Talk:Military career of George Washington

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Does anyone else think this should be something other than a timeline? I think we should clean it up, and write an article on this. I'll get around to it eventually. Red4tribe (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp 

message: In the part on his rank history, it states "Lieutenant General, United States Army: 1798 General of the Armies of the United States: 1976". Is there a reason for this or is it a typo?Prussian725 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington was given the General of the Armies rank posthumously, effective 1976. —ADavidB 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps , to avoid confusion, it should say that?[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

text: one more point: the article seems to imply by its wording he is still a serving officer in the US amry.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the wording now makes his posthumous promotion clearer. —ADavidB 05:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ranks 

message: I added the following...(coincidentally his first full-day as Commander-in-chief was July 4th) - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but this needs a source. Richard75 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  (coincidentally his first full-day as Commander-in-chief was July 4th) 

message: A couple of editors have vandalised this article recently, by reverting historically accurate edits that I made. They have also attempted to bully and intimidate me by placing threatening 'warnings' on my talk page, and have applied a double standard whereby they remove certain facts, supposedly on the grounds that they're not supported by citations, when there aren't any citations at all in the relevant section. Their motivation appears to be to push a pro-Washington POV, and I would remind everyone that Wikipedia Is Not American, and that historical facts about which US citizens may be squeamish are liable for inclusion.91.85.208.0 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at WP:IRS & WP:VERIFY.  And thanks to your helpful comments, the section is now tagged as having no sources.  So find some. Shearonink (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problem

message: The article cited William Bell's Commanding Generals and Chiefs of Staff as a source for Washington's supposed rank of major general. It says no such thing. It specifically says "was appointed general and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the Continental Army, June 1775" (p. 52). Furthermore, the relevant resolution and commission of the Continental Congress quite clearly identifies him as "General and Commander in chief," and goes on to identify Artemas Ward and Charles Lee as "first major-general and second in command" and "second Major general to be third in command," respectively. Washington's rank was general, and he wore three stars on his epaulettes; majors general, his inferiors in rank, wore two. I have corrected this. Publius~enwiki (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Major General"

message: I made the change for Washington's rank icon in the sidebar: while a General in the American Revolution, he was a full general. Thus to be consistent, the 4 star rank icon should appear. However, it should be noted the these insignia were not yet designated, including those prior as well (e.g. when he was a major, the gold oak leaf was not yet a depiction of that rank in the US). Read the article here in detail if you doubt this edit: https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/clarifying-washingtons-rank/ (It is well referenced.) The key point: Washington was a general in the continental army, and since we are using the modern US insignia as the icons, the four star icon is appropriate. There were no lieutenant generals (3 star equivalent) in the Continental Army, but that's simply because Congress would not authorize it, though Washington twice appealed to Congress for the rank, implying he was not one (this as in the article just cited). Echoniner (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the main George Washington page's sidebar should also be edited the same. It is locked and so I cannot do it. It wrongly depicts this rank: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WashingtonInsig1782.jpg  This claim that the insignia is from 1782 is completely unsupported. The only painting I could find of Washington wearing such a 3 stars on gold epaulets is this painting: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_washington_charles_peale_polk.jpg (which was painted in the 1790s, when Washington did have 3 stars as a Lieutenant General in the newly formed US Army). Echoniner (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have been a registered editor for some time and are free to make edits on the George Washington page. Yes, I agree, the insignia in question wasn't worn by Washington when he was commander of the Continental Army. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  General insignia icon 

message: "After Washington stopped the British advance up Manhattan at Harlem Heights on September 16,"
A small point perhaps, but there was no advance up Manhattan on Sept 16th 1776, merely a reckless  pursuit of American scouts by a British fighting patrol  that found they had stirred up a hornet's  nest and had to be got out of trouble. True, after the costly skirmish Howe subsequently did not make a frontal assault on Washington's entrenchments on Harlem Heights, but that  is a different point. Howe always avoided costly frontal assaults if he could.
JF42 (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harlem Heights