in the highly interpretive work. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That "fix" (in several variations if I remember correctly) was proposed & implemented earlier in this article's history - having some disclaimer in the caption re: the Betsy Ross flag that's in the painting - but that option was discarded & the painting+caption was removed from the article by an editor as being erroneous (see the extensive discussion in "Uncritical Presentation of a Depiction of George Washington with Anachronistic Flag" above). So, here we are. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The note added recently (here) was discarded because the source cited does not discuss the painting. This is still a viable option if a proper source were found. The one cited above by Rjensen may suffice. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is no editor POV being pushed here by the inclusion of this rather simple image. As for "propaganda", this label can be affixed to almost any image that portrays a flag or a famous person which casts a favorable (or unfavorable) light on the subject. Even a photograph can portray an event favorably. One could also claim that the picture is "propaganda" without any flag at all. The important question is, is the picture misleading? Again, we can't leap to 100 simply by adding 2+2 here. Any painting can have "inaccuracies", but other than the wrong version of the flag there are none here to speak of. i.e.Men in a boat, crossing the icy Delaware River with a flag that wasn't used yet is hardly misleading. We could just as easily contend that a POV is being pushed by someone trying to remove this picture simply on the basis of an inaccuracy about the flag, but we would need more than 2+2 to make that claim also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Notice : In the hopes that too much attention/obsession is not directed at the one image (Leutze's painting of 1851), two images in a double image format are now being used. Hope this sits well with other editors. If there is a consensus to remove this, so be it. Meanwhile, let's get through the present issue of POV, such that it is.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• There only needs to be one photo of the Delaware crossing. I placed in the alternative photo. Leutze's 1851 painting is inaccurate. I found a suitable alternative to Leutze's 1851 painting. Why readd the dispute tag. This George Washington. Thousands of people log onto this article. He deserves better. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This goes on the assumption that Washington would condemn the painting simply on the basis of an inaccuracy about the type of flag portrayed. I like to think his view would not be so narrow. I explained why both images are being used. If we must use one image, then we stick with the one that has had overwhelming consensus all along. If there is a clear consensus to remove the added image, you'll get no arguments from me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not put in the dispute tag Gwillhickers. I was just trying to solve it. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Google photo link Washington Crossing

This is a photo of the Delaware River approximately where Washington crossed in December 1776. "Washington Crossing". Retrieved March 24, 2018. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo gallery

Historical depictions of Washington's crossing of the Delaware River

Editors can choose by bold capital letter the photo most approprate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• 
  A Washington Crossing the Delaware, engraving, 1869, unknown artist
• 
  B Washington Crossing the Delaware, December 25, 1776, by Emanuel Leutze, 1851
• 
  C Washington crossing the Delaware River
• 
  D Mosler, Henry -- Artist. c1912; Date depicted: 1776
• 
  E Title:Washington crossing the Delaware Abstract/medium: 1 print : etching. 1833
• 
  F Title: Washington Crossing the Delaware Abstract/medium: 1 print : steel engraving. 1872 Duthie, James, engraver; Darley, Felix Octavius Carr, 1822-1888, artist
• 
  G George Caleb Bingham Washington Crossing the Delaware between circa 1856 and circa 1871
• 
  H Washington Crossing the Delaware Nathaniel Currier
• 
  I Washington Crossing the Delaware Cassell's Illustrated History of England, Volume 5
• 
  J Title: Washington crossing the Delaware: on the evening of Dec 25th. 1776, previous to the battle of Trenton Physical description: 1 print : lithograph, hand-colored. 1876 Notes: Reference print in LOT 4412 DB.
• 
  K Currier and Ives (-1907) Washington Crossing the Delaware – Evening Previous to the Battle of Trenton, December 5th, 1776 1857–71 Hand-colored lithograph
• 
  L Currier and Ives (-1907) Washington, Crossing the Delaware–On the Evening of Dec. 25th 1776, previous to the Battle of Trenton. 1876 Hand-colored lithograph
• 
  M Edward Hicks (1780-1749) Washington at the Delaware (c1849) — by Edward Hicks (1780-1849). circa 1849
• 
  N Washington Crossing the Delaware–Evening Previous to the Battle of Trenton, December 25th, 1776 Nathaniel Currier (1813-1888) 1847 Hand-colored lithograph
• 
  O Passage of the Delaware (1819), by Thomas Sully (1783–1872), oil on canvas (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the captions in the Gallery are mixed-up. The first one is by an unknown artist, the second one is by Leuntz. Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo gallery editor choices

