Talk:Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851 paintings)

Censorship

Hi - I'm new to wikipedia and wanted to add this tidbit but I was unsure how. Can anybody help me? Update - I just tried to add it myself so if someone could look it over that would be great. Here is my contribution. My 2009 Forgotten English Calendar adds the following to this topic: "At least three times in the last decade, and as recently as 2002, American grade school administrators stepped in to alter textbook reproductions of the iconic painting because Washington's watch fob was painted too close to his crotch for their comfort, possibly resembling male genitalia. In the general's namesake Georgia in 1999, for example, Muscogee County teachers' aides painted out the timepiece by hand on 2,300 copies. And in cobb County, Georgia, the page with the offending reproduction was completely torn out." - Forgotten English by Jeffrey Kacirk (c) 2009. I also found this link on the web from freedomforum.org that confirms this occurrence: Censorship foes: Altering painting of Washington crosses the line Camelotcrusade (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

The text in the article should be edited so that it is not an exact quote from Kacirk's copyrighted calendar. (I don't have time right now.) Alfrogbet (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

I have assessed this article as C-class and identified the following areas for improvement:

• The article needs inline citations
• The article needs references

I rated it as "High" importance because if it was put on the New Jersey quarter, it must be pretty important.

shirulashem (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Confusion

In the second paragraph, the reading of it indicates that the artist painted copies/replacements due to an original being destroyed during the WWII bombing of Germany.

This would've been rather difficult since the artist had been dead for nearly 80 years!

The paragraph needs to be clarified to avoid a timeline confusion. 68.3.2.156 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Composition

Aside from the flag being an anachronism, its colors are interesting and confusing. The red stripes are faded to a pink, as though the flag has spent many years in the sun. Vibrant reds appear elsewhere in the painting, though. The artist made a choice here, possibly symbolic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyCross (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the flag's colors. Remember, American flags weren't mass produced or made in factories at the time. Most flags were personally made by hand and varied from maker to maker. As such, the quality would not be there and the colors would tend to fade faster. Also, if the flag had been around since the beginning, it would be time-worn and battle-tested; in short, showing its age.

And considering the actual condition of the troops and their uniforms & equipment when they made the actual crossing, there shouldn't be any vibrant colors anywhere! 68.3.2.156 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Potential resource, Mort Künstler

NYT resource, new Crossing the Delaware ... Crossing the Delaware, More Accurately December 23, 2011, 12:30 PM by Corey Kilgannon

99.181.149.86 (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edward Hand

According to both Charles Cornwallis and Siege of Yorktown there are sourced claims that it was Benjamin Lincoln who accepted Cornwallis' sword. This article says it was Edward Hand -- where did that info come from?

For that matter, is there a source citing the person in the painting as Edward Hand? Nautilator (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's headed west

Looks like he's heading west. Many times in art there is a tendency to depict west to the left and east to the right. This is almost universal in film. I have to remind myself that he was heading east from Pennsylvania to New Jersey when I see the painting. Longinus876 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey U.S. quarter

This painting is the basis for the reverse side of the 1999 New Jersey U.S. quarter. Shouldn't this have a mention on this page under the popular culture section? A Winnie the Pooh movie poster is mentioned there! L mammel (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington Crossing the Delaware. 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:

• Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20100204215806/http://www.museum-security.org/03/008.html to http://www.museum-security.org/03/008.html

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) 21:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Flag

The following text was deleted last October as 'misinformation':

The flag depicted is the original flag of the United States (the "Stars and Stripes"), the design of which did not exist at the time of Washington's crossing. The flag's design was specified in the June 14, 1777, Flag Resolution of the Second Continental Congress, and flew for the first time on September 3, 1777—well after Washington's crossing in 1776. The historically accurate flag would have been the Grand Union Flag, officially hoisted by Washington himself on January 1, 1776, at Somerville, Massachusetts, as the standard of the Continental Army and the first national flag.

And yet it seems consistent with what's said in Flag of the United States - can anyone explain what's wrong with it? David Arthur (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm! It was his first edit, of not very many, & they are of mixed quality. You could ask him. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of any clarification, I'm restoring the deleted text. David Arthur (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I just made some minor edits to that section before I read this, so I didn't realize this was a thing. Allow me to explain my small changes. There is no "original" US flag; that's a common misconception, but there's no evidence that the stars & stripes magically appeared. It evolved over time, including the Revolutionary protest era prior to the outbreak of war. The flag depicted in the painting is the Betsy Ross design, which has it's own unique controversies regarding its evolution and appearance. Regardless, the general idea is correct, that the flag in the painting is probably not historically accurate (like many other things in the painting). There was no "national standard" in 1776, and it would be years before wildly different flag designs coalesced into "the" US flag. I just don't want to make definitive (and potentially incorrect) statements about the history of the US flag here when there are other articles dedicated to this topic. Canute (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Movement

What is the art movement for the painting? The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sold…But Still In Winona?

This article states that the smaller version was sold for $39M in May, 2022. Does this mean it’s leaving Winona? If so, when? How will its ownership affect its location? 2601:441:8281:8370:8C71:6739:897B:9380 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Painting in the Visitor's Center

When I was a schoolboy, they bussed us to Washington's Crossing Park, PA. Nice day. We were herded into the Visitor's Center and after a dull speech from a passionate docent, the curtain at the front of the room was rolled-back and we saw the BIGGEST painting I had ever seen (or seen since)(other than murals). Easily the 12'x21' quoted here for the original, maybe more (it has been near 60 years).

Reading this Wiki article I realize that this was not, as assumed, the original. But it is still there. "The Visitor’s Center also contains a 248-seat auditorium ..... The auditorium contains an exact replica of Emanuel Leutze’s famous painting" Copyright © 2023

There are of course many replicas, but few this big. And apparently 'stable' (not being burnt, bombed, or sold-around).

PRR (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)