Talk:George Washington/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Uncritical Presentation of a Depiction of George Washington with Anachronistic Flag

Central argument as of 2018/03/24: I'm against keeping this painting in a history section about Washington without some kind of notation of the anachronistic nature of this flag, since the painting portrays events from 1776 and this flag did not exist until 1792- maybe the painting should be moved to a section about culturally significant depictions of Washington. History is about what happened, and this event did not happen- it's good art and it's a painting that's important in the way we understand Washington, but why uncritically include a painting with an obvious anachronism in a section about history? This is wikipedia, not a 1950's history textbook. It gives casual readers the impression that the USA used this flag during the Revolutionary war, which is apparently just wrong, wrong, wrong: the war ended in 1783, and the flag with 13 stars in a circle didn't exist until 1792 according to: Artistic license is about judging the merits of a piece of art, not judging whether a piece of art should be included in an article about history that actually happened. Why are we discussing artistic license in a section that is describing historical events? tl;dr: Ahistorical painting is ahistorical- No hate against Washington. Thanks for reading. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The well-known painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware makes anachronistic use of the Betsy Ross flag. Looking at that painting, you might get the impression that the flag with the thirteen stars in a circle that didn't exist until 1792 existed in 1776. (see the Betsy Ross Flag page- Cooper, Grace Rogers (1973). Thirteen-Star Flags. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 11.)

I think that because the painting is so famous, there's no possible way we can avoid putting this flag on the page. But we should say something about the flag issue, because the anachronistic use of the flag is 100% myth-making about the origin of the United States. Uncritically presenting a non-historically-based painting in an environment with accepted and sourced facts as if George Washington used this flag when he crossed the Delaware is misleading, and that's deeply wrong. (This is all based on the information as based on the 'Cooper, Grace Rogers (1973). Thirteen-Star Flags. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 11.' source)

This is what I have proposed:--->

Washington Crossing the Delaware, December 25, 1776, by Emanuel Leutze, 1851 (with anachronistic use of the Betsy Ross flag which did not exist at that time)

There may be a better way to say what I'm saying here, and if there is, please let me know. If in the end we can't decide on a statement that mentions this problem so that people aren't misled into believing a mistaken understanding of the evolution of the US flag, then I recommend removing the painting from the page entirely.

This is about facts only: if you have any evidence that there was a flag like this in 1776, or if the source I'm giving is mistaken, let me know. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is about George Washington. The painting is a famous depiction of George Washington. It might also depict some nautical inaccuracies in the boat that he's riding in, or perhaps a soldier is holding an inaccurately depicted weapon, or maybe there weren't any icebergs floating around--all of those points are interesting to bring out in the relevant article. This is not the relevant article.

Also, it's fine for you to propose this question here and to open it to discussion--but please refrain from forcing your views into the article without any consensus by repeatedly reverting the changes of others, as you have now done three times. —Dilidor (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The article IS about George Washington. The painting IS a famous depiction of George Washington. It might also depict some nautical inaccuracies in the boat that he's riding in, or perhaps a soldier is holding an inaccurately depicted weapon, or maybe there weren't any icebergs floating around--all of those points are interesting to bring out in the relevant article.

BUT This IS relevant to the article. Because this painting IS promoting a false understanding of the history of the United States. That's something way different from a nautical inaccuracy. It IS mythologizing.

Also, it IS fine for you to propose this question here and to open it to discussion--but please refrain from forcing YOUR views into the article without any consensus by repeatedly reverting the changes of others, as you have now done three times. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, you proposed a change to the article and Dilidor has disputed your edit. It is up to you to gain consensus for removal of the image, and in the interim the status ante should remain in place. This painting is clearly associated with the topic of the section. Perhaps a note could be added to point out any inaccuracies, citing the source you noted. But removal of the image without allowing discussion first is improper and unnecessary. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. If you look at the Betsy Ross flag page, you'll see that there are A LOT of myths about the early history of the flag. In my view, this painting contributes to a mistaken impression of the history of the flag, ie that in 1776 the flag was already in existence and being used by Washington when he crossed the Delaware. The truth is that this beautiful, wonderful painting has elements of 19th century mythmaking which make it deceptive to a modern audience. Some kind of note needs to be made to correct this impression, otherwise I would feel that we really are peddling myth on wikipedia. This is based on the source cited above from the Simthsonian Institution which supposedly says that this flag design did not exist until 1792. After my first edit was reverted, my only solution was to boldy go in and delete the picture, because it that depiction is spreading a mistaken understanding of the history of the US flag (according to the source cited). Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made the following edit to correct for what I see as the uncritical presentation of an anachronistic usage of the flag in the painting as if it were possible to have happened, leading directly to a misunderstanding of the history of the origin of the flag of the United States. Proposed edit:

Washington Crossing the Delaware, December 25, 1776, by Emanuel Leutze, 1851 (The first documented usage of this flag was in 1792.)

Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative: This looks fine except that source you cite, here, does not appear to discuss this painting. I see some discussion of paintings of Washington on page 9, but not on page 11. Please verify this is the source you are referring to, because it does not appear to support the note you added. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for putting in the leg work to find that source! The 'earliest known use in 1792' argument seems to appear on page 23 of the pdf (which is numbered on the page itself as page 11) as part of the "Summary of Eighteenth-Century Flag Design" table. Although there were already 14 states by that year, no new flag was created until 1794. (pdf pg. 44) It seems like a painting of Washington by John Trumbull (pdf pg. 21) is apparently the first documented instance of a circular configuration for a thirteen star US flag. Very interesting stuff. Please tell me if you are reading that page the way I am-

Based on looking at this link, I feel somewhat more confident that some scholars would say that this painting is using an anachronistic flag design in the portrayal of the events in 1776. Since the central point of the painting seems to be about portraying George Washington in a heroic light (and not about the minor nautical problems of the boat), this seems to qualify to me as spreading an a-historical view on the origins of the US Flag: it's a highly-successful mythological (even propagandistic?) painting. To quote another president, "Sad!" To my eyes, if there was no flag like that in 1776, then this paining seems like a 19th century mythological portrayal of Washington: we want him to have used the circularly-configured 13 star banner in 1776, so we will paint him that way. We should tell readers (aka. all the children in the USA and the world who read this article to get a grasp on the basics of Washington) that there is a major problem with this painting rather than present the painting uncritically as if that flag existed in 1776, distorting people's understanding of the origin of the flag, which is apparently way, way more complicated than I ever knew. Let me know what you think. I'm only interested pursuing and letting people know the facts. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative: Please review the Wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources. Your analysis of what scholars would conclude is original research and not appropriate for addition here. You will need to find a source that discusses the flag in regards to this painting. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty satisfied with the current short statement and citation as given on the page at this time. Although famous and beloved, the painting seems to be contributing to a misunderstanding of the history of the US Flag, and I'm glad we are letting readers know about this serious flaw up front rather than presenting it uncritically as if this is a scene that could have happened in reality, which it (apparently) couldn't have. I added in the url. I don't know how to link the author's page properly. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative: As I stated in the previous message, your analysis is original research. The source you cite does not discuss this painting and therefore does not support this claim. Unless you find a source directly discussing this issue, the statement needs to be removed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the consensus here is that the "Betsy Ross flag" material constitutes original research and is out of place in this article. I have, therefore, removed it. —Dilidor (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We already have a detailed article on the Flag of the United States, a Timeline of the flag of the United States, and the Grand Union Flag which was in use in 1776. Any one interested in vexillology can read these. By the way, the Grand Union Flag had "Thirteen horizontal stripes alternating red and white", it just did not have stars. It is considered a variant of the traditional Flag of the East India Company: "a red and white striped ensign with the flag of England in canton." Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If the statement can not be included, then the painting ABSOLUTELY　MUST be removed. The events of the painting did not happen in human history and it therefore doesn't make sense to include it in George Washington's history.Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Almost every single mezzotint or engraving or sketch of the battlefields and of Washington's birthplace and so on and so on are anachronistic. Because the artists weren't usually present and sometimes they hadn't even visited the place, these artistic renderings were almost always made after the fact, to illustrate a story in a book or to put a picture in a newspaper etc, That "birthplace of Washington" engraving? Done in 1856, long after the actual house that Washington was born in had burned to the ground. That "Night Council at Fort Necessity"? Do you actually think there was an artist who drew them as they stood while the French were plotting their revenge for the killings of Jumonville and his men? No, it's an artist's interpretation of the events - just as "Washington Crossing the Delaware" is an interpretation of that particular river crossing. Geographyinitiative - Rather than a cycle of delete/restore/edit/restore/delete, your concerns about this issue would be better served by opening a WP:RFC so an editorial consensus could then be established. Deleting this illustration while a discussion in ongoing on this article's talkpage goes against Wikipedia good practices and does nothing to establish a consensus. Shearonink (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Shearonink is quite right. Painters -- like song writers, sculptors, poets and and other artists creating memories of historic events are always allowed artistic license--the artistic achievements are important because of successful public response as in this case. We leave it to professional historians to sweat the small details. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time. But I believe that the difference between 1) granting artistic license with the architectural features of a building Washington lived in and 2) endorsing the employment of an anachronistic flag in a painting that is often cited as a heroic image of Washington is, to quote a later president, "HUGE". Based on what I understand from the scholarship cited above, to me this painting is now like a painting of Mao Zedong carrying the current Chinese flag while fording the Yangtze River on the Long March: inaccurate at best. From my perspective, those in favor of keeping the painting in this article without a statement about the anachronistic use of a flag are accidentally arguing for confusing readers about the history of that flag, which we have determined (seemingly beyond a shadow of doubt) didn't exist at that time. You may say, "people should look at things with a critical eye" or what have you, but I really think we are misleading the millions of children who read the article and see that picture into thinking that the people who edit wikipedia really believe Washington carried the Betsy Ross flag across the Delaware in 1776. It's a beautiful painting, but it contains what is essentially a lie, or a major mistake at best. If Washington was editing Wikipedia, I'm sure he would agree with me- I seem to remember reliable sources quoting him saying "I can not tell a lie" :P That's just my two cents! I can't overpower the will of all the rest of wikipedia, but just know you are supporting confusing children. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think critics should look at the Purdue story on this issue at: http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/purduetoday/didyouknow/2014/Q1/did-you-know-washington-crossing-the-delaware-painting.html they mention the flag issue and the wrong boat----perhaps the artist should have painted them walking across the water because he did not know what boat was used. The US flag was not nearly so important during the Revolution (or in 1850s) as it became after Ft Sumter in 1861. Before then it was given little attention as a minor object. Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

(Response to the immediately preceding comment: the flag may not have been important then, but I would have to say that the flag is relatively important now)

