Talk:George Washington/Archive 3

message: I have now simply added sorced material and have not deleted anything that is unsourced. Please accept this information as is. I will be adding more shortly.--Gbdill 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest that you try adding your additions here in Talk or in a subpage of Talk so we can work on it there instead of this continual slow burning revert war?  --ElKevbo 04:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think discussion before making any changes would be preferable. --Sparkhurst 06:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prayerbook

message: Were any laws made under the presidenticy (sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of George Washington ruled unconstitutional?
:Hi.  No such thing was possible during Washington's presidency because the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) did not have that power at the time.  The SCOTUS's power of review of constitutionality over the law was essentially assumed after Marbury_v._Madison, 1803, which was during the Thomas Jefferson presidency.  Marbury is the essential case upon which the SCOTUS's review power was based.  So, the answer is, no, there were no laws ruled unconstitutional during the Washington and Adams presidencies (at least; there are likely many other presidencies where no such thing happened).  Hope this helps!  Kasreyn 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, no Judicial Review at that time. Well, put and thoughtful answer Kas. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconstitutional laws during Washington's presidency? 

message: The above discussion was becoming rather hard to follow, so I'm starting this section.
Allow me to explain precisely why I support ElKevbo's take on this issue, and why I will be reverting as needed.  I will note all WP policies violated, which so far is most of them.
#Failure to use edit summaries.  Gbdill and 70.249.155.89 (assuming they are different people) do not explain significant changes with an edit summary, and fail to engage in real substantive debate on the talk page.  This shows a lack of faith in their fellow editors or any desire to behave in a collegial manner; see WP:CIVIL.
#Constant name-calling and accusations of bias.  Such comments serve no purpose and disrupt the project.  Ad hominem attacks do not prove anything about the substantive issues under discussion here.  See WP:AGF, [[WP:especially ridiculous to accuse ElKevbo of "liberal" bias, given the great amount of work I've seen him do keeping the article on George W. Bush NPOV and properly sourced.  
#Blanking a large section of the article without consensus merely because it is under dispute.  A  tag is a more appropriate solution.  Removing content in this way is likely a violation of WP:POINT as well as WP:VANDalism.
#Extensive revert-warring by Gbdill on 7/4/06 constitutes violation of WP:3RR.  Complete refusal to moderate his edits, synthesize them with others' work, or in any other way show the slightest willingness to compromise only worsen the severity of this.  It is rapidly becoming apparent that Gbdill will not be satisfied with anything except WP:OWNership of the religious beliefs section of this article.
If these editors can bring themselves to discuss their changes with others, they would see that their additions, if properly sourced, would be gladly added.  Their refusal to admit that their reversions also remove sourced content does not change the reality that their edits have not helped the project.  Kasreyn 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Gbdill and 70.249.155.89's edits 

message: John Fitzpatrick, in Dictionary of American Biography, Volume 11 (1936) says "During this period George Washington received the major part of his school training, which totaled seven or eight years. His father and his elder half-brother Lawrence seem to have been his principal, if not his only teachers."
:Can someone with the appropriate bibliographic information please add this source as a footnote as noted in the To-do list?  That would prevent this confusion from happening in the future.  --ElKevbo 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  schooling 

message: We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of George Washington's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of George Washington. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to George Washington's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of George Washington. to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh! Thank you! I'm sure this will prove useful. —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Will and Testament of George Washington 

