Jump to content

Talk:George Bush (pioneer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscegenation And Backwards Projection

[edit]

"Pennsylvania did not repeal its anti-miscegenation law until 1780, suggesting that" - no source for this opinion is given.

George Washington Bush died in April 1865. How can he be subject to laws based on a word and an idea not coined until 16 months before his death? This is projecting the history of the 20th and 19th century back to previous ages.

The Wiktionary history of the idea of miscenation: "Reportedly coined in an anonymous pamphlet printed in New York City in December 1863, entitled Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro.[1] Replaced previous amalgamation, from metallurgy. See further discussion. " https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miscegenation 83.84.100.133 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer?

[edit]

Since this man was born in 1779, after 1776, how can he be called a pioneer? One thinks of pioneers as early settlers like those that came on the Mayflower. (EnochBethany (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No, I think you're confusing that with Pilgrims. Pioneers are just people that travel to and settle a place before a major migration of a like people group. See [1] --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GWB was of African, not Asian, descent.

[edit]

GWB is of African descent; virtually every secondary source states this. GWB's "father, Matthew Bush, had been an African American born in India."[2] So GWB is not Indian, though there is an Indian connection. It's a little confusing, I know, but the upshot is: he's (part) black, not Indian.

209.91.43.105 has over the past three months taken an obsession to editing away any African-American references to GWB and reinserting Indian references to him, despite virtually EVERY source cited stating that he is, in fact, of black and not Indian descent. And no, that doesn't need to be a capital-B "Black". I'm asking 209.91.43.105 to please cease and desist from his vandalism-style editing and please respect what the secondary sources say rather than constantly tweaking the article to say what he wants to. Let's keep it real, folks. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I would be *thrilled* if anyone could find a source stating that GWB is of Indian descent; I just want to stick to the sources, thanks. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the confusion is in part because Matthew Bush, father of GWB, was probably of African heritage born in India. To be accurate Matthew Bush should be called an African-Indian -- meaning from the Asian subcontinent of India -- just as people in the United States whose heritage is African but birthplace is the U.S. are African-Americans. African-American has become a sloppy term, so that blacks from all over the world sometimes get called African-Americans, a ridiculous title for man born and raised in India -- or likewise Canada or Germany or anywhere but the U.S. -- GeeBee60 (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Speaking of whitewashing history: this is what made it to Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/George_Washington_Bush.jpg

And this is an actual photograph. You decide whether George Washington Bush was 'from India' or any such weaselwords: https://oregonhumanities.org/rll/magazine/skin-summer-2013/dangerous-subjects/ https://ohm-media.s3.amazonaws.com/article_images/2017/dangerous-subjects.jpg

83.84.100.133 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

[edit]

Reverted my reversion about the number of George's sons; turns out that while most sources record only three, there are indeed some sources that mention as many as six. Laodah 23:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Longstanding Published Confusion between George Bush - Tumwater, WA pioneer, and George Washington - Centralia, WA pioneer

[edit]

For decades Tumwater, WA pioneer George Bush has been confused with another WA State African American pioneer, George Washington, founder of Centralia, WA. Countless citations repeat this misinformation. Both these pioneers deserve the historical record set straight! The drawing previously posted on this page (and frequently published as only known image of George Bush) has also been disproven as inaccurate for George Bush (and bears a similarity to George Washington of Centralia). I only wish I knew how to correct this article title - this is my first Wikipedia post. Can anybody help? Thanks! - DD

This is correct according to the most recent historical opinion. George Bush is the founder of the first non indigenous American Settlement in Washington state. He did not have middle name of Washington. He is often confused with another Black pioneer, George Washington who founded Centralia, Washington. Also it is correct that there is no known image or photograph of George Bush. Seekfacts (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to George Bush (pioneer). (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


