Talk:Town Destroyer

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Town Destroyer

Accurate Translation[edit]

Are we certain "Town Destroyer" is an accurate translation? Richard Norton Smith's Washington bio American Patriarch (pg. 55-56) has the more modest "towntaker." Could they both accurate? JimServo (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The translation "Town Destroyer" is given on the Onondaga nation's official website about Hanadaga-yas. https://www.onondaganation.org/history/us-presidents-hanadagayas/ Interestingly, the same site claims that although George Washington was the President to earn this moniker through his actions, the Onondaga Nation have used this name to refer to all the Presidents of the United States, not just George Washington. Kalirren (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article?[edit]

"Town Destroyer" is simply a nickname for George Washington. Shouldn't this be a subsection of his article? --68.227.217.101 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything of interest related to George Washington cannot be in the main article—there's just too much stuff. One of these days, someone will come along and write an article called something like George Washington and Native Americans. When that happens, this article will be redundant and should become subsection of that article. —Kevin Myers 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. This has its own article because agenda-oriented people want it that way. Jersey John (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do shut up about your "agenda" nonsense. If it has enough information to fill a whole page of text- and it does- than it is perfectly reasonable it be a full article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:12:F900:85D6:B66:4988:A5CC (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reason mentioned in section above, I disagree with regarding Hanadaga-yas (Town-Destroyer) and George Washington as the same. The Onondaga Nation claims that the name Hanadaga-yas is used for all the Presidents of the United States. So either merging or redirecting Town Destroyer article into George Washington article would create an error attributable to Wikipedia. I think if this topic is notable to warrant an article, then a separate article is necessary. Kalirren (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting last edit[edit]

The last edit removed this line: "Following a massacre when five chiefs who had come out to negotiate under a flag of truce were murdered by colonists" with a devious edit summary, which should invite further discussion, and also changed every instance of "Native American" to "Indians", but I remind you this wikipedia is for Natives too, not for everyone except for only just not for Natives, so please leave the whitewashing and the dated language at the door. Robert the Broof (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted the admins that this section is plagiarized. Do not revert or remove that notification until the admins have addressed it. It needs to be heavily revised or else deleted. Dilidor (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand why the only changes you made were the ones I described; and the website you linked is more recent than, and evidently based on, the wikipedia article, considering the wording in the section was added gradually over time by multiple editors over the course of eleven years, and thus could not be plagiarised. Robert the Broof (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]