message: :Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desertlet us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
:It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the 
::The idea that Washington was a major thinker on questions of religion, morality and society will not hold water. He held the conventional belief that religion and morality were good for a society--nothing very profound there. So there's not much reason to pay close attention to these beliefs--which are much closer to secularism in 2006 than to evangelicalism. He did not seem to believe in a personal God who answers prayers and the like. Rjensen 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anymouse?  Is that supposed to say "anonymous" or is that your Internet nickname? Whatever the case may be, though I may be young, I am a defender of America, for what she stands for, and for all that she was meant to be.  Yes, Patrick Henry didn't agree with many of the other Founding Fathers, but they did agree on the importance of religion in general.  Now for all of you anti-religious, humanist-pushing, left leaners, you always have to assume that when I say RELIGION I am implying CHRISTIANITY or some Evangelical position.  That is not what I am saying.  Anymouse obviously did not read what I posted above closely enough... The Founding Fathers rarely promoted any one religion due to their fear that later generations would use one religion to form a dictatorship in America later.  That ior Jesus Himself.   While I may be Christian, I am not implying that all the Founders were as well.  My point is this: the Founders were, overall, men with a strong belief in God (w  www.playboy.com    hich God that is ranges from the many Gods professed by Benjamin Franklin to the Christian God professed by John Adams), love of country, family, and their fellow man, and in one form or another, showed daily devotion to THEIR God.  Franklin believed in prayer, contrary to most strict deists. Jefferson loved most of what Jesus stood for but admittedly removed all miracles from the version of the Bible he wrote.  Adams was openly religious but was very critical of the organized Christianity of history.  Most of the Founding Fathers were raised in very religious homes.  Taking all of this into consideration, it is impossible to subscribe to the idea that these men were equivalent to today's Atheist.  While they may not have been orthodox Christians, they were men who had a deep respect for God and agreed that religion in general was good for society.  Franklin criticized Thomas Paine for "strik[ing] at the foundations of all religion" and stated, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it."  All the Founding Fathers viewed general religion positively yet they were disgusted by the horrors committed by organized religion.  Do not use this as part of you bag of tricks to call them Atheist or Deists.  This is simply dishonest.  And for your information, Anymouse or anonymous (whoever you are), Pat Robertson is the not on my list of role models.  Next time, please sign your comment so that your comments can be that much more credible. (Gaytan 17:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion, Morality, and Virtue in Farewell Address

message: http://www.westfordlegacy.com/
http://hnn.us/articles/10827.html
It is not proven but there is some (strong?) indication. Maybe like Jefferson? I think it should be mentioned in the article. Since I am not a native speaker I would be glad if someone could put it in!
:There was no DNA testing done so there is no scientific proof. It may or may not be true, but that's not for us to speculate. Personally, I don't think it should be mentioned in the article, but I understand that other people will probably conflict with my views (at least, I think so). If we were to include that information, what resources would we cite? Some woman's book that could possibly not be true? --Nishkid64 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone certainly could and should write an article on Washington's possible fathering of West Ford. Wiencek's book An Imperfect God also discusses the issue. (IIRC, he doesn't believe there's good evidence that Washington was Ford's father.) Unlike the Sally Hemings controversy, apparently few if any authorities believe the story is true, which should be made clear in the article. The story is too tangential to include in the main article on Washington — there's not enough room in one article to discuss everything — but an article on West Ford should be placed in :Category:George Washington, where those interested in reading everything Wikipedia has relating to Washington will be able to find it. • Kevin (complaints?) 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the story was passed down over 7 generations of Ford's descendants, and never written down or accompanied by any evidence. If true it would be one of the very few oral traditions that proved accurate over 200+ years--a remarkable event in its own right, especially since there is always a strong tendency of people to embelish their connections with the famous. Rjensen 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability, not truth.  --ElKevbo 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read several biographies of GW and many scholars feel that he was probably infertile.  He did not father any children with Martha.  The scholarly speculation is that this was a result of an illness in his youth.  --rogerd 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's presently covered in the Wikipedia article on George Washington. I'd provide you with a link, but you can probably find it from here. ;-) • Kevin (complaints?) 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Washington fathered a slave child? 