"That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is." I feel that the section is biased. Call me crazy, but I really think that uncritically including a portrait with an anachronisticly used flag doesn't reflect a neutral point of view. According to the source cited in the talk page, the first documented US flag with a circular configuration of 13 stars was from 1792. How can this section be considered neutral if it includes a painting of 1776 which includes a flag heavily associated with American patriotism that didn't actually exist until 1792? As much as we may want to believe that this flag could have existed in 1776, and that Washington unfurled it as he crossed the Delaware while dodging the icebergs in an impossibly tiny boat, but the people who checked it said this flag didn't exist until 1792- I think we must say something about that or remove the biased painting. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

disruptive editing of a major Wiki article in defiance of consensus on talk page is a serious offense. please stop b efore you get banned. 09:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My wikipedia account is worth nothing; the truth is what matters. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Artistic license is something you talk about when you are discussing the merits of piece of art, not a when you are discussing the merits of a description of historical events. How can the consensus be established when the history of George Washington includes a painting in which he is standing next to an obviously anachronistic flag (see the scholarly sources I mentioned). Wikipedia is about giving people an idea of the historical truth: why bother with a painting where we have to go out of our way to wedge it in under the name of so-called artistic license? Washington didn't have this flag at that time, period. PERIOD. There is obviously something wrong with this painting, otherwise I would have been banned a long time ago for vandalism. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean a dispute among editors--it means a dispute among published reliable sources, and that is not at issue here. WP:NPOV = a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Rjensen (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If not NPOV, then what is the appropriate label? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I will give up if you can link me to one other wikipedia article 1) discussing the historical events of the life of a historical figure where 2) that person is standing next to a flag that is 3) proven to be anachronistic, and 4) there is no notation of the fact that the flag is anachronistic. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why endlessly batter me over the head with nonsense about 'consensus' for the purpose of mindlessly protecting an obvious anachronism? The consensus means nothing if the consensus is 100% wrong. Everyone who opposes my deleting the picture answer this question: Given that the circular 13-star US flag did not exist until 1792 and that the event that is depicted in this painting occurred in 1776, would George Washington himself have said that this event actually happened as depicted in this painting? I imagine that George Washington would answer that the event as depicted in this painting did not happen (because of the flag problem especially). After all, George Washington 'can't tell a lie'. Just like the cherry tree story, this painting is a mistake that tarnishes Washington's memory and has nothing to do with fact. Why tarnish the good name of Wikipedia by supporting retention of a historically anachronistic painting in amongst a section about the historical facts of Washington's military career? Would you want a painting of you to be included on your page if it included blatantly anachronistic elements? Why keep supporting this mistake/lie? Maybe it should be included in a gallery of culturally significant depictions of Washington, but definitely not in the history section. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense? About Consensus? It's only a long-standing Wikipedia policy... Shearonink (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative: 1) Perhaps instead of engaging in this fruitless argument, you could do some research and find a reliable source that supports your assertion. It shouldn't be so hard. Rjensen cited an article above and surely there are others. 2) As mentioned above, paintings often have anachronistic elements. One quick search turned up this Caravaggio review stating, "His paintings were also full of anachronisms: subjects and models for historical pieces would frequently be depicted wearing modern (17th century) clothes." Many of those paintings are posted on WP, on the Caravaggio article and elsewhere. I venture that few readers are examining paintings posted here expecting exact accuracy, because as stated above, historical paintings often cannot possibly be precise. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Geographyinitiative - Open an RFC. Please. Solving this issue would be better served if you open a Request for Comment. Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to open a Request for Comment. Crossing the Delaware occurred December 25–26, 1776. A flag with 13 stars was not the flag of the USA until June 14, 1777. The existence of a flag with 13 stars in a circle is not documented until 1792. A painting from 1776 with a flag with 13 stars in a circle can not be included in a section about human history- put it in the historical fiction section or culturally significant section maybe. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

? It's not hard - go look up the procedure at WP:RFC. Nevermind, I'll do it for the sake of hopefully resolving this ongoing content-dispute. Look down the page. Shearonink (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your help in opening this up. I know I have an extreme minority opinion about this issue, but I feel certain that this is an important issue: a flag that didn't exist until 1792 is included in a painting of events from 1776. That's why I deeply feel that this painting should not be included in a section about the history of George Washington's life. What I've come to realize is that the painting should probably be moved somewhere else- this painting is inappropriate for a history section, and more appropriate for a section about culturally significant depictions of Washington. But if no move can be made, I think the painting should be deleted or some kind of note should probably be made so that people know that the painting diverges from the historical events in a significant way. Sorry for all the trouble I am causing you all. Thanks for your time and energy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"His paintings were also full of anachronisms: subjects and models for historical pieces would frequently be depicted wearing modern (17th century) clothes."

The source may be wrong on the dating. Caravaggio, died in 1610, very early in the 17th century. Several of his notable works actually date to the 1590s. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick, I know that you may see what I've done as an edit war, but I don't see it that way, nor do I see it as disruptive editing. The point I have made about the flag being anachronistic in the painting has never been challenged- the only question is whether wikipedia allows anachronistic flag usage in a the part of an article describing historical events. I believe wikipedia should not uncritically include paintings with anachronistic flag images in the body of a description of military history. Thanks for your time and patience. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that what I did constitutes edit warring- if it does, then I don't object to banning me. Whether the painting is iconic or not, it contains blatantly anachronistic content- content that not one of the people in favor of keeping the painting believes isn't anachronistic. All I'm saying is that the painting shouldn't be included in a section describing the facts of military history without a note about the historical inaccuracy of the painting. Ahistorical painting is ahistorical, regardless of how iconic it is (and I know it is iconic). I think it should probably be moved to a section about culturally significant depictions of Washington. I'm just one person advocating for making a clear dividing line between truth and myth on Wikipedia. I love wikipedia. If in the end I don't win out, at least I stood on the side of presenting only history in the history section and/or trying to give readers a critical perspective on the Washington mythologizing that they have been exposed to from cradle to grave. Thanks for your work here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Getting back on track

