This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Washington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum and Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Discussions 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:
So the legacy section is a lot of canonising, quite frankly. There's a quick line on him being a slave owner, but the one section his relationship to the Native Americans is that Chernow liked him and Colin G. Calloway didn't. But it's hidden. My addition, removed because it's "already in the article", was:
Washington's legacy with Native Americans is mixed. He was called conotocaurius, meaning Town Destroyer, by the Iroquois, because of his order that their villages would not be "merely overrun but destroyed".[1] In his book The Indian World of George Washington, historian Colin G. Calloway argues that Washington played a central role in the dispossession and destruction of Native American nations. Calloway outlines Washington’s land-hungry ambitions, his military campaigns against Indigenous peoples (especially the Sullivan Expedition), and his policies aimed at erasing Native cultures under the guise of "civilizing" them. The book also criticises how mainstream biographies have largely ignored this legacy.[2]
I think this is worth including as a separate paragraph, but merged with the already existing stuff. As it reads, currently, there's a bunch of separate paragraphs on what a great liberator he was, but little about, well, that, and it's certainly not in focus, which I think whitewashes him. Thoughts?
^Mann, Barbara Alice (2005). George Washington's War on Native America. Praeger. pp. 67, 78. ISBN978-0-275-98177-8.
Certainly. In the current draft, Washington's relationship to the Native Americans is introduced in a paragraph that begins with describing the man as "godlike", and concludes that he felt he had "no choice" but to "extirpate" the indigenous people around him. Other points like his desire for more land aren't mentioned at all.
I want to move the Native American legacy section to its own paragraph to give it breathing space and centre it, without it being removed because that information is in the "rest of the article". I think my addition, if (properly) merged with the existing lines, is valuable. It would be like so:
Washington's legacy with Native Americans is mixed. He was called conotocaurius, meaning Town Destroyer, by the Iroquois, because of his order that their villages would not be "merely overrun but destroyed". In his book The Indian World of George Washington, historian Colin G. Calloway argues that Washington played a central role in the dispossession and destruction of Native American nations, adding that "Washington had a lifelong obsession with getting Indian land, either for himself or for his nation, and initiated policies and campaigns that had devastating effects" for them. Calloway outlines Washington’s land-hungry ambitions, his military campaigns against Indigenous peoples (especially the Sullivan Expedition), and his policies aimed at erasing Native cultures under the guise of "civilizing" them. The book also criticises how mainstream biographies have largely ignored this legacy.
Ideally, I'd like to expand that a little bit, as there's writing by Native Americans on Washington's legacy, but I thought I'd do that later, when I had a solid basis for Wikipedia standards. MattressSmith (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole chapter on Washington's land dealings in "The Whiskey Rebellion", by Thomas Slaughter, 1986. "He had an acquisitive genius and was a ruthless exploiter of advantage." This is the major scholarly work on the Whiskey Rebellion, on which most of our article about that event is based. Slaughter is both critical of, and sympathetic to, Washington. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The material which you dig up should also be compatible with the Sullivan Expedition article in its section titled "Sullivan campaign controversy". Does anything warrant updating in the linked article within that section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From Colin G Calloway's book?
The way I was going to approach this was to do the reading, cross-check what I could, then update the George Washington article accordingly, without really looking at the Sullivan Expedition article for compatibility. Or am I misunderstanding you? MattressSmith (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sullivan Expedition article which you have linked included the "Sullivan campaign controversy" section which presents the question of asserted Washington abuses as facing highly divided opinion among scholars. In that section, those opposed to the reading of Washington abuses seem to be more prominent that those asserting abuses. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you want me to cut the link until I can substantiate the controversy further? Sure, I'll cut it. This seems one of those issues divided along political lines. (Reading Native American scholarship on Washington is reading a very different fellow from David McCullough's, that's for sure.) MattressSmith (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the other way round. Since the GW article here is peer reviewed, then it would be preferable to see your correction/updates/modification on the sibling page for the Sullivan Expedition article first. Until you make your case on that sibling page, it would likely be preferable for you to return the GW article to its previous version. The sibling article corrections should come first if you have RS to support your views. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version currently on the sibling article: "Frank Cogliano, Professor of American History at the University of Edinburgh, called it "polemic rhetoric that renders it wholly inadequate as a history of this important subject," and notes Mann's failure to cite seminal work on the topic, including Colin Calloway's American Indians in the Revolution and Max Mintz's Seeds of Empire." Calloway's book in mentioned as one part of the response to Mann's book as analyzed by Prof. Cogliano. If you have RS to update the Sullivan Expedition article, then you can make your case on that sibling page. Once that's done, then you can bring it up here again; the sibling article needs to be fixed first. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The portrait is based on the one that was linked, but it is not that one; linking that one as proposed would be misleading. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're right about that. I think it's still worth mentioning; perhaps we could add a footnote saying This is an 1803 painting by Gilbert Stuart, based on his unfinished Athenaeum Portrait. As this would be too much detail for the infobox, I believe that adding a footnote would be a good option. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)17:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the reader knows to click on the portrait, he can get the information about it. So adding an additional place to click to get an additional copy of the information seems silly. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
.svg)