message: I've read several books on Washington and I've seen many conflicting views as to what he died from.
On Wikipedia it said he got a sore throat and cold which later progressed to something more severe that led to his death. In many book sources, I've read that he got a cold and quinsy, something similar to tonsilitis, but not the same as a sore throat. 
At the current time, I changed:
In 1799, Washington fell ill from a bad cold with a fever and a sore throat that turned into acute laryngitis and pneumonia
to...
In 1799, Washington fell ill from a bad cold with a fever and a throat infection called quinsy that turned into acute laryngitis and pneumonia
Even if you go on the article on quinsy on Wikipedia, it will tell you that Washington indeed had quinsy in the days before his death. The website it cites, , says that he died of quinsy. It seems there are so many conflicting views here. What do you guys personally think should be done? 
All these sources are giving different reasons for his death, and I'm not sure what everyone thinks about it.
--Nishkid64 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His death 

message: ===George Washington (36 votes, stays until September 7)===
:Nominated July 6, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by September 14, 2006
; Support:
# —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User already voted for this nomination (#9 above). –Dvandersluis 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AID]] votes 

message: :Nominated July 6, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by September 14, 2006
; Support:
# —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User already voted for this nomination (#9 above). –Dvandersluis 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[George Washington]] (36 votes, stays until [[September 7]])

message: Per the item listed in the To-do about potential conversions of certain lists into prose paragraphs, I scrolled through and found a list of wikilinks on GW's State of the Union speeches.  We only have articles on two of them. So, do we want to keep the list as is, with only the two bluelinks and the rest red, write stubs on the others, black the others, or convert the list into a prose paragraph with "See also"s at the top directing readers to the articles on the two speeches that we do have? -Fsotrain09 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of the Union addresses 

message: Is this encyclopedic?  To me, this section is an awful lot like those troublesome trivia sections.  If all concur, I vote to remove this section. PDXblazers 21:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'll start incorporating some of the information there into other section. --YankeeDoodle14 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I can't really find a way to get the information in other places, it'd probably be best just to remove the section. --YankeeDoodle14 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a mistake to remove the information because the mythology of George Washington is an important topic in its own right. Instead, the bullet points should be converted into a paragraph about Washington myths and placed in the "Legacy" section. • Kevin (complaints?) 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths and Misconceptions 

message: Can we discuss which citation style is more appropriate? I'm thinking CMS is more appropriate for history articles, since it's not based on scholarly papers only that have hard and well-known author/date sets. Harvard style is best for scientific articles.... plange 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone? plange 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard works for me. Rjensen 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you state why using a scientific style works best for a historical article? Especially one mixed with web references and the like? CMS style seems the best style and most used for historical articles on WP when dealing with references from multiple media. --plange 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a history journal, merely an encyclopedia. Harvard is somewhat better, in my opinion, because it is anchored in the bibliography, where full book details can be given. That I think is more useful to users, esp for longer articles like this one. Rjensen 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? So is CMS (anchored in bibliography).... See an example of what I mean here... How would you handle web references with Harvard citations? --plange 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CMS uses short titles after the first footnote entry, and for me it's a pain in history journals to find that first reference.  I would have it something like this:
# Kegley and Kegley 1:117
# Virkus, 887. 
#  Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission,  III, 309. 
# Kegley and Kegley 1:91
# Summers, 108-109. 
# Kegley, , 401.  Rjensen 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: ? You find it easier to find Kegley and Kegley, than when the name of the book is used too? Doesn't make sense to me, but also you haven't answered how you'd handle web refs in Harvard style... --plange 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes.  Is there a difference in web refs between Harvard and Chicago? Rjensen 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't actually think you could use web refs in Harvard -- hard to concisely fit a whole web ref in round brackets at the end of the paragraph... Also, does anyone else have an opinion on this? Hard to reach a consensus with only 2 people :-). --plange 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (I'm afraid that this won't be too useful) Citations are a mess in Wikipedia and until we come to a general consensus (which will never happen - it will have to be imposed and I don't think that would work well, either) I don't care what format an article uses as long as it (a) allows readers to quickly and easily identify the source(s) used and where information came from (particularly page numbers for printed books) and (b) used consistently.  The references in this particular article are messy (now that I really look at them) with some of it in the References section and some of it in the Notes section.  --ElKevbo 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My thinking is, that since it started out apparently as CMS, we should keep to the status quo for it and clean them up... --plange 23:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: This article is about 70 KB. Does anyone else think it's too long? Maurreen 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened the opening summary a bit. Many people only read this part and it has to be comprehensive. Rjensen 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely think one or both of these suggested daughter articles should be created. --Fsotrain09 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I spun out George Washington's early life, George Washington in the French and Indian War, and George Washington and religion. Will see about shortening those sections and spinning out George Washington between the wars. Maurreen 23:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone who knows more than I do could trim the section on the French and Indian War. Maurreen 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try trimming down the section on the French and Indian War. At the moment, the article is 68 KB, but still seems too long as a whole. --Nishkid64 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I trimmed the early life a bit. The article is not too long--readers expect suitable coverage of one of the most important people in the history of the Americas. Rjensen 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess someone else decided to trim down the French and Indian War section. The article is now 54 KB long. --Nishkid64 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: Should we shorten the opening summary any more than it had been? Right now, though not as long as it was, it still seems a bit crammed with info. For the summary we should probably try to simply get a few things about:
*His leadership as commander-in-chief during the Revolution
*His role as president of both the Constitutional Convention and first president of the nation.
*His importance in American culture.
However for the sake of space we may want to remove such things as the Frech and Indian War details, his motivations behind some things, and other excessive details which are already mentioned elsewhere. --YankeeDoodle14 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no reason to "save space" in the summary, which is very concise and tightly written. Rjensen 19:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just a suggestion. --YankeeDoodle14 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be interested to know if the phrase "Father of his Country" is accurate reportage. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22 4  September 2006 (GMT).
**That kind of summery is about what I had in mind before. I do think that father of his country is an accurate description. --YankeeDoodle14 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening summary 