There is no POV issue that can be substantiated to the liking of most editors here, so I'm removing the POV tag -- it brings undue instability to this Good Article. If there is an alternative image that can get as much support as the original image, fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag Gwillhickers. I think one photo is best. Photo B should have something in the caption that it is not historically accurate, especially that part of not having snow in the photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, someone tried to add a note to this effect in the caption but it was reverted by another editor. The original/current image, however, depicts an icy river with snow on its shore in the background. Where are you getting "not having snow" from? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Snow as in snow precipitation. It was snowing. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Caption

Just another note. Overall, the images are historically accurate, except for the one flag of course. i.e.Washington, his men, crossing the icy Delaware in row-boats. The events were historical, and depicted, hence "Historical depictions". Howat, the source used in the caption points out:

"Listing the inaccuracies and criticizing him (Leutze) for over-attention to niggling detail, misses the whole intention of the artist and the meaning of the picture, particularly in view of Leutze's insistence that a picture should revolve about one central idea rather than concern itself with minutiae. Leutze had no desire to paint a thorough reconstruction of the scene - he was trying to capture the spirit of a great leader and the importance of a great event.",

Moved note about the flag to a foot note. Highlighting this discrepancy in the caption gives it undue weight compared to the main event. Also, we should perhaps look for a more stable source, instead of a bulletin on a web page whose link will go 'south' (404) sooner or later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The cite now links to an archived version and to a stable jstor link. If there better sources out there, great, but the Bulletin is clearly a reliable source, Howat was a curator at The Met, and he cites an extensive bibliography. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777: Captions often include reference footnotes; I see no policy reason why they should not include explanatory notes where needed. And there is clearly an on-going discussion of the topic here. You state above that the caption should state that the image is inaccurate, yet you removed it once it did. Please explain your removal of the note. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary states "captions on photos are not supposed to have notes". I was wondering where that policy or guideline is. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea or whatever, just that I couldn't find the "WP:XX" that states this is so. Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex Since my name was mentioned I will respond. First the photos are not historically accurate. We do not know how Washington crossed the Delaware. Footnotes belong in the main narration, not the photos. That is just plain sloppy Wikipedia editing. Washington article gets thousands of views. I had removed "Historical". None of the photos are in anyway are historically accurate. The removal was done because footnotes belong in the article not the photo caption. It was not in a footnote before. You have to put the information on the photos in the narration or make an article on the photo itself. The note can be reinserted in the article concerning the photo. But don't put the note in the photo caption. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The note has been readded to the narration, not the caption, with more context and clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying notes do not belong in captions. I see no policy saying that. In fact there is a footnote in another caption on the page right now, as there are on countless other pages. What policy are you citing? Separating the explanatory note from the image that it explains makes it likely that readers will not notice it. I see no reason to do that. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I restored the footnote to the caption. See below section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding clutter Putting a reference in the caption clutters the caption and the article (Wikitext). The reference belongs in the article, not the caption, to avoid clutter. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't create clutter. It is one footnote at the end of the caption, as exists elsewhere on the page and on numerous other pages. Also see WP:INTEGRITY: "When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed." Placing an explanatory note about the image into the text makes it almost certain that someone like the editor who began this discussion would not have seen it. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've always thought a reference should be placed next to the information it is supporting. The 'note' provides information about the painting so it seems to me it should be placed in the painting's caption, not in the main body of the article. As to clutter, that is always a matter of opinion and editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It creates clutter in the caption's wikiText. Photo captions should be simple and to the point without references. There should be no need to have a footnote in addition to long reference. I am being over ruled on this and at this point I don't care anymore. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Citations

@Dilidor: I see you removed the citation needed tag, claiming that "this simple statement does not require citation". The statement in question (i.e. retreated to New York ' Peace treaty of 1783) is far from a common knowledge statement, esp for students and the average readers who come to Wikipedia to get a good foothold on the subject, per sources, etc. I'll leave the cite'tag out for now, but the statement needs citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Citations are good, but it is possible to over-cite. That short paragraph has five sentences and three citations now; adding another means that we're sourcing nearly every sentence. If the sentence really does need a citation to prove its veracity, then it's far more productive to add one than to merely say "citation needed". Hardly a major issue here, but that was my rationale in reverting. —Dilidor (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and I agree in part. Just have reservations about this sentence -- two major points, i.e. British retreating to NYC, and the Peace Treaty of 1783. I already consolidated two cites in this section. As i said, we can let it ride for now, but seeing how this is the George Washington page, and a Good Article, it seems it will only be a matter of time before someone else tags the sentence. I believe a good number of cites is much better than not enough cites. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Washington Crossing by Mort Kunstler 2011