• None would be historically accurate. B is by far the most famous and best choice, but certainly you could put in two such as B and G, or B and D. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• The best art work is B. I like A and L. Going by artwork alone I would choose B. Going by "historical accuracy" I would choose L. I agree none of these photos are historically accurate. I would choose L as an alternative to B. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Fyunck' Any one of these images can be criticized for one thing or another. e.g. What is that funny looking flag in image 'L' all about? -- Why do the row boats look different in some of the images? -- Why is Washington sitting on his horse, in a boat, while crossings the river in one of the images? -- Each image of Washington looks flattering -- isn't this a POV also? -- Once again we are wandering off into other issues before the original issue, i.e.POV, has been resolved. As stated, there is already an established consensus, past and present, for the original image, while the issue of POV was never really substantiated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Why was the tag put up for image B ? I don't know what the flag is in L but I like the way Washington is depicted as General leading his troops. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Image O (Sully, 1819) is also discussed by Howat (pg 298), who says it was the most successful representation of the event before Leutze. It looks as though selections C, J, L, M, and N all derive from Sully. I would go with it as the second image. Howat discusses political motivations and other inaccuracies and differences in interpretation in the works; finding a "most accurate" depiction will be fruitless. Best to go with the most notable, B & O. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

The former caption could be restored if it had a proper source. Or it could be expanded into a note. The first source here is excellent, and it discusses some of the other images under consideration as well. I include a couple of other sources for comparison, or for use in considering other images:

• John K. Howat, Washington Crossing the Delaware, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, metmuseum.org.
• This article on the painting discusses the flag, along with other aspects.
• This discusses the painting but not the flag, but it has other points that may be relevant to other images being considered.

Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous caption was incorrect. The flag was adopted six months later, in 1777, according to Howat (pp. 291, 297). I am restoring the caption sourced to Howat. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"So help me God"

