Talk:George Washington

FYI: Change in URL for the Washington Papers held at UVA

FYI to anyone editing any George Washington connected articles.

• The old URL was http://gwpapers.virginia.edu.
• URL has been changed, the NEW URL is https://washingtonpapers.org/.

Shearonink (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Birth date

I'd just point out the Anton Chekhov biography gives both old style and new style dates. Wis2fan (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The most recent substantial discussion of the Julian/Gregorian issue in this talk page can be found at Talk:George Washington/Archive 38#Birthdate again!. That discussion links to several older discussions, so I guess people have been tweaking this for a long time. However, that discussion isn't the last word; I think that people have been tweaking the dates without checking or modifying that discussion.

Right now, the first sentence does not mention the Julian date, but the infobox does. I think that this is backwards: the article should mention the Julian date (in a Note), but the infobox, which is supposed to be an ultra-lean summary of summaries, should not. That is the way it is done in Anton Chekhov. But that's just off the top of my head. I haven't yet looked at those old discussions from this talk page to check if I am missing something. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The article does not mention the Julian date in the first sentence, but does mention it in a note to the first sentence of the "Early life (1732–1752)" section. Sorry for confusion that I may have caused by missing this.

The article gives Washington's birth date twice in the text, plus once in the infobox. This is probably unnecessary, but not unheard of, see MOS:BIRTHDATE.

There is an extensive footnote about the Julian date on the text giving his birth date in the Early life section. The footnote is excessive, insofar as it explains the date change; instead it should just link to Old Style and New Style dates. Also, I think that this footnote should have been attached to the first sentence of the article, rather than to the sentence in the Early life section.

There is another footnote about the Julian date on the birth date in the infobox. It is undesirable to clutter the infobox this way; the infobox should only be a summary of "key facts", see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

Since when is the first sentence supposed to be a list of occupations? My understanding of MOS:LEAD is that the first sentence is supposed to explain why the topic is notable. Washington isn't notable for being a planter; he's notable for leading the army and being the first president. Being a planter isn't even distant third; if he weren't already notable, nobody would remember that he was a planter. It's OK to give a little background in the lead paragraphs, but the first sentence should hit the two high points, and then the rest of the first paragraph could cover a few lesser items, such as his service in the French and Indian war and his leading the constitutional convention.

What about "Founding Father"? There is no authoritative list of Founding Fathers -- this is just a link to one of our other articles, Founding Fathers of the United States, which mentions several dozen people, and attempts make something sensible out of a very loosely defined term. I don't see how it is helpful to link to that article in the first sentence of George Washington. Maybe later in the lead?

Of course, looking at John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, I see that we have made a similar hash of their lead paragraphs. Gotta start somewhere, I guess. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Founding Father defines Washington and seems in the appropriate spot, but yes, planter could be moved further down. He did many other things too, all notable in his life but as you point out, not defining as stand-alone frontline notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Careful, there are editors who would argue that "planter" is central and accurate for defining who/what Washington was, and that moving the term further down or especially replacing it with "farmer" is tantamount to racial and socioeconomic whitewashing of Washington. Drdpw (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

On further reading and reflection, I agree on the treatment of Founding Father. It isn't as loosely defined as I had thought.

Rereading the lead paragraphs, I see that we don't say anything about Washington being a planter (or farmer) except in the first sentence. This is too little as well as too much. It doesn't belong in the first sentence, but it has to be in the lead, and the lead should mention that he was a slaveowner, since slavery is mentioned at length in the article. As for "planter" vs. "farmer", I will look at how some sources describe him. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)