This is the most accurate rendition of Washington crossing the Delaware Washington’s Crossing: McKonkey’s Ferry, Dec. 26, 1776 by Mort Kunstler 2011. This photo could be added to wikipedia, legally of course, that would resolve the photo controversy. I added this photo to External links section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Most accurate"? According to whom? (Answer please) It was pointed out by myself, per Howat, that the various depictions can be criticized for one thing or another. Adding this item to the main Washington narrative, even in a foot note, gives this discrepancy/detail way too much weight. The note belongs in the caption of the image in question, if anywhere at all, not in the main body of text. There is no policy, or even a guideline, that says we can't. This is obsessive nit-picking, and this issue is getting way too much attention and is only bringing instability to the article. We're running around as if the men depicted in the crossing were flying a German swastika flag. Please let it rest. A note in the caption, I had hoped, would be a fair compromise to all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Associated Press (December 24, 2011). "N.Y. museum to unveil more accurate version of George Washington's Delaware River crossing". NJ.com. The Star Ledger. Retrieved December 25, 2011. This is the link from the article page Washington Crossing the Delaware. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So this is a more accurate representation ... according to the artist, Kunstler. I doubt he qualifies as a reliable source, and this question is a more appropriate discussion for the page on the painting itself. The better choices here are those that are notable depictions of Washington. Requiring strict historical accuracy is neither possible nor necessary. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This comes from the Associated Press. It is a reliable source. It seems as if editors are making their own opinionated George Washington article without regard to sourcing. Doesn't Washington deserve to have the representation of crossing the Delaware in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the article? All claims regarding the accuracy of the image come from the artist, who does not cite sources for his conclusions. And I am basing my statements on Howat, not my opinion. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, accusing editors of "making their own opinionated George Washington article without regard to sourcing" isn't helping matters. As anyone who's followed this debate should know, and given the numerous images 'you' have posted here, depictions of the crossing event vary considerably, and deliberating over every detail (e.g. no snow falling) will only create more problems then we've already had to deal with. Anyone interested in the finer details of the crossing should read the narrative and the numerous reliable sources out there and not rely on any one image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave a source. I thought there amounted to a personal attack on Kunstler as a source. I felt editors opinions were over riding reliable sourcing. ""Most accurate" ? According to whom ?" (Gwillhickers) "I doubt he qualifies as a reliable source." (Laszlo Panaflex). It seems that editors have to say tough things to get attention. I will retract my statement. Kunstler's painting is the most accurate up to date. This article could have one photo that is the most accurate. I gave a link to the photo. I have put signifigant time concerning Washington Crossing the Delaware. I was only trying the help improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are the accuracies in Kunstler's painting: the barge raft; it is at night; there are snow flakes; the ice is right; Washington is not on his horse; Washington looks intent on defeating the British. It is a powerful image. Why neglect it ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And just like I said to GeographyInitiative at the very top of this discussion: You need a reliable source saying that Kunstler is the most accurate depiction. Kunstler himself, who is not a historian, is not a reliable source, and your analysis is original research. The painting is a tiny piece of this article, and the Leutze is clearly notable. If you want to list inaccuracies, with a reliable source like Howat (who lists many, btw), the proper place to do that is on the page for the painting. So much attention to the painting here is undue weight. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not original research since I sighted an article. Laszlo Panaflex, you are making this a personal issue against myself and Kunstler. Gwillhickers removed that photo from the external links. This is nothing but two editors ganging up on another editor making this a hostile editing environment. I had been peacably editing on this article before Gwillhickers and Laszlo Panaflex intrusion. Artists are not historians, but that does not make them unreliable. Please leave me alone and stop harrasing me. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am proud to have started this discussion, and I hope that what comes out of the changes will be positive for the George Washington article and for Wikipedia. But because I came within an inch of totally losing my Wikipedia account, so I am going to bow out and never edit this article ever again! Good luck, friends! Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: thanks for toning it down a bit. After all the debate you have been through I am glad you haven't given up and are still with us. IMO, despite all the debate, no one was treated unfairly. Anyway, I was going to suggest that you add Kunstler's painting as it indeed looked among the most accurate of depictions, but then realized, since Washington's crossing occurred at night because he wanted to surprise the British, it is highly unlikely that anyone was holding up torches and lanterns as they crossed the Delaware, which is only about a quarter-mile wide where the crossing occurred. Don't want to belabor the accuracy of the images, but I believe the first image you introduced, the black and white engraving, would be the best choice for the second image, that is, if no one objects. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

My view has already been stated. My objections have been the overly critical tone in the talk pages. George Washington should be a featured article. Attacking an artist like Kunstler I believe went beyond the line of decency. The Kunstler painting on my part was a suggestion. I put in the other photo of Washington on a horse for its artistic value. The famous painting has artistic value. I believe the American color photo of Washington on a horse is accurate because of the barge. It is also done by an American artist. There obviously needed to be some light sourcing to cross the river. The British were not even looking for Washington. Washington was smart because he did not take a Christmas break like the British. I prefer the color photos. The only problem with the photo you suggest, and why I took it down, was the hats. The hats in that photo are not authentic Revolutionary War hats. The best thing to do is put the photos up for a vote. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not attack Kunstler. Please review the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Kunstler is not a historian and therefore not a reliable source regarding accuracy, especially for a featured article. I never attacked you either, but I would urge you to review the policies I linked to on sources and original research. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No need, I followed the thread. As I clearly indicated, Kunstler's claim of accuracy, given the torch and lantern depicted, is highly questionable. I was just referring to the image, not contesting anything, or anyone else. Posting the image, as is, with no claim of accuracy, etc, however, would not be OR. As I said, the black & white engraving would be a much better choice for a second image, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

??? I was clearly replying to Cmguy777. He has accused me of harassing him and attacking an artist, when all I have done is try to get him to review the relevant WP policies. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. Yes, we can do without the accusations. As I said, any painting can be criticized on one point or another. This is why we have more than one depiction, to demonstrate that the accounts vary, evidently considerably. Cmguy777, imo, anyone trying to conduct a surprise attack, at night, would not 'herald' the event with torches. While the Hessians were indeed celebrating Christmas, they no doubt had pickets out and about guarding their perimeter -- standard military operating procedure. It was night, but this doesn't mean there was zero visibility, and they were in rowboats, rafts, not speed boats, so even if visibility was an issue, they still could have pushed the ice (not icebergs) aside as they went along. Where are you getting the accounts about 'wrong hats', etc? Is there any source that cites primary sources about such things? I am not pushing for any depiction as our second image -- it was just a suggestion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The British were unaware of Washington's approach. Washington would have had to use some source of lighting to cross the river. Kunstler could be adding the light for artistic purposes. The first night vision devises for military purposes were not created and used until 1939, 163 years later. Unless there was a full moon some lighting technique or device would have had to be used especially to navigate through the ice. Kunstler is an artist. There is no reason to believe he is fringe and unreliable. The source I gave was from the Associated Press. We don't need to quibble about this. We can have our own opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This source says December 25 was a full moon. It is possible Washington would have only used minimal lighting to cross the river. December 1776 Moon Phases. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe we're all aware that in 1776 night vision technology wasn't available for Washington. Yes, a full moon, even on a cloudy night, would have given the Americans enough visibility to push chunks of ice aside and make their way across the Delaware. Good leg work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"The British were not even looking for Washington. Washington was smart because he did not take a Christmas break like the British."

The main article for the operation is George Washington's crossing of the Delaware River, and explains part of the background. The British were not taking a Christmas break, Charles Cornwallis, 2nd Earl Cornwallis had "ordered his troops into winter quarters", effectively ending military operations for the duration of the winter. "The British were happy to end the campaign season when they were ordered to winter quarters. This was a time for the generals to regroup, re-supply, and strategize for the upcoming campaign season the following spring."

Washington's forces had recently suffered a series of losses in the New York and New Jersey campaign, and completely lost New York City (which would remain under British control until 1783). Washington had retreated to the Province of Pennsylvania (which was considered safe from British attacks), and had been trying to procure supplies and recruit more soldiers for his army. By December 24, Washington had "2,400 men able to take offensive action against the Hessian and British troops in Central New Jersey".

The operation did not go as Washington planned, but he did get his much-needed victory:

• "On the morning of December 25, Washington ordered his army to prepare three days' food, and issued orders that every soldier be outfitted with fresh flints for their muskets. He was also somewhat worried by intelligence reports that the British were planning their own crossing once the Delaware was frozen over. At 4 pm Washington's army turned out for its evening parade, where the troops were issued ammunition, and even the officers and musicians were ordered to carry muskets. They were told that they were departing on a secret mission. Marching eight abreast in close formations, and ordered to be as quiet as possible, they left the camp for McKonkey's Ferry. Washington's plan required the crossing to begin as soon as it was dark enough to conceal their movements on the river, but most of the troops did not reach the crossing point until about 6 pm, about ninety minutes after sunset. The weather got progressively worse, turning from drizzle to rain to sleet and snow. "It blew a hurricane," recalled one soldier. "
• "Washington had given charge of the crossing logistics to his chief of artillery, the portly Henry Knox. In addition to the crossing of large numbers of troops (most of whom could not swim), he had to safely transport horses and eighteen pieces of artillery over the river. Knox wrote that the crossing was accomplished "with almost infinite difficulty", and that its most significant danger was "floating ice in the river". One observer noted that the whole operation might well have failed "but for the stentorian lungs of Colonel Knox". Ice had formed in the river due to the Little Ice Age."
• "Washington was among the first of the troops to cross, going with Virginia troops led by General Adam Stephen. These troops formed a sentry line around the landing area in New Jersey, with strict instructions that no one was to pass through. The password was "Victory or Death". The rest of the army crossed without significant incident, although a few men, including Delaware's Colonel John Haslet, fell into the water."
• "The amount of ice on the river prevented the artillery from finishing the crossing until 3 am on December 26. The troops were not ready to march until 4 am."
• "The two other crossings fared less well. The treacherous weather and ice jams on the river stopped General Ewing from even attempting a crossing below Trenton. Colonel Cadwalader crossed a significant portion of his men to New Jersey, but when he found that he could not get his artillery across the river he recalled his men from New Jersey. When he received word about Washington's victory, he crossed his men over again but retreated when he found out that Washington had not stayed in New Jersey."

In any case, in the Battle of Trenton (December 26), about 2,400 American soldiers and 18 guns under Washington, faced only 1,500 Hessian soldiers and 6 guns under Johann Rall. Rall had taken command of Trenton, New Jersey on December 22 (replacing his superior Carl von Donop who had left for Mount Holly, New Jersey). Rall had taken almost no precautions for a potential attack, and Trenton was a surprisingly easy target:

• Rall's "request for reinforcements had been turned down by British commander General James Grant, who disdained the American rebels and thought them poor soldiers."
• "Trenton lacked city walls or fortifications, which was typical of American settlements. Some Hessian officers advised Rall to fortify the town, and two of his engineers advised that a redoubt be constructed at the upper end of town, and fortifications be built along the river. The engineers went so far as to draw up plans, but Rall disagreed with them. When Rall was again urged to fortify the town, he replied, "Let them come ... We will go at them with the bayonet." "
• "As Christmas approached, Loyalists came to Trenton to report the Americans were planning action. American deserters told the Hessians that rations were being prepared for an advance across the river. Rall publicly dismissed such talk as nonsense, but privately in letters to his superiors, he said he was worried about an imminent attack. He wrote to Donop that he was "liable to be attacked at any moment". Rall said that Trenton was "indefensible" and asked that British troops establish a garrison in Maidenhead (now Lawrenceville). Close to Trenton, this would help defend the roads from Americans. His request was denied. As the Americans disrupted Hessian supply lines, the officers started to share Rall's fears. One wrote, "We have not slept one night in peace since we came to this place." On December 22, 1776, a spy reported to Grant that Washington had called a council of war; Grant told Rall to "be on your guard". "
• "The main Hessian force of 1,500 men was divided into three regiments: Knyphausen, Lossberg and Rall. That night, they did not send out any patrols because of the severe weather."
• By 8:00 am, Washington's troops had already reached Trenton. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