Evidently there has been much debate as to whether Washington used the words, "So help me God", upon first taking the oath of office in 1789. One of the first historians to make the claim was Washington Irving, (1856), Vol.iv, p.475, along with Alden, (1984), p.236, and David McCullough, 2011. The claims that Washington didn't utter this phrase only amount to conjecture based on supposition and speculation, as there is no documentary proof to make any conclusions either way. All we have are historical accounts that say Washington spoke these words, with others claiming they are wrong. There are also several trendy web cite accounts claiming that Washington never spoke such words, but upon scrutiny it's easy to see they can take the ball no further than speculation. — Our biography here, up until May 5, had a foot-note that read, "Historian John R. Alden indicates that Washington added the words "so help me God". This was not exactly neutral, as we were only hearing from one historian, Alden, suggesting that Washington had used the phrase. However, we should simply mention, in a footnote, that there is debate on the issue, as it's a rather noteworthy controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase "So help me God" should be mentioned at all. It is a myth. There is no record of the statement at the Inauguration. Washington was not the type to add words to the oath. That would have brought religion into the oath and the Constitution forbids a religious test. Here is the source “So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded Peter R. Henriques (01-11-09) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cm' but you're only repeating the same opinion with nothing new but speculation and conjecture from one author. No one said that some historians don't accept the idea. This is why I suggested we simply mention the controversy, without anyone asserting a particular POV. Many sources have asserted the idea, while some of the others simply don't mention it. So afar I've only seen one Washington biographer who refers to the matter as "myth". As a fervent god fearing man it's certainly nothing fantastic or weird that Washington may have said this. At Wikipedia we should not be taking sides and asserting a one sided POV. For the sake of neutrality we should simply mention the controversy and let the readers make up their own minds. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, what part of Wikipedia policy says it's okay to spread a myth ? I only said that I don't think it is should be mentioned in the article. There is no one sided assertation. It is a myth. Why perpetutate it ? Historians are human. They can create a Washington the way they want Washington to be. I gave an established source that said it is a myth statement and should be discarded. There is no documented evidence that Washington made the statement. I am not repeating the same opinion. Why put in the article something that Washington most certainly did not say ? It is a myth. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but your first sentence assumes that you've established your POV as provable fact, and your one source doesn't trump all the other sources. To repeat, no one wants to present the phrase as something Washington in fact had said, only that there is disagreement among historians and others, but you don't even want that. This raises POV and neutrality issues. All we have is circumstantial evidence on both sides of the fence, and as such it's wrong for anyone to push their opinion over those of others, esp when those opinions may be neutral and objective. — We can't sweep this long standing controversy under the rug. I remain neutral on the matter, as I can't say for sure what happened either way, unlike you, who has used the idea of "myth" to remove an objective statement that was in the article since June 2015. We obviously need more opinions here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My first sentence assumes nothing Gwillhickers. I was only going by the source. It is not my POV. It is Peter R. Henriques. My question has not been answered. Why perpetuate a myth ? In my opinion putting in that historians "disagree" over the issue, only supports the perpetuation of the myth. The best thing to do is to not put it in the article. That is most neutral. I don't see the purpose in putting in endless debate over a myth. You can edit as you please Gwillhickers. I gave my editor opinion. I don't think it should be in the article. You have the freedom to do so Gwillhickers. I claim no ownership on the George Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Empty talk. You say you're only going by the source, while ignoring other sources, and then turn around and make the same assertion on your own behalf. i.e."Why perpetuate a myth ?" You want to keep even the mention of the controversy out of the article, based on what you clearly believe is a "myth", which amounts to rank POV pushing if you are insisting we sweep this under the rug. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I said you can make the edit. I am not preventing you. Nothing is preventing you from making the edit. I don't consider it a controversy. I don't have editor control. I am not insisting we sweep this under the rug. As an editor, I said before, I believe it would be neutral not to mention it in the article. I am not keeping any editor from making any edits. If you want to add your edit Gwillhickers, go right ahead. You don't need my permission. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It is Peter R. Henriques (01-11-09) who said "So help me God" is a myth. The published title says “So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded. I did not author this article. Henriques did. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This may help. Neither Fitzpatrick (1936) nor Cooke (2002) mention "So help me God" concerning Washington and the oath. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There are many sources that don't mention the matter either way. — No one has editor control but there is this thing called 'consensus'. As this is a somewhat controversial issue, I had thought it best to first discuss the issue here on the Talk page rather than just revert your edit. Anyway, all that need be said, in a footnote, is that there is disagreement among some historians over whether Washington used the phrase "So help me god" at the end of his oath, without injecting any opinion, either way, into the statement. We can cite this one sentence with Irving, McCullough, Alden and Henriques. It would be nice if we could get at least one or two more opinions on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it best to leave the subject out of the article. However, a statement such as this would be acceptable, "There is historical debate and controversy whether Washington added to the oath "So help me God." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Since many presidents, which include Lincoln, T.Roosevelt, Obama and Trump, added this phrase to the end of their oath, it ties in with the tradition many believe Washington had started. I remain neutral. Though it seems Washington would have added the phrase, it would be nothing amazing that he simply stuck to the prescribed script and didn't utter the phrase. Washington biographer Washington Irving attended Washington's inauguration and claims he witnessed Washington using the term, but Irving was only six at the time, so it's easy to dismiss the account if one is so inclined. Otoh, it seems unlikely that he would lie about such an event, an event that acknowledged God no less, so who knows? All we can do is remain neutral and simply cover this famous controversy in a footnote. Your proposal looks okay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It could be historical propoganda too, making Washington what we want him to be, maybe similar to the Lost Cause. It was sixty-five years after the event when Washington was said to have said "So help me God" in a book by Rufus Griswold who cited a childhood memory of Washington Irving as his source. That is not much grounds for reliablity. Chester A. Arthur was the first recorded President to have said "So help me God". Historians may want to make America more Christian than it actually was. There is a big Founders movement, that goes beyond the scope of this talk, that stresses America was founded on Christian principles. Henriques is a reliable source. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There are all sorts of possibilities, and as you demonstrate, all sorts of speculations. Just a note: No one really had to go out of their way to make Washington into something he wasn't, as he demonstrated first hand, over and again, the sort of character he possessed, and that he was a Christian. I seriously doubt Irving made up the account just to demonstrate Washington was a Christian — that, and his reputation, were already well established. Irving's childhood account, written while he was an adult, is no less reliable than Henriques', who only offers us modern day speculation, perhaps the product of academic peer pressure. Anyone can speculate. Once again, all we need do is remain neutral and simply mention the controversy, and let readers decide matters for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The matter of the controversial phrase is discussed in eight-paragraphs of cited text in Oath of office of the President of the United States. There is a controversy that the one who started the tradition with this disturbing phrase was Abraham Lincoln.:

