# Talk:Presidency of George Washington

Washington's return to civilian life and the relinquishing of power was an astounding event that his contemporaries at home and abroad referenced as one of the main, if not *the* main, contribution to Washington's public reputation and popularity rise to the level it eventually reached, which led directly to his elevation to the presidency - as is thoroughly sourced and cited in the current edit. Repeated removals of the edit is resulting in an "edit war". Shoreranger (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You have rejected my reasoned reverts. Your repeated insistence following the initial revert that a certain event be highlighted in the lead rather than discussing its inclusion here on the talk page is what has resulted in an "edit war". As the current lead was developed by collaboration and consensus, changes to it should be made by the same process. Drdpw (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
You have repeatedly rejected my reasoned and thoroughly cited edit. Your repeated insistence in reverting my edits more than three times rather than discussing its inclusion here on the talk page is what has resulted in an "edit war". The edit to the lede is intended to be made as a collaboration and is certainly open for consensus. Please, expand on what you believe was "reasoned" about your reverts. All I have been able to discern is your opinion, certainly nothing comparable to the reliable sources in the citations I have provided. Shoreranger (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I oppose such elaborate inclusion. This article is primarily about the Washington administration, not the president's previous military career. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, but the issue at hand is the clause concerning the documented significance of Washington's peaceful relinquishing of power and return civilian life that elevated the esteem and trust of the nation in him, not his military victories or successes. Shoreranger (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Shoreranger: This is asinine; I accept responsibility for my actions and will make an effort here to move this forward constructively. You propose that a clause be added to this lede sentence:
Washington, who had established his preeminence among the new nation's Founding Fathers through his service as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War,  his subsequent relinquishing of power by resigning his commission, served as president of the 1787 constitutional convention, and was widely expected to become the first president of the United States under the new Constitution, though it was his desire to retire from public life.
My initial stated reason for reverting this addition was "In comparison, that act was of minor importance in established his pre-eminence among the nation's FFs". It also made a run-on sentence even longer (which I did not state in my edit summary). After a cross-volley of reverts I added mention of significance of W's resignation of his military commission in the Farewell Address section. I also thought about proposing the break-up of the afore mentioned run-on sentence to better convey the resignation of command detail, but decided to leave that to Shoreranger, as (I concluded) the onus for opening a discussion on the reverted addition was on him. That said, whether it's stated in the lede or not, the impact that the resignation of his military command had on cementing Washington's lofty place in public opinion prior to the 1788 election should probably be mentioned in the 'Election of 1788–1789' section, which it currently is not.
So, the question is – how, if at all, should the above sentence be rewritten? Drdpw (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Your "stated reason" is unsubstantiated and refuted by 3 reliable sources I cited. Each source supports Washington's relinquishing of power is not only comparable to the two existing events in his life noted, but in fact were considered by contemporaries and historians as possibly of the *greatest* "importance". Centuries of peaceful transition of power and military deference to civil authority in the US have apparently dulled some modern observers not only to how rare and momentous the act was, and how significantly is contributed to Washington's subsequent impact on public affairs - including and especially his election unopposed as President of the United States. This is not my opinion, it is the published, cited, conclusions of reliable sources - provided. Shoreranger (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Please stop being so confrontational and collaborate. What needs to be stated in the lede if not what is currently stated and how?Perhaps: Washington, who had established his preeminence among the new nation's Founding Fathers by leading the Continental Army to victory in the American Revolutionary War and by resigning his commission afterward, served as president of the 1787 constitutional convention. Even before the new Constitution was formally ratified, it was widely expected that Washington become the first President of the United States, though it was his desire to retire from public life. (This possibility adds the requested detail and breaks up the run-on sentence.)Perhaps: Washington, who had resigned as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army at the end of the Revolutionary War and returned to civilian life, served as president of the 1787 constitutional convention, and was widely expected to become the first president of the United States under the new Constitution, though it was his desire to retire from public life. (This possibility also highlights his resignation of command.)Perhaps: Washington, whom Henry Lee would later eulogize as, "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen", served as president of the 1787 constitutional convention, and was widely expected to become the first president of the United States under the new Constitution, though it was his desire to retire from public life. (This possibility is different altogether, but still lets readers know that Washington had a preeminence among the new nation's Founding Fathers, without stating so directly. The genesis of this status can be touched upon in the 'Election of 1788–1789' section.)Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm "confrontational"? That's rich - one might even say "asinine".