George Washington Bush → George Bush (pioneer) – Recent scholarship has established that George Bush, early pioneer in what became Washington State, did not have a middle name. It is believed that the use of “Washington” as his middle name may be due to confusion with another early Black pioneer named “George Washington”. But these are not the same people. Although many sources continue to refer to George Washington Bush, reliable sources such as Blackpast.org, now use the correct name George Bush. A second modern source is "George Bush of Tumwater: Founder of the First American Colony on Puget Sound" Columbia Magazine, Winter 1994-95: Vol. 8, No. 4. Original primary sources that I am aware of always refer to "George Bush". These include the special act of the US Congress (HR 707, adopted January 1855) granting ownership of Mr. Bush's land claim ("Be it enacted... that the claim of George Bush...");a legal notice published by Mr. Bush in the Daily Olympian on April 21, 1855 naming his wife Isabella as executor of their estate; entries in 3 United States census records for 1830, 1850, and 1860 using the name George Bush, an the original headstone for Mr. Bush's grave in Pioneer Cemetery, Tumwater, Washington. In addition, while preparing a proposal for a permanent memorial to George Bush in Washington State, I and my collaborator received direction from multiple scholars of pacific northwest African-American history that the correct name is George Bush. These include Dr. Quintard Taylor of the University of Washington, Dr. Darrel Milner, Portland State University, Jennifer Kilmer, Director of the Washington State Historical Society, and Don Trosper of the Olympia Tumwater Foundation. This proposed change is consistent with Wikipedia’s policy on the naming of articles and disambiguation. Johnosaunders (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Looking over the sources, he seems to be referred to most often as "George Washington Bush" or "George W. Bush". Whether or not Washington was actually his middle name, if this is how he is commonly referred to in reliable sources, then that is what the article title should remain per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm normally all for taking the approach of deferring to common usage in reliable sources, but in the case of corrections for an inaccuracy a change is preferable. If it seems like the newer discovery is in dispute it would be one thing, but from what I can find that is not the case. I always find it awkward when our articles have to basically say "the name we have this page at is incorrect."--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight oppose - you're going to need to actually cite sources and publish those sources first. We can't just take your word for it that the director of the Washington State Historical Society agrees with you Red Slash 21:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with strong oppose. It's been weeks and no sources have been provided. Hello, are we just going to ignore WP:V? This one random dude blindly asserts that "but so-and-so says his name wasn't George Washington Bush", cites literally no verifiable source, and we are supposed to just accept this as gospel? I guarantee you that this is going straight to WP:MRV if this is moved. Verifiability is a thing, and this move request lacks it. You are asking Wikipedia to literally rewrite history to change his name--I thought we didn't do WP:Original research here. Red Slash 05:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a new user, and he may not be aware of how to do it. Perhaps he should be reached out to. (Although keep in mind we're not exactly changing his name, just the article title. I expect the ambiguity around his name is to remain in the article text.) Walrasiad (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment Went to try looking for primary sources that might disprove the RM, but could not really find any. Out of curiosity, decided to go verify that HR document, and it is true it only says "George Bush" (10 Stat 848). It cites a preceding memorial from Washington Territory assembly, passed March 17, 1854, which I found in the Assembly's journal (1854 p.187), which indeed also only says "George Bush" (indeed, he is mentioned three times in the Assembly journal, p.20, p.59, p.187, and always only "George Bush"). Admittedly this could be happenstance around the name chosen in the memorial, and just repeated again.
The most detailed family memoir I could find gives the name as "George Bush" in Blankenship (1914, p.320) (who, perhaps significantly, gives middle names for Bush's kids (e.g. p.252), but none for George himself). Bonney (1923 p.120) reports a memorial erected in 1916 with a plaque of the pioneers inscribed with "George Bush" and the names (& middle names) of his children (as in Blankenship). But the name suddenly transitions to "George Washington Bush" in Fred Lockley (1916, p.111). Lockley attributes it to John Minto, but a peek into Minto's "Reminiscences" Oregon Historical Quarterly (1901, p.142), Minto only says "G.W. Bush" . So this is the earliest I could find. Is Lockley responsible for the new name?
Everything before Lockley (1916) seems pretty relentlessly "George Bush" (e.g. Henry (1867, p.68); Evans (1886, p.90) Evans (1889, p.267); Grant (1891 p.37), Prosser (1903, p.128), Meeker (1905, p.82), The Coast (1908 p.144), Snowden (1909, v.2, p.442; v.3 p.37, p.242) Ayer (1916, p.40). It is really only after Lockley (1916), and really only some time after, in the 1930s-40s, that we begin to see "George W. Bush" or "George Washington Bush" in print. (e.g. we still see plain "George Bush" in Hantford (1924 p.62, etc.)
On a possible source of confusion see "George Washington" (in Simmons party) and "George Bush" (in own party) in the pioneers list given in Snowden (1909, v.2 p.431).
Anyway, not to be taken as evidence of anything for the RM, but just a curiosity, and given that I dug up the links, I might as well share them. I just can't find primary evidence to disprove that it wasn't an error. So I don't have grounds to oppose and defer to the modern scholars.
