Talk:Washington Crossing the Delaware
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Duplicates
Washington Crossing the Delaware and Washington's crossing of the Delaware cover the same topic and should be merged. Any suggestions on which should be the main? --Yukata Ninja 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Washington's crossing of the Delaware discusses the historical event that took place in 1776. Washington Crossing the Delaware discusses the famous painting illustrating the event, made in 1851, and which has it's own history as a work of art. These can in no way be considered the same topic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Removed --Yukata Ninja 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Bought by John F. Kennedy"
Before I changed it, the article stated:
- After changing ownership several times, it was finally obtained by John F. Kennedy, who donated it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
This is plainly false, and Wikipedia promulgating this falsehood is partly my fault, since I wrote the first revision of this article and might have anticipated the edit. That revision said:
- After changing ownership several times, it was finally obtained by John S. Kennedy, who donated it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Mind you, "John S. Kennedy" is not a typo! The painting was donated by this man in 1897[1], but I couldn't find additional information on him and so left it at that.
The right thing to do would probably have been not to mention him at all, or to provide a link like the one I just mentioned. I don't think the rather enigmatic "John S. Kennedy" really needs to be mentioned here, especially since it's likely to inspire future generations of "correctors" who will drag in poor JFK. With that in mind, I've removed the name of the contributor. JRM · Talk 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not original idea for painting.
I heard somwhere that the original idea for this painting was NOT of washington crossing the delaware, but it was changed to that. The only reason washington is standing up is because that was the only place to add him into the painting. Is this true? 68.4.76.39 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I ever heard. Various details of the composition militate against such an interpretation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