• "The earliest known source indicating Washington added "So help me God" to his acceptance, not to the oath, is attributed to Washington Irving, aged six at the time of the inauguration, and first appears 65 years after the event. The only contemporary account that repeats the oath in full, a report from the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional oath, without reference to Washington's adding "So Help Me God" to his acceptance."
• "In 1865 the Sacramento Daily Union covered the second inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln finished his oath with "So help me God," and he kissed the Bible. However, the Daily Union's account seems embellished in a number of ways, and other newspaper accounts, published closer in time to the ceremony, do not mention Lincoln's uttering the phrase. In 1881, the New York Times article covering the swearing in of Chester A. Arthur, reported that he responded to the question of accepting the oath with the words, "I will, so help me God". In 1929, Time magazine reported that the Chief Justice began the oath uttering, "You, Herbert Hoover, do you solemnly swear..." Hoover replied with a simple "I do"."
• "Evidence is lacking to support the claim that presidents between Washington and Abraham Lincoln used the phrase "So help me God." A contemporaneous newspaper account of Lincoln's 1865 inauguration states that Lincoln appended the phrase "So help me God" to the oath. This newspaper report is followed by another account, provided later in the same year after Lincoln's death (April 15, 1865), that Lincoln said "So help me God" during his oath. The evidence pertaining to the 1865 inauguration is much stronger than that pertaining to Lincoln's 1861 use of the phrase. Several sources claim that Lincoln said "So help me God" at his 1861 inauguration, yet these sources were not contemporaneous to the event. During the speech, Lincoln stated that his oath was "registered in Heaven", something some have taken as indicating he likely uttered the phrase "So help me God." Conversely, there was a claim made by A.M. Milligan (a Presbyterian minister who advocated for an official Christian U.S. government) that letters were sent to Abraham Lincoln asking him to swear to God during his inaugurations, and Lincoln allegedly wrote back saying that God's name was not in the Constitution, and he could not depart from the letter of that instrument."

Note that the phrase has been claimed to violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was the subject of a legal case in 2008. See: http://www.restorethepledge.com/live/litigation/inaugural/docs/2008-12-30%20Original%20Complaint.pdf Dimadick (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Henriques (01-11-09) says Chester A. Arthur was the first President recorded to have used the phrase "So help me God" after the oath. I think it is speculation if Lincoln used the phrase. I agree Gwillhickers that historians do not have to do anything to help Washington's reputation. It seems from what I know about Washington and the Founders is that their God was somewhat impersonal, an "Almighty Being". That does not take away Washington's military contributions to the founding of the nation and his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Newdow was/is an agenda driven atheist, and his case was dismissed before it ever got off the ground, as were other such attempts made by this individual. This is all very interesting, but we're only going to mention the controversy briefly, with a neutral statement, in a footnote. I believe the Presidency article would be the better place to get into this topic with more depth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We are not here to debate the constitutionality of "So help me God" statement. Did Washington actually make the statement? A childhood memory, published sixty-seven years after the event, in my opinion, is not the most reliable evidence. I don't object to putting in a neutral statement as I mentioned above. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Irving's account, however questionable, is an eyewitness statement. The inauguration was attended by thousands of people. It would seem that if Irving flat out lied about Washington he would have instantly come under fire. His account was never questioned until many years after his death when nay-sayers evidently felt they could get away with it. Something else to consider: The phrase was used as part of the oath in federal courtrooms and was a common practice when Washington was sworn in. Also, the phrase was used in Masonic ceremonies, along with kissing the Bible, and Washington was a Mason, the highest ranking in the country, and was naturally compelled to say these words. However, there remains no proof, even though the event seems more than likely, all things considered. Some speculators claim Washington would have been "out of character" to "change the wording" of the oath -- but he didn't really change it, he just added his own closing phrase, which he may of felt was appropriate considering it was he who was taking the oath. Again, all we can do is remain neutral and objective and not go into absolute denial over either possibility. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter R. Henriques (01-11-09) said "A long letter by the French foreign minister Comte de Moustier, who attended the ceremony, repeated the oath verbatim and did not include the additional words." It does not matter that the phrase was used in the federal courtrooms. It does matter if Washington said it. Moustier has more historical weight than a childhood memory of Irving. You are free to believe what you want to Gwillhickers. And so are other readers and editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It should have been obvious, esp since I explained it, that Federal courtroom practice and Masonic practice was mentioned simply to demonstrate how Washington could have very easily been inclined to use the phrase. Yes, Moustier, recorded the event, but he wouldn't have been lying if he simply recorded the oath as it occurred in the Constitution. Also, I remember many things from my youth, quite vividly, esp simple and eventful moments. The phrase "So help me god" wasn't anything complex and could very easily be remembered by someone of six. Anyway, the footnote was added earlier today and is neutral. This should satisfy those who chose to remain fixed on a given side of the fence, along with the objective readers. Even though there are compelling arguments on both sides, I personally remain neutral and objective, as either possibility would not surprise me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The note looks good Gwillhickers. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Broken cite/footnote

Ok, I will admit Harvard Refs are not a style I do well with but I was reading through the final illness/death section and so have spent some time puzzling about how to fix the problems but I give up. If some of the other regulars around here who are Harvard Cite pros could take a look at the following:

Footnote "r" states:

At least three modern medical authors (,[251] Shapiro 1975, Scheidemandel 1976) concluded that Washington most probably died from acute bacterial epiglottitis complicated by the administered treatments. These treatments included multiple doses of calomel (a cathartic or purgative), and extensive bloodletting (with at least 2.365 total liters of blood being taken, which is slightly less than half of a normal adult's blood volume).

See [252] for Shapiro and Scheidemandel references. Vadakan's article also directly quotes Doctors Craik and Dick's account (as published in the Times of Alexandria newspaper) of their treatment of Washington during his fatal illness.

The wikitext is:

{{efn|At least three modern medical authors (,{{sfn|Wallenborn|1997}} Shapiro 1975, Scheidemandel 1976) concluded that Washington most probably died from acute bacterial epiglottitis complicated by the administered treatments. These treatments included multiple doses of [[Mercury(I) chloride|calomel]] (a [[cathartic]] or [[purgative]]), and extensive bloodletting (with at least 2.365 total liters of blood being taken, which is slightly less than half of a normal adult's blood volume). * ''See {{sfn|Vadakan|2005|loc=Footnotes}} for'' Shapiro ''and'' Scheidemandel ''references.'' Vadakan's article also directly quotes Doctors Craik and Dick's account (as published in the ''Times of Alexandria'' newspaper) of their treatment of Washington during his fatal illness.}}

The issues are:

• "Wallenborn 1997" is missing from the seen text.
• When the reader clicks on [251], one is taken to "Wallenborn 1997"in the References but then that particular blue link goes nowhere. The Wallenborn 1997 information cited in this WP article has gone missing. The cite info is as follows - http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/history/articles/illness/, author:White McKenzie Wallenborn, date written:1997, copyright date:1999, UVA/George Washington Papers publisher, "George Washington’s Terminal Illness: A Modern Medical Analysis of the Last Illness and Death of George Washington" - Title.
• Early America Review (w/the Vadakan 2005 article) has migrated to VarsityTutors.Com - the complete content is still there with its scrupulous cites and is still valid - but, sadly, the host-site is a for-profit tutoring service. Early American Review is only presently available through varsitytutors.com (and I am not sure it is being published regularly anymore) - an archived URL would seem to be best (so as to not direct unsuspecting readers to a for-profit site). Here is the Wayback Machine/archived URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20051216141728/http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2005_winter_spring/washingtons_death.htm

