Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 August 31

= August 31 =

Please identify these weapons
This image from the National Archives is described as Crow prisoners in 1887 Montana. However, several websites (and apparently a book) claim it to be Cherokees being removed during the Trail of Tears episode and the question has been raised at Talk:Crow War. That is pretty certainly wrong on the basis of the quality of photography alone, but it occured to me that it can be dated more precisely by the weapons of the soldiers. Can someone knowledgable on historic rifles identify them for certain. Springfield Model 1866? SpinningSpark 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dating the rifles to a date prior to 1887 wouldn't help date the photo. Research from the archive might actually identify the individuals by name (note the numbering) and presumably tribal affiliation. The provenance of the photo seems rock solid; why would one dispute it? 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC) (link added:20:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC))


 * I'm no expert on US rifles, but it looks very similar to the Springfield model 1873, see this image which shows the left-hand side of the rifle which can be seen in your photograph. However, you might be better off asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms for some better-informed advice. The various models of the Springfield rifle from 1863 to 1884 all appear rather similar and there may be a knack to telling which is which. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Re Dating the rifles to a date prior to 1887 wouldn't help date the photo. Well yes it could.  To show that the Cherokee/Trail of Tears claim is incorrect, it is only necessary to date the rifles to post 1830s.  As for the names, the Native Americans in the United States article identifies them as a group including Chief Plenty Coups, but doesn't say where the information came from. Don't ask me why people dispute these things, ask the disputers. SpinningSpark 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't even need to date it from the rifles. The Army uniforms should be definitive enough.  Those are clearly not the uniforms worn by the US army in the 1830s.  See here for a full history.  The style of forage cap worn by the soldiers didn't appear until at least 1858.  -- Jayron 32 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, our article History of photography says that photography "was commercially introduced in 1839, a date generally accepted as the birth year of practical photography", so I should think that any photograph in the "Wild West" is very unlikely to pre-date 1840. Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the M1825 Pinwheel Cap, worn by the US Army until 1833, was rather distinctive (being polite). Alansplodge (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a short note at Talk:Crow War linking to this discussion, which will hopefully solve the original query. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

FDR's gesture
Just stumbled upon this where FDR is holding the navy guy's bended arm like couples or girlfriends do. I can't recall seeing such holds historically. Was it usual at that time between persons of the same sex? Brandmeistertalk  20:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean, apart from the fact that he was disabled? FFS. Muffled Pocketed  20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FDR had trouble standing, and he's holding on to the guy for support. Loraof (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * FDR was a wheelchair user and often needed help to stand like this or this. See Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness for the details. Alansplodge (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In Ken Burns' series on the Roosevelts, they talked about how he would walk. He would lock his leg braces into place, use a cane in his right hand and hold onto someone (often his son) with a firm grip with his left hand, as in this picture. Even with all that, his "walking" was accomplished by "throwing" his legs forward one at a time and in sync with moving his shoulders. They said that when it came time to deliver his post-Pearl Harbor speech, he wasn't overly nervous about the speech - he was concerned that he might fall while walking to the podium. Thankfully, he didn't. And it wasn't shame at being crippled, it was fear of looking weak to our enemies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And to the voters. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The voters knew he was crippled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And the Axis didn't? (No wonder they lost the war.) The voters knew, but FDR didn't want to remind them of it and provide ammunition to the Republicans. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They all knew. But words don't have the impact pictures do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you corroborate that with a citation, Bugs (or Clarityfiend)? The Public Awareness section of the article already linked by Alansplodge suggests that it was widely assumed, both in the USA and abroad, that he had largely recovered from his earlier illness, and details the great lengths undertaken to obscure his true condition. Does that article need amendment? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You may also find this 2013 Time article interesting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though I note that one passage in it reads:
 * "Far more commonly, news coverage depicted him as someone who had been [article's emphasis] stricken by polio but who had triumphed over his affliction—which of course he had, despite the fact that he remained paralyzed. This was the image that FDR and his advisers wished to project, and they largely succeeded."
 * While the extent of his ongoing disability was potentially accessible to someone who followed much or all of the published news available, I wonder what proportion of the general US population was actually aware of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Curtis Roosevelt in a 1998 New York Times article: "Probably no president has been more conscious, more astute, in gauging the public's response and reaction to him personally. He knew instinctively that American voters did not want to have the president's disability thrown in their faces." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An Independent article discusses a controversy regarding how FDR is to be depicted in his Washington DC memorial: "The extra statue is to depict FDR in the wheelchair he steadfastly avoided using for his public appearances lest it damage his chances of elected office." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * James Tobin's book, which I was surprised to see is used as a major reference for that article, makes quite clear that the idea that the US public didn't know FDR was crippled was a myth made up decades after his death, and he traces the sources of the myth. Everybody in the US in the 30s & 40s did know he was disabled. You are right that the article strangely does not give that impression.John Z (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was no coincidence that he started the March of Dimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The upshot of this interesting examination seems to me to be that the Article (or Articles) in question need some tweaking. As a disinterested Brit (open therefore to accusations of anti-Americanism by more partisan elements), I think it best that I leave it to those with a more direct interest in, and deeper knowledge of, USA history. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This pic reminds me of one from Whitey Ford's autobiography Slick. It's a picture of him at the retirement party of a General (MacArthur maybe? I don't recall and no longer have the book) and the elderly general is holding onto him in much the same way. It struck me as odd, though of course it's just an elderly man in need of a little support. Matt Deres (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One odd side effect of the widespread gay-awareness that has arisen over the last few decades is the tendency, by some observers, to read things into the past that aren't there. Men might be more openly expressive towards each other as "gay" was not on the general public's radar and thus there was no social stigma connected with it; while being openly expressive with opposite sex could raise eyebrows, or sometimes was illegal (see public display of affection). Here are Babe Ruth and three teammates singing in close contact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

how the money ( fees ) divided between udemy and instructor
pls. submit me with the answer of the above mentioned subject. thanks. Ashraf Ahmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.37.225.244 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article on Udemy explains exactly the answer to your question in the section titled "About Udemy.com" where it explains different methods of dividing fees. -- Jayron 32 23:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)