The first of your latest suggestions comes closest, but the significance of Washington's choice to relinquish the power and already considerable influence at his fingertips at the end of the War is not conveyed, and if this whole exercise proves anything its that the enormity of that act is clearly not evident to many readers. Besides inclusion of the citations - which I did not think that necessary at first but have now been convinced are essential - something along the lines of a phrase that characterizes the sheer awe and admiration of his humility, character and trustworthiness that act had on elevating him above the esteem he had earned as a victorious military commander to new unassailable heights, is necessary to convey. That's not a "detail", its essential. Shoreranger (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Points to make in the lede include – Washinton, who had led the Continental Army to victory in the American Revolutionary War served as president of the 1787 constitutional convention. and It was widely expected that Washington would become the first President of the United States, though it was his desire to retire from public life. Perhaps how he 'established his preeminence among the new nation's Founding Fathers', why his becoming POTUS was widely expected—the 'sheer awe and admiration of his humility, character and trustworthiness' garnered through leading the Continental Army to victory and by the unequivocal manner in which he resigned his military commission after the war ended—can be conveyed in the 1788 election section rather than in the lede.Drdpw (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It already is buried in the body of the text, which I keep saying is insufficient. The act was so momentous and so influential to his becoming president that it is possible, maybe even likely, that he would not have been unopposed as a candidate for the presidency, as difficult as it is for some to fathom today. The difference in influence from successful military commander to internationally admired for the strength of character to abstain from being made ruler practically by acclaim is too significant to bury.  It is, however, substantiated by the sources I cited which I again direct you to.Shoreranger (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay then, propose that the sentence be changed to: Washington, who had established his preeminence among the new nation's Founding Fathers and gained international admiration for demonstrating the strength of character to abstain from being made ruler after the Revolutionary War, served as president of the 1787 constitutional convention, and was widely expected to become the first president of the United States under the new Constitution, though it was his desire to retire from public life.  Drdpw (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
How about "Washington established his unassailable preeminence among the new nation's Founding Fathers, and gained international admiration, for demonstrating the strength of character to abstain from seizing power after the Revolutionary War, which contemporaries and historians both agree he could have done without any real public opposition. He soon after served as president of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and was widely expected to become the first president of the United States under the new federal republic, though he professed his desire to retire from public life."Shoreranger (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You're making points that do not need to be made in this article's lede. This is not an article about Washington's post-war prominence or even about why/how he unanimously won the 1788 election. This is an article on his presidency. Mention in the lede of his exalted post-war celebrity status and the reason(s) why he was so admired are, given the focus of this article, not essential. It belongs in the 1788 election section rather than in the lede. Drdpw (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Your argument would be stronger if his service as Commander-in-Chief and as President of the Constitutional Convention were not specifically and prominently culled out in the lede. In light of and comparison to those two events the acknowledgement of supremacy of civil authority Washington demonstrated by resigning his commission and tacitly relinquishing power is held by his contemporaries and historians as well as political scientists as at least as significant, if not more significant, than at least one of the other events noted if not both. Shoreranger (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
(Shoreranger) Washington's resigning from the Continental Army & going back home, pales in comparison to his decision to 'not seek' election to a third term as president. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not according to the sources I've cited, and its not what is at question here.Shoreranger (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
But, what you're proposing, suggests that Washington could've become military dictator or king & the public would've allowed it. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Today's Facebook post has prompted me to revisit this discussion "The first president of the United States, George Washington, died at his estate in Mount Vernon, Virginia on #ThisDayInHistory in 1799. Washington could have been king. Instead, he chose to be a citizen. He set many precedents for the national government and the presidency. His most important legacy may be that he insisted he was dispensable, asserting that the cause of liberty was larger than any single individual. To learn more about George Washington, visit https://www.history.com/news/george-washington-final-years-death-mount-vernon?fbclid=IwAR0_sRcD6I4sfBUrINzs0IuAEwZZfaVElXsoz41wqE4Vg_gVtq5VHLCZLU8 "
Perhaps it is time to bring in an arbitrator? Shoreranger (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I would be more interested in hearing from other pager watchers concerning how all this should be treated in the lede, as only one other editor has weighed-in. Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I really cringe when I hear someone assert that George Washington "could have been King." Historical scholarship has strongly refuted that possibility – Washington was the leader in the successful battle against Kings and aristocracies – a battle historians call the fight for Republicanism.  Rjensen (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)