Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 July 1

= July 1 =

Borders of the United States between 1781 and 1784?
The Treaty of Paris (1783) established the western border of the United States as the Mississippi River. However, I'm wondering: Was this what the states claimed during the whole revolution, or did it just come out in the final peace process? That is to say, if I were to make a map of the country after 1781 (when the Articles of Confederation came into force) but before 1784 (when the treaty came into force), would it only extend to the Proclamation Line of 1763? Or would the nascent country have claimed everything west as well? --Golbez (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Territorial evolution of the United States" might be helpful.—Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote that article, hence why I'm asking, for the rewrite of it. :) --Golbez (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I prefer the old maps, but perhaps this is for the article talk page. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Illinois campaign (1778-9) where the British were "run out" and the French Canadian residents swore oaths of loyalty and became citizens of Virgina (Illinois Country, and Illinois County, Virginia) Rmhermen (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

How factually accurate is the lede of the wikipedia Assault Rifle article?
The Assault rifle article strangely has an intro that sounds like the common sort of obsessive myth of the ww2/hitler genesis story of the STG-44. Were any assault rifles used before ww2? How slow was the adoption of the AR by various nations such as germany, the US, and european militaries? Were ARs developed first by germany? Was the role of the STG-44 as significant as the article portrays it to have been, detailing it's history and folklore about the stg-44? The article talks about how the definition of the AR is a "strict" one, and that it is very specific and the article insists that there is universal agreement over what rifles are ARs and what aren't going so far as to listing several comparing them to the "strict definition" put forth by the article. I find this very strange. Is there really such a strong consensus to the exact definition of an assault rifle going so far as to prescribe the exact minimum range a rifle has to accurately hit mansized targets at? Is there really such a strong consensus as to which rifles are and aren't assault rifles, and which assault rifle was the first assault rifle? What about the federof avtomat? The winchester model 1907? The assault rifle article calls out the stg-44 as pioneering the "straight stock and pistol grip". What of the Winchester Model 1917 that has the same features? What of the furrer m1920 with it's 7.65x35mm intermediate rifle cartridge? I'm asking this here because I don't have a lot of access to reliable sources on the topic, and the article cites several books that I don't have access to which make up the bulk of the reliable sources cited for the claims the article is making. How much of this story comes from the greater mythos of world war 2? Is the consensus of the experts in the field really as strong as the article makes it seem? If the intermediate rifle cartridge is so central to the genesis of the AR, why does the article have no information about, for instance, the 7.65x35mm, and it's history, and instead has this banner waving nazi wunderwaffen tale? I'd really appreciate if someone could round up a good reliable source or two that I can read. Thanks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article already cites ten reliable sources. Abebooks and Amazon probably have them.  You could also try searching for them on Google books.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Following that advice leads to "The World's Assault Rifles and Automatic Carbines" Daniel D. Musgrave, Thomas B. Nelson T. B. N. Enterprises, 1967 546 pages "in world war II, germany also put an assault rifle into action. The principal feature which distinguishes the assault rifle from the semi-" but I'm only getting bits of three pages, and I don't have access to it.  There's also "The German Assault Rifle: 1935-1945" 9781581606720 which seems to tell a different story, covering the Mk 42, judging by the table of contents.  It looks like the Mk 42 automatic carbine was an open tender served by Haenel, Walther, and Vollmer each submitting a design, and here's something out of left field.  The Stg 44?  It's derived quite directly from the Haenel / Schmeiiser MKb.42(H).  It doesn't look like the stg 44 was the first anything.  And I'm starting to question this whole story about some hidden project to develop the stg 44 behind hitler's back as a supposed machine pistol, when, it seems, in fact, the stg 44 is derived from this machine karbine 42 project.  This is throwing a lot of doubt on those 10 reliable sources you mentioned that are mostly books that I don't have access to.  I don't suppose someone at the reference desk would have access to either of these books or would be in a position to research this topic a little?  And thanks for the fruitful advice.  Imagine my surprise when I found out that the stg 44 wasn't even the first german assault rifle.  OK, google books has a preview of "Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact

By David Westwood" In germany at least there's the Vollmer M35 in 1935 followed by the haenel, designed in 1940 and produced in 1941.  "german interest in an intermediate cartridge first expressed itself in the 1930s... the design was a fact by 1940"  It looks like russian employment of SMGs may have played a factor.  "realized infantry action took place within 400 yards... automatic fire...  forced him to keep his head down... making the approach and assault much easier... added to the fact that the russians were opting for cheap stamped machine pistols"  The mauser g41 had been too heavy.  Apparently walther submitted their first intermediate cartridge machine carbine model in 1937 two years after the vollmer.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your own intro could serve as the manual's illustration for the emotional impact of any combination featuring the two words "Adolf" and "Hitler" ( you are not wrong however that the part they are quoted might be otherwise rewritten). Note that the Haenel is the Stg44.. there is the fact that the Germans held combined military manoeuvers with the Russians in the 30's but the sources do not suggest that the 400 meters theory derives from this period. Then the adequacy of the Stg44 would be more or less coincidental, and the theory itself the result of experience. The importance of Hitler in the genesis could still yet however be attributed to the legends of an other time, when submachine-guns where considered remaining an ugly apanage of the gangsters, although yet war had to be done . --Askedonty (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The stg was developed from the haenel with modifications, but it does seem common to conflate the two. And even in just germany the haenel was proceeded by the walther machine caribine, and that was proceeded by the vollmer.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking after it I found the interesting story of the 1917 Winchester Machine Rifle as it's considered a possible predecessor, but it's also, say an industrial dead-end. It can be concluded that not everything which is technically possible will necessarily find its reason to materialize, or to be continued, like in this precise case. If all kinds of predecessors may deserve to be mentioned, that's if they are reasonably related, and the fact that they are sharing a technical aspect (eg intermediate caliber, some capacities) will not always relate them regarding the end they were conceived for. --Askedonty (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then more recently and for a very long time an assault rifle was commonly either an AK-47 or clone, otherwise an M16 or clone. With such a limited set of branches, the genealogy must not be so diverse as that of all the automatic rifles. There is a prehistoristic stage certainly, but we need to stand on firm ground. Would it lead to anything else but to a discussion about trench intended assault-rifles anyway ?--Askedonty (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was the winchester 1907 before that. "The research led to an article published in the NRA Journal for the American Arms Collector, Man at Arms, (Vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1991), titled The Burton Balloon Buster by William B. Edwards. Mr. Edwards emphatically asserted that this was indeed the first true assault rifle; developed in 1917. The father of this remarkable weapon was none other than Frank B. Burton, the noted engineer who worked with John Browning on the first BAR." did leap out at me.  Addressing possible revamped versions of the article, I would support the article having something along the lines of "The origin of the name "assault rifle" and the first wide-scale use of assault rifles coincided when the StG-44 was adopted by the German Army in World War 2.  But the article in it's current incarnation is wrong to state that the consensus is that the stg-44 was the first rifle with the qualities that define an assault rifle.  The deadend, to me, seems to be the narrative of the article that the genesis of the assault rifle was it's development in nazi germany as one of hitler's wunderwaffen.  It seems to be a false narrative.  Is there a source says that the AK-47's over barrel gas tube was derived from the StG-44?  Also, while the AK and AR are certainly the main branches, they certainly aren't the only families of assault rifles, no matter how dominant they are.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is full of reliable sources. TeeTylerToe simply refuses to acknowledge them and wants to fundamentally rewrite the article to match his point-of-view. Please, read TeeTylerToes comments on the Assault Rifle Talk Page.

I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll. His talk page edits follow the profile. He asks question for which the answers are obvious. He asks multiple often repetitive questions. He refuses to listen to the answers. He demands to know who decides which answers are correct, then repeats the questions. He provides nonsense examples and long draw-out often rambling comments, including 10 or more questions. He has done this not only on the Assault rifle talk page but every talk page that he edits.

And as Bilcat pointed out he did the same thing with his June 29 comments at Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II--RAF910 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * A Brief History of the Assault Rifle, recently published The Atlantic article, may or may not help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)