edit break 01

Gwillhickers. I appreciate the information. But as far as the river crossing, it would have been imparative to have some sort of light system, to guide the river crossing. As you mentioned the British were in winter quarters and not actively looking for Washington to cross the Delaware River. Thick cloud cover, such as a snow storm, would have blocked the light from the full moon. Without night vision there would have been some need at least for signal lighting. I believe the lighting would have been minimal, and indeed in Kunster's painting the lighting was minimal. There were two lights lit. I believe Kunster was also displaying artistic license on the lighting. Remember he is the artist. The accuracy of Kunster can be argued but since he is the artist of his work he is allowed to present the crossing as he believes is most accurate. That is not original research. Otherwise wikipedia would have to ban all artistic work as original research. I am not sure this talk is going anywhere any more. I suggest taking a poll on what artwork should be in the crossing of the Delaware section. I believe Kunster's work is both artistic and accurate. That is my opinion. The two artworks currently in the article have the best artistic content, compared to other available photos. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• We can't assume the Hessians and their seasoned commanders were asleep at the wheel entirely, and I seriously think Washington didn't either. Again, it's standard military procedure to have guards or pickets around the perimeter, at least. Also, even if there was zero visibility, I'm sure Washington had already reconnoitered the general area and knew how to handle and at what location to make the crossing. Washington could of had a man on the N.J. side holding a guide-light that could only be seen by Washington from one direction. We also don't know if it was actually snowing, or if the cloud cover was so thick as to block all light from the moon. A 'torch' is not "minimal" lighting, it can be noticed for at least two or three miles away. Washington's men could have pushed the ice aside as they bumped into it as they plodded along in their slow moving rafts. To be fair to the debate, perhaps the snow fall was so thick that it would obscure any torches being used beyond e.g.100 feet. The river was obviously not frozen over solid, and any ice they encountered was probably incidental and the least of the things they had to worry about. -- This is all very interesting, but we can only speculate as to the finer points and should keep the scope of our discussion limited to Article improvement in terms of what we will add, change or remove, per reliable sources. It would seem there must be a first-hand account, a primary source, out there somewhere that historians have referred to. Will keep an eye open.
• The last paragraph in the Crossing the Delaware section, re Fabian strategy, seems inappropriate for this section. It's a general comment about how historians view Washington's overall strategy, and Washington's attack on Trenton wasn't one of attrition (Fabian), it was an all out surprise attack. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

We could go on and on about the lighting or no lighting Washington crossing the Delaware. There is no need of that right now. As far as Fabian strategy, since there is disagreement among historians, I am not sure that it is needed in the section. All that mattered was Washington got the victory at Trenton. Maybe Washington and the Patriots had adopted Indian style of raiding parties. The British major setback was their formation of lining up, taking a knee, firing, and then being shot. American fought more of a guerilla modern style of warfare. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Kaplan quote

Since I was falsely accused of original research here is a quote from Isaac Kaplan (Feb 3, 2017), " The resulting painting that Künstler created rectifies many of the inaccuracies of Leutze’s original." Source:This Iconic American History Painting Gets the Facts Wrong Artsy © 2018 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You proposed Kunstler as the most accurate source and were asked (by me and Gwhillickers) to find a better source. It was then your responsibility to find one. You did (days and pages of argument later). Good work. But please stop making accusations about me. I merely explained MoS policy to you. I did not accuse you of anything. I have tried repeatedly to extricate myself from this opera over a tiny piece of the article. Now please stop with your accusations. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not propose anything other than state my opinion on Künstler's artwork. It is not original research to have an opinion. One can not put that opinion in the article. In the talk pages editors are entitled to their own opinions. I would not have had any problem had I been simply told to find a source to back up my opinion. That was not the case. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Eye witness account of the crossing

An 'Elisha Bostwick' (1748 - 1834) ( 1, 2, 3 ) was with Washington during the crossing and wrote his eye witness account of the event. It was indeed snowing, with sleet, during a stormy night, and torches were indeed used during the crossing. The ice in the river caused major difficulties, preventing the other two crossing parties to fail in their attempt to cross. Since Washington and his men crossed the Delaware and landed some nine miles north of Trenton the torches evidently went unnoticed by the falling snow. Now I would recommend using Künstler's painting as our second image, as it seems to be the most accurate, however, we don't say this unless there is a reliable source that most of us can agree on. -- Bostwick's account appears in Henry Steele Commager and Robert B. Morris, The Spirit of 'Seventy Six (1958), pp.511-512 and ; Fischer, David Hackett, Washington's Crossing (2004), pp.227-228. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Why there was such opposition to Künstler I don't understand. There needs to be a photo of Künstler's artwork that is public domain. I gave a reliable source that says Künstler has improved the accuracy of the crossing. In my opinion, it is the best artwork for historic accuracy. That is only my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Source: Isaac Kaplan (Feb 3, 2017), " The resulting painting that Künstler created rectifies many of the inaccuracies of Leutze’s original." Source:This Iconic American History Painting Gets the Facts Wrong Artsy © 2018 Cmguy777 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, Leutze’s painting was allegorical, intended to capture the spirit of the event and has a clear and long established consensus. Among a number of other things, the opposition focused on the idea of using a questionable source that claimed Künstler's painting was the "most accurate". As I said, I would have no objections for using this painting for the second image if we were to present it at face value, however, Kunstler's painting of 2011 is not in the public domain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That is why I had put it in an external link. Maybe there is a website that has permissable publication of Künstler's artwork for educational purposes. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems okay, but we don't want to stick external links in the body of the Crossing ' section. Currently the External links section has fifteen external links, so before we consider putting another link there I would remove a few. In particular, the link to the Whitehouse biography is inappropriate. We have a biography here, so there's no need to send the readers to a biography that is far less comprehensive than this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems Mort Künstler is protective of his works. It looks like the only way to get a possible license is to contact his website directly. mortkunstler.com contact Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