If someone more familiar with the Harvard cite style could fix up the various issues above so everything would work the way it's supposed to that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• The wrong year date was used in the Wallenborn 'cite book' listing, preventing the cite to link up to that listing.
• While we're on the topic of Washington's illness, it would be best if we just summarize the matter with one or two reliable sources, naming the illness, circumstances, etc, without all the references to individual medical authorities. I'll see what I can do to simplify this. A biography needn't go into dept on medical matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The Wallenborn was originally written in 1997 and is cited as both 1997 & 1999 in various sources but the 1999 copyright date for the GW Papers cite seems fine.
• I disagree that the medical information is too detailed (as seen in this version of the article), Washington's medical care during his final day was a matter of extreme interest then and reminds so to the 20th & 21st Centuries. Why did Craik & Dick write up their account for the Alexandria newspaper? Because people were interested and to probably forestall any further whispers or talk of medical malpractice. Regardless of what some sources might state - and what some tour guides might tell one - Washington did not simply die of a bad sore throat or of quinsy - he was suffering from shock from almost being bled to death (over half of the blood volume of a human body - 2.3 liters worth), most probably had severe bacterial epiglottis which means he was being slowly suffocated to death (and yes, the newly-discovered tracheotomy procedure would probably at least have prolonged his life), and the treatments he underwent - being standard for the time but *still*...the emetic which caused him to vomit, the calomel which caused a massive evacuation of his intestines plus the already-mentioned massive bloodletting - pushed his body beyond its limits. The interest in how Washington died is borne out by the medical literature and by general interest content that has been published and that continues to be published. The various cites are there to prove to the reader that specific medical authorities have written about the issue and these studies and opinions have been published in reliable sources. I think the content should remain.Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I kept the names of the medical authorities, info about the disease, bloodletting, etc. If you feel we need to say more than that then I suppose it's okay. We might want to get a few more opinions now that the issue has been brought up and debated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to let the present version sit for a while and come back to revisit and see then how the death section strikes me. I tend to want to keep all the refs for research's sake and explain everything as much as possible. I remember going to Mount Vernon and the guide saying Washington died of "quinsy" which is absolutely incorrect - the verifiable truth about Washington's complete treatment in his final illness is much more Interesting (if somewhat gruesome). Shearonink (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the Vadakan/Early American Review linkage. Shearonink (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Depending on the amount of information and sources available, maybe it would be good to have a seperate article on Washington's health. From what I know Washington was in ill health throughout his two terms. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be very possible to have a sub-article about Washington's health - not sure I have the time at the moment to write one up but I would be very interested in collaborating on such an article. Washington had a historical reputation in American schoolbooks for being a towering & vigorous man but he had smallpox, diphtheria, tuberculosis (and many of his close family-members died of Tb including the half-brother he inherited Mount Vernon from), several episodes of severe dysentery, malaria, pneumonia, a sore or cancerous tumor on his face in the 1790s, recurring episodes of tonsillitis... many of his family-members died of Tb (see this Civil War Scholars article and this interview with Washington-Family historian John Washington). Shearonink (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to slightly expand the present "Final days" section. I especially think the fact that the two main attending physicians felt the need to go into such great detail about their care of the patient is remarkable and that they also made their records public by publishing them in the Times of Alexandria are important encyclopedic facts that should be included. It wasn't just the epiglottis that caused Washington's death, it wasn't just the extreme blood-loss through administered bloodletting that helped hasten the end, it was also the Mercury chloride administered as a cathartic. If anyone doesn't understand what Mercury chloride does, read the original account of Washington's final days in the Times of Alexandria. Its level of detail is, frankly, astonishing...there were no considerations of privacy for this patient and his family.