message: Was George Washington not a member of the freemasons?  In fact, I'm pretty sure he was, and that so being, his religious beliefs were more inclined to those of the masons, and not the church of england.  or other protestant faiths.  It seems like Washington...along with many others...is getting an image makeover courtesty of a few religious conservatives.  Anyways...it just seems ironic that there is a large section on his religious beliefs yet no mention of hte fact that he was a freemason.  And then at the end of the article there is a tiny link provided on Freemasonry.
:* As a matter of fact, George Washington was a member of the Freemasons. 24.88.85.195 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a member of the Freemasons. The problem with mentioning it more clearly in the article is that his own beliefs, as per Flexner, were what would today be called deistic, which is not the connotation the word has today. And the article is already too long to make the added length resulting from clarification problematic. When the article is "downsized" enough, then there will be the room required to clarify this issue. But, as it stands, simple inclusion of his membership in the Freemasons, without clarification, might be more misleading than the "benign neglect" Freemasonry currently suffers in the article. Badbilltucker 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemason? 

message: The George Washington's presidency article just duplicates a lot of material that already exists on this page, in fact the person who created it admits that they just cut and paste a whole chunk of text from this article. Instead it would make more sense to add the extra material to this article, which is how the articles for other presidents are done. Richard75 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [George Washington's presidency] to here 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of George Washington]] 

message: This article states that GW refused his salary. While it is true that he tried to do so, Congress insisted he take it and he relented. It would have set a dangerous precedent had he not been paid. The framers did not want future presidents to come from only the pool of citizenry that could afford to do the work without pay.
See http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/govern.html for confirmation.
Cbsteven 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential salary 

message: Just a quick note to let ya'll know that I've requested this article be semi-protected.  A quick glance at the history shows that we're spending most of our time reverting vandalism, particularly from anonymous editors.  --ElKevbo 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objection to me (or anyone else) requesting this page be unprotected?  It's been semi-protected for over a week now and I'd like to see if we can unprotect it without placing too much of a burden on editors to keep track of and revert vandalism.  --ElKevbo 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection requested

message: Some fascinating facts about his ancestry:
: Lawrence Washington (1602-1655)
Worth a link ?
Wikigreetings,
: (Lunarian 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry

message: It should be noted that Washington is officially recorded as the first president of the United States. Prior to the passage of the United States Constitution, the name of the similar office was President of the Continental Congress. Badbilltucker 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a serious request for a cite on this? The numbering of our presidents is based on this, and is something every American schoolkid knows. Am I missing something? --plange 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was just responding to a note on the page's history about someone evidently disputing GW's status as the first President. Badbilltucker 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I knew you weren't asking for it and that you were responding to it, I was just adding my voice to wondering why that person added the cite, sorry I was unclear :-) --plange 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited a comment to note that Samuel Huntington was the first President of the United States (title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled") but the GW is widely regarded as the First President of the U.S. as he was elected under the current constitution. The edit is made only for accuracy but is donewith great deference to Mr. Washington and tries not to diminish his legacy.Dereks1x 02:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First President 

message: Would it be acceptable to add the George Washington Bridge under "Monuments/Memorials."  It is a pretty major structure to be named after and thus should probably be noted.
:In my opinion, no.  It is listed in List of places named for George Washington, which is referenced in this article.  Yes, it is a major landmark, but so are many others.  --rogerd 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Washington Bridge 

message: Question.Why did george washington join the patriots? Djf2014 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Maybe the King stuff should be addressed in the Myths section. I remember hearing in school that there was support for making Washington the King of the US and he refused. It does sound like a myth. Was there really an effort to make him king? --Gbleem 01:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Washington 

message: There have been several spawn off articles from the main page, and several new sections. My question is, has it gone too far? It's one thing to create sub-articles for things such as trivia, another to have new articles things such as Washington's life between the wars. It doesn't seem to be a common practice for other historical figures. While Washington and the Revolution has its own page, Lincoln does not have a similar one for the Civil War. Perhaps the need to spawn off new articles is just a result of too much information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. We could easily trim down the size of many of the sections.
Some of the current sections we have also appear (at least to me) to be silly. Why does this article have a section about Washington's interest in sport? It couldn't be added to some other section, or better yet, removed from the overpopulated article? I've had my say, what about everyone else? YankeeDoodle14 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much? 

message: I was wondering if anyone else thought that the following was an interesting trivia point worthwhile of inclusion.  As can be seen on the link attached, Princess Diana was actually a relative of President Washington .  I think this would be an interesting point to include in the article, but as it wasn't already there.  Also, as stated here  President Bush is the 14th cousin of the Queen of England, so that would in some way relate Washington and Bush...  It's almost sounds to wacky to be true. Nicwright 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the opening section of Old Style and New Style dates.  JackofOz 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Why don't you just merge all the spinoffs so the article will be complete? It's so inpractical to click something else to see the Early Life, etc. --Arnold Go 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... Look at all the spinoffs, put them all together on a new sandbox page, & see how big it'd be...?-) Check the history of the main article & wikipolicy too, & you'll see the page was getting way to large. Grye 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Spinoffs? 

message: Washington did send a ship to seize gunpowder on Bermuda but it had already been removed so the source was wrong  and no need for mention in this long article on GW. Rjensen 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bermuda story 

message: The powder was removed from the magazine at Washington's request, placed on an American vessel off Tobacco Bay, and delivered to the Continental Army. As Washington promised, the Continental Congress authorised Bermudians to trade with Americans (although it remained illegal from a Bermudian standpoint). This is history as recorded in numerous sources and your repeated removing of the text I consider vandalism.
Aodhdubh 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a WP:N and WP:V source? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington did send captain Whipple but he found no gunpowder. See Whipple's letter online at  also look at this report: "But it was too late; he reached Bermuda and put in at the west end of the island. The inhabitants ...informed him that they had assisted in removing the powder, which was made known to General Gage, and he had sent a sloop of war to the island. They professed themselves hearty friends to the American cause. Captain Whipple being defeated in the object of his voyage returned to Providence." at , Or try this quote: "Soon after this, Captain Whipple returned from Bermuda, where he had been well received by the people, but found no powder." from .  The point is that Washington's efforts did not produce gunpowder and so the sources/myth used are wrong -- and the story is pretty trivial. The vast bulk of gunpowder came from sources in the 13 colonies and especially France, as Dickinson proved in 1925. Rjensen 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bermuda Story