When you make contact, point out that the image of his painting will be used for educational purposes only, and that it will bring his work to the attention of many students, history buffs and others, as the Washington article is viewed more than 10,000 times per day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

TDM8530 (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 23:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Time to move on

Should we not put our collective efforts elsewhere? This article, as Cmguy777 points out, should be a Featured Article at this late date. There are a couple of serious gaps in the narrative, however, before this should/will happen. i.e. The Battle of Trenton and the Battle of Princeton are just lumped in with the Crossing of the Delaware section, with only one sentence covering each battle (!) This was the turning point of the Revolution and should be comprehensively covered. Also, the Crossing' section is rather understated. i.e. There were three attempts to cross the Delaware, with Washington's party the only ones to make it across. Not a word about these efforts can be found here, both under Washington's command. Though there are dedicated articles for these topics, this article should still cover them better, albeit in summary, and in such capacity that it overlaps well with those articles, better compelling the readers to want to go there and further learn about these important events. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The flag depicted was not adopted until 1777

Sorry to try your patience again, but I think a slight but important change needs to be made. "The flag depicted was not adopted until 1777" leads us to believe that the Betsy Ross flag design of thirteen stars in a circle was promptly to be adopted in 1777, which is not specifically true: the wording of the Flag Resolution of 1777 was so broad that there were numerous interpretations of how the stars could be situated on the union of the flag. The Flag Resolution stated: "Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation." See Flag of the United States#Historical progression of designs for images of the numerous and varied interpretations of that Flag Resolution. The "Betsy Ross flag" being adopted in 1777, we might then suspect that this flag design might could have existed in 1776, which seems totally wrong based on Vexillology expert Grace Rogers Cooper's analysis. She noted that the first documented usage of this flag was in 1792. So the error in this painting is bigger than that he painted a flag that was "not adopted until 1777": he painted a flag that is not documented to have existed in 1776, and would not be documented to exist for another sixteen years. The error is more like, "The flag depicted had not been designed in 1776" which is a statement specifically supported by this secondary source in reference to this painting. I recommend a change that lets people know beyond a shadow of doubt that, although they are reading a section on the facts of military history on Wikipedia where you would not naturally expect to see an anachronistic flag, there are/were some who believe this flag could not have existed in 1776 (and therefore Wikipedia's military history specifically includes the depiction of a specifically anachronistic flag, which seems a little funny). Should military history on Wikipedia include known depictions of flags in anachronistic settings? I hope you will figure out that answer on your own. Culturally important paintings referenced in modern media, as this painting is, National Review cartoon are different from what we should include in the facts section on Wikipedia. If you have to keep the flag, let the readers you are equivocating to specifically know that "The flag depicted had not been designed in 1776": based on these sources, there doesn't seem to be any chance whatsoever that this flag existed in 1776, and the readers of Wikipedia deserve to know that if you are dead-set on putting this painting in a military history section where it doesn't belong. There's really no need to keep confusing people about the flag like we are writing a 1950's textbook. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, is this still going on? It's a known anachronism in a widely-known painting, let's note it appropriately and move on, and stop accusing other editors of bad faith because a famous painting took artistic license. Nearly every painting done before the widespread use of photography (and many since then) took liberties or were just plain mistaken. Nobody expects a painting to be a literally truthful depiction, please stop treating artwork like photographic documentation. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not try to avoid the paintings with known anachronisms? Just because everyone in history has been bsing and lying doesn't mean we have to accept it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That would pretty much preclude every painting ever made. You are acting on the fallacious premise that there is such a thing as a perfectly accurate painting. The painting is a bit of propaganda in service of Washington's legacy. This is an article about George Washington, the painting, anachronistic or not, is a notable part of the historical account of his life, which is what this encyclopedia article is supposedly describing. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

While I am well aware of the other stuff argument, I note that your argument would preclude Bonaparte Before the Sphinx from being used in the article on Napoleon (where'd those blasted pyramids go?), or the erroneous business about Cleopatra and the carpet in Cleopatra and Caesar (painting), used in the article on Julius Caesar - and did the Egyptians have Persian carpets anyway? Don't get me started on depictions of architecture in famous paintings of historical events ....Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The note could be expanded using this Purdue Today source: "Due to the time that had elapsed after the titular event, the painting contains a few historical inaccuracies, Parrish says. For instance, the flag depicted was not created until about a year after the battle, and the soldiers used a different type of boat to cross the river. Additionally, Washington appears to be much older than he was during the battle -- the general was 44 at the time -- and he wouldn't have been standing lest the boat capsize." Did You Know?: 'Washington Crossing the Delaware' painting Purdue Today (February 13, 2014) Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I added four historical inaccuracies and solid source. I hope this clears things up. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Information on boat capsizing removed out of compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)