However, I don't particularly like "(Black pioneer)" as a disambiguator. I would much prefer simply "George Bush (pioneer)". I am tempted to also suggest "George (Washington) Bush" simply because of the longevity of the mistake and retaining recognizability, but that might be too unorthodox for a Wikipedia article title.Walrasiad (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree that name should be George Bush. The middle name Washington is thought to be inaccurate and due to confusion with another important Black pioneer who founded Centralia, Washington, George Washington. I would be in favor of George Bush, Black pioneer, as his remarkable story including his journey to the Northwest is so tied to the discrimination he experienced as a man of African descent. Seekfacts (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the only purpose of a disambiguator is to distinguish between people of the same name, not to celebrate someone's achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is some concern by some that middle name "Washington" is "inaccurate". This is a misunderstanding of what is a name. See Name#Personal_name. A name is what names someone. Middle names often can be acquired later in life, reflecting something about the person. That appears to be exactly the case here. That does not stop "Washington" having been used as his middle name. It doesn't matter that his mother didn't give him that name at birth, or that it is not on a birth certificate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe true. But evidence so far indicates it wasn't. Again, in reviews of his family, he is listed without a middle name while his children are listed with both first & middle names - if he had acquired a middle name "later in life", as you suggest, surely it would be given there, alongside those of his children, no? Evidence all seems to point to an error first made by an author more than a half-century after his death - particularly since the very source he cites doesn't give it as "Washington", but he went ahead and wrote it anyway. It all points to a mistake. Walrasiad (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am feeling persuaded that "Washington" could be a nickname, or an anachronistic name, or a single source invention.
OPPOSE "George Bush (black pioneer)", let's not editorise "black" as a desciptor.
CONSIDER "George Bush (Washington pioneer)"; consistent with the other Washington pioneer, noting that history abounds with pioneers, and because "Washington" in the title is good for recognizability noting many sources use this name. This format does not implicitly assert that he was ever known in his lifetime by the name Washington. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my reading. My reading is that there is a lack of evidence of him being associated with the name in his lifetime. A lack of evidence either way. An adult-life acquired name would be known to everyone, but possibly never recorded in a formal way. We don't know, because social media records don't exist. What we do know is that later sources connect him to the name. These later sources matter, in the absence of better sources, Wikipedia should follow the best sources. Later sources can't be assumed to have made up information, later sources are likely to have drawn on oral records. A note about the first recorded use the name might be a good idea, but stripping the name entirely is to make a presumption based on missing evidence. History records him as having the name "Washington", and so Wikipedia should too, with a note added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, See WP:COMMONNAME where it says "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Zoozaz1 talk 04:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walrasiad, Zoozaz1, I'm not sure that reliable sources have determined that the name is inaccurate, but Walrasiad's recent posts are pushing me to thinking the name is probably not adult-acquired, but anachronistic; acquired long after death. Is an anachronistic name an inaccurate name? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I would think so. Zoozaz1 talk 12:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the case is a bit weaker than that. It's not "later sources", it's one source only - Fred Lockley in 1916. I found twelve sources for "George Bush" within his lifetime and the half-century afterwards. And only one, Lockley, uses "George Washington Bush" and no one else. More to the point, he doesn't say he relied on oral sources. Lockley says quite explicitly he got it from Minto's memoir. But when you check his source, it doesn't say what he claims it says. Minto's memoir doesn't mention "Washington", just the initials "G.W." (BTW, Minto is the only one to insert a middle "W" initial - and Minto's memoir, let me note, was recited when he was 92 years old). If Lockley had other sources, he doesn't mention them.
To me it sounds like Minto (or his transcriber or printer) inserted "W", fifteen years later Lockley assumed it meant "Washington". And a couple of more decades down the line, everyone just picked it up from Lockley, and have been repeating it ever since, assuming it was correct, without going back to check his source, or any other sources. Just an unfortunate case of repeating an error. Unfortunately, such mistakes are not as rare as you think.
Now, I can't guarantee it is an error. It could, by chance, be his true middle name. But whether it is or it isn't, that should be left to the article text to explain the ambiguity in the name, rather than be boldly advertised in the article title. "George Bush (pioneer)" is certainly a correct title regardless of whether Washington was actually his middle name or not. By contrast leaving the title "George Washington Bush", is perpetuating a very high probability of mistake in the title. Weighing a certainty against a doubt, I would support the title change. Walrasiad (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support change to George Bush (pioneer) per Walrasiad's exhaustive search above. Common sense trumps common name in these circumstances. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alternate suggestion

[edit]

relisting comment There are few comments above supporting an alternate title: George Bush (pioneer). The nominator has also agreed to the alternate title on my talk page, I am neutral about everything; and I would consider myself as uninvolved. Pinging everyone who participated: @Rreagan007, Yaksar, Red Slash, Walrasiad, Necrothesp, Srnec, Seekfacts, SmokeyJoe, Zoozaz1, and Johnosaunders: If I missed someone, please ping them. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support change to George Bush (pioneer) per Walrasiad. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Bush_(pioneer)&oldid=1195377291"