Since that content was removed, it will have to be discussed here etc so the content that I think should be somewhat restored is:

Even at that early date, there were accusations of medical malpractice, with some believing that Washington had been bled to death. Various modern medical authors have speculated that Washington probably died from a severe case of epiglottitis which was complicated by the given treatments (all of which were accepted medical practice in Washington's day), most notably the massive deliberate blood loss, which almost certainly caused hypovolemic shock.

Notes

References

I tried to craft the above proposed added content the way it would appear within the appropriate article sections (Notes, References). Shearonink (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Seals, flags, etc

@LordVesuvius, JustinTime55, and Sunshineisles2: A few editors shouldn't try to establish a consensus for all POTUS and VPOTUS articles on such a minor issue. Trying to enforce a 'one-size-fits-all approach only creates issues. Seals, flags, insignias etc are common place in history articles, and it's really only an opinion that the presidential seal is "decorative". It's no more decorative than displaying a flag under allegiance. Referring to these items as "decorative" is actually derogatory. It's like referring to the Statue of Liberty as an ornament. The Presidents seal occurs in template:WashingtonSeries, template:Ulysses Grant sidebar and other such info boxes, why not here? If an image is too small, a reader can simply click on it, and we shouldn't use 'smart phones' as the basis of how we render articles. It would seem we need more than the opinion that the seal is merely "decorative" to insist on its removal. Articles should be treated on a per-article basis. Yes, an editor should not treat all articles the same by routinely adding the seal, and user LordVesuvius was moving quickly and routinely, but at the same time, an editor should not treat all articles the same by routinely trying to enforce something that really amounts to nothing more than an opinion. I can live with or without the seal, but I am more concerned about a few editors trying to enforce their opinion on all POTUS and VPOTUS articles. We need to hear more opinions on this as concerns this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I really can't see a convincing argument that adding arbitrary seals above a listing of the same office isn't the kind of thing that the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG rule is created to specifically prevent. —Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The seal is not arbitrary, it's specific to the POTUS, and this is a POTUS article. Again, we need more than opinions if you insist on enforcing this on all such articles. Btw, you've far exceeded the wp:3RR by following LordVesuvius around and reverting his edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My only question is what the seal accomplishes that the text does not, and that’s why the flag rule exists in the first place. (And 3RR is only applicable for three reverts by editors on a SINGLE page.)—Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, a single page. -- My words were only cautionary -- I had no intention of pursuing this as you're obviously acting in good faith. In any case, the question what does this accomplish that the text doesn't can be applied to many images, so again, we're needing more than opinions if you're insisting on enforcing this idea on all articles. The flag "rule" is actually a guideline, not a policy. Many "exceptions" exist. Best to let individual editors on individual articles decide this for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose we're going in circles here unless more editors can contribute to this very debate over the debate of seal inclusion, so your point in that context would stand. I still think that any major changes like that should be uniform (i.e. if seals are uncontroversially included on one article, then it stands to reason they should exist on all presidential articles), and it's more the work of a project-wide consensus if we were to find strong, equally matched opinions on both sides here. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, unless there's more than a marginal consensus to keep the Pressident's seal off this president's page, I'd like to restore it. Will wait for other opinions. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

When was the Presidential Seal created ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a 1783 Confederation Presidential Seal. Washington could have used the Seal but it seems it was only used for letters. There is no image available of a seal used by Washington. I would not put a modern Presidential Seal in the aricle. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems we're belaboring the issue of using the President's seal altogether. I don't know at what particular date the seal was actually composed, but it remains the symbol of all U.S. Presidents, including Washington, and that of the office of the US President, regardless of the date of its official inception. Using it in the info box is not at all inappropriate, and the idea of it being merely "decorative", is a rather spurious and opinionated claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Misspelling

In the "Slavery" section of the part about Washington's personal life, the word "indefinitely" appears misspelled as "indefinately."

 Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"major organizational changes"

(moved this discussion here to its own section)
I am within a week of making a major organizational change to the article on Abraham Lincoln, which I will open up to discussion on its talk page as to whether my concept is a good idea or a bad idea. If consensus deems my idea a bad idea, then, of course, my changes will be reverted. :-( If, on the other hand, consensus deems my idea a good idea, then a similar major organizational change could be applied to the George Washington article. Could you maybe hold off a few days on the FA nomination until I have a chance to try out my ideas on the Abraham Lincoln article, to see whether consensus approves or disapproves of my idea? Thanks! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, we need specifics, proposals and sources. The idea of "major organizational changes" seems highly uncalled for. Both the Lincoln and Washington article are, and have been, Good Articles, with no major issues hanging over them. Editors there and here have done a good job, thanks. Again, if there are specific items you'd like to present, please do so with sources to back them up. Thanks for discussing this in advance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Any "major organizational changes" need to be proposed first. Changes have been made to this article. Editors should have the freedom to make edits at anytime. Your, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog, edits in the Lincoln article have no bearing on editing the Washington article. We can't hold up the article for a week depending on whether Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog's edits are approved or dissapproved. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I can demo the changes in a Draft:Abraham Lincoln article, if you wish. I have written software so that my changes to Abraham Lincoln are in a script that can be implemented in a few seconds, so that no contributions from other editors will be lost. And yes, they do have bearing to the George Washington article, since my proposed changes will address fundamental issues of readability.

George Washington is viewed about 10,000 times/day on desktops, about 6,500 times/day via the mobile web (tablets and phones), and only about 200 times/day via the mobile app (tablets and phones).

Reading this article on a phone via the mobile web can be a miserable experience due to its length and the fact that on a phone, there is no table of contents. In contrast, reading this article on a phone using the mobile app can be a delightful experience, better than the desktop, actually, because the table of contents is always accessible. My proposed organizational changes are

1. mainly intended to make the mobile web phone experience better
2. can also make the desktop experience better.

Just bear with me for a few days until my Draft:Abraham Lincoln demo is ready.

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't done so already you need to post about your proposed changes to Abraham Lincoln at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and have that pertinent discussion there. This talk page is for discussion of improvements to this article and no others. What you are proposing could very well be wonderful and useful for mobile users of Wikipedia but I think the matter would be better-suited for discussion at one of the high-traffic Village pumps since it concerns at least two different articles (and, I assume others are on your radar as well). The changes you are intending to propose to the present layouts of at least two of the most-viewed Wikipedia articles are not merely rearranging the present structure and content but instituting a different construction method and completely different layout. Your discussion would not be just about the Washington article and the Lincoln article but needs to be about editing policies and guidelines regarding highly-visible large-Kb content-size articles. Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This proposal, and approach, seems rather generic and a bit abstract. Changes should be introduced on a per item basis, backed by sources, and consensus. The idea of introducing "major organizational changes", by means of a script no less, is not the way to go. Again, specific pressing issues, assuming there are any, need to be addressed. Meanwhile, anyone is free to make edits, backed by sources, and of course are subject to reverts if an editor deems it necessary, where discussion would follow. This is the way it's always been done throughout Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought that going the "bold" route with Abraham Lincoln would be better. My changes to that article are not unprecedented, but were inspired by the, I believe, well-regarded article Spacetime. I would never consider such a bold change to a featured article, but "good" merely means that an article has passed certain minimal criteria. Look over that article, read my talk comments, and ask yourself if the changes that I implemented in that article might be worth considering for this one. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear about the actual changes you're proposing, and I haven't the time to comb through before and after versions of 'Spacetime'. As was recommended by another editor, you would be best to take your proposal to the Village Pump. IMO, it looks as if you're trying to fix something that really isn't broke, and your proposal implies that the greater bulk of articles at WP are indeed broke, somehow. I would also recommend you see how your proposal is received in several less important articles first, rather than doing so here just before we're getting ready to nominate the article. With all due respect, your proposal hasn't been well received here, (or at the Lincoln Talk page) would involve a lot of debate and would be rather disruptive at this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

From reading the Lincoln talk page what was proposed was a "summary section" and "navigation aids". This article has a summary section. It is called the lede section. I do not know what "navigational aids" implies or whether that requires some sort of technical coding. Then there is something to do with navigating between the summary text and main text. None of the proposed changes have anything to do with article content. None of these proposals are necessary for the George Washington article, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)