Talk:George Washington - Wikipedia
3 people in discussion
Article ImagesDiscussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
|
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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Thanks Drdpw, I didn't know it was so controversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Going through the list of U.S. Presidents, I realized that almost all of them use a "list of occupations". The only exceptions that I found were Millard Fillmore, William Howard Taft, and Harry S. Truman. Seeing this doesn't change my assessment that it's a bad idea, but I guess I will have to take it to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject United States Presidents. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
This edit introduced the concept that GW served an apprenticeship for two years under Hume. This appears to be incorrect as Washington received his license from W&M in 1749. If he did indeed serve some type of apprenticeship starting in 1748, at the very least it did not last for two years since he was appointed County Surveyor in 1749. County Surveyors were their own separate legal entity and answered to no one within the Colonial government. I took a close look at the two new refs introduced in the above linked edit and they do not firmly support the claim that Washington was Hume's apprentice. Working with someone, being an Assistant, is not the same as being an Apprentice (see St. George’s History, Fredericksburg, VA - but let's discuss. - Shearonink (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
So i made a edit about changing the political party from independent to federalist since i found an encyclopedia book thats alphabetical and in that book there is a page about George Washington and in that book the political party was federalist. Depotadore (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- No Depotadore, not correct. Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, but he remained officially non-partisan during his entire presidency. This fact is noted in the article and in related articles. Please undo the edit you made to article listing him as a member of the Federalist Party. Drdpw (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Drdpw The book i'm talking about is Academic American Enclyopaedia Depotadore (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The short description is too long. To check this, type "Geo" in the Wikipedia search box. A list of articles whose names begin with those three letters will appear. Each article name will be followed by the article's short description. If the short description has to be truncated, it's too long. Right now, as I do that check on my computer, the short description for George Washington is truncated after the first five letters of "States". So the most recent edit added characters that aren't even visible because the short description was already too long. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I have restored the more brief short description. Drdpw (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply