Talk:Uncle Sam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[[2008 modern version of <uncle sam]]new symbols can be seen at USA TEAM design office WWW:USATHINKINGTEAM.com - a 12 year team effort of concerned citizens to update symbol. 3 life size portraits with additions, Sam´s wife, Sarah, life size original portraits currently on exhibit in santa barbara, california exchange war theme for good citizenship education-Human Bill Of Rights - . Early colleagues of real Uncle Sam Wilson were Johnny Appleseed and Benjamin Franklin, Stephen Foster -all gentlemen believed the greatness of a new nation could only be formed through honest welbeing and happiness of its citizens - original Sam Wilson did not represent taxes or war. he supplied food and medical to wounded and starving - this information obtained from University of Minnesota ARchves, History of Uncle Sam. --Sydney kislevitz 16:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Thomas Nast
A number of political cartoons of Uncle Sam predate the work of Thomas Nast. He should be given a token each year that commemarates this work. His first Published Uncle Sam image was November 20, 1869. Harper's carried a number of Uncle Sam political cartoons as early as 1861, not by Nast. While Nast's role in creating the popular image of Uncle Sam should not be minimized, it is not accurate to report him as the "first" to draw Uncle Sam Cartoons. I have adjusted article to reflect this.
[edit] Graphic-Issues
The graphics seem to be having issues
Right, as funny as the Jew Jokes are, probably should clean that up.
---
Yeah, and perhaps write in with your signature (username) next time. The only "issue" I can see with those graphic jokes...are nothing except that they are totally bigotry.--OleMurder 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Walter Botts
The Information on Walter Botts comes from "They Did What!?" by Bob Fenster, 2003 Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN: 0-7407-3793-7. I did not know how to properly format a citation.
---
Aha, so you say in retrospect, atleast, assuming we shall believe that..reason, for outletting a source. Very well, asuming that book is true and exists...why is not linked to at a book-sellin' place, f.eg., and, secondly, how can we be sure Bob Fenster's information is accurate? People get far too much away with falsity by writing a 'book' instead of just sayin' it, these days. Just referring to a book doesn't solve all problems...source or not.--OleMurder 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
--- Added reference at bottom of page to that book. 80.41.212.5 19:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An "artistic trick"
From the page:
The poster uses an artistic trick known since antiquity: if the pupils are drawn exactly centered in the eyes of a portrait, this gives an impression that the portrait "looks back" at the viewer wherever the viewer stands.
Strange little myth, that is. Anything "pointing" at you in a two dimensional image will preserve its apparent orientation when you change your viewing angle. If you look at a top down image of a pyramid, it'll point at you from any angle. There is nothing unique about how the eyes in this, or any other portrait that would cause that effect. Indeed, a close look at this image will reveal that the pupils are not exactly centred in the eyes - neither vertically, nor horizontally.
Perhaps the dramatic nature of an image such as this one might help "sell" the appearance of a direct glare at wider angles, but beyond that, there's no reason to claim some optical illusion in this or any other such portrait.
[edit] 'Parodies' of Uncle Sam Poster
I am fairly confident that the Kitchener poster is older than the Uncle Sam one, thus isn't really a parody. Kitchener died the year before the Uncle Sam poster was made.
- Yes, you are right. I added an explanation to the british poster. Randroide 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to know if I can add the Homestar Runner parody, "Do You Has?". It seems relavent to me, and if you don't know what I'm talking about, the "poster" is veiwable here --The4sword
- Speaking of parodies, would it be possible to post the "I Want Out" parody from the 1970's or Alex Ross's "I Need You" parody from his comic? 70.153.11.190 01:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picture Weaknesses
- I DON'T like the picture Unclesamwantyou.jpg
--Abyab 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Proposal
First, I want to say, I can't find any support for the 'Another theory' about the Irish immigrants, and it is currently uncited. I believe it should likely be removed, in light of the 1961 declaration of Samuel Wilson as 'Uncle Sam'.
Second, while I don't think that I've ever suggested it before, because I tend to be a 'more articles better' type, as I read the Samuel Wilson page, it seems to me that his only real reason for note (as others supplied meat, too) is the 'Uncle Sam' moniker. I believe that both the Uncle Sam and the Samuel Wilson articles will be richer and better off by merging Wilson into Uncle Sam.
The Wilson article is not currently very encyclopedic (links aren't working, it's written like a chatty 'And now you know...the rest of the story' 5 minute break on PBS), but does have some good, solid info in it, most of which is citeable (I came to it because Wilson was mentioned in the Boston Globe, and I can cite most all of it), but about half of it duplicates information that is in Uncle Sam. I was looking at it and thinking of organizing it and fixing links when it occured to me that merging it will make for a much stronger article, and the sort of depth that will bring it up to possible GA status, with some work, as well as getting more recognition for Wilson's role in American history. --Thespian 10:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of merging the document. The Samuel Wilson article is more like a section to the Uncle Sam page than its own separate article. It would fit right in if you can find sources for all of the information. Oman9978 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the vaule or utility of the merger of the articles, in spite of its legal truthfulness. The US Congress can change on a whim who meets this catagory -- the ultimate pennical in political favouritism. The Uncle Sam is a cultural database issue, the Wilson is a biography database issue. As catagory articles they should not be merged. Eyreland 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
One article focuses primarily on the use of the cultural icon and the other on the person who is generally regarded as the person who was the source of the name of the icon. If Samuel Wilson has no other claim to fame other than through his connection to Uncle Sam, I'd argue that there's no better place for his story to be presented than in the Uncle Sam article. I'm not sure how the 1961 US Congressional resolution declaring Samuel Wilson the "progenitor of America's national symbol, Uncle Sam" can be used as evidence that this attribution "can change on a whim", particularly considering the length of time Wilson has been commonly considered to be the source of the name. If anything, I'd say that since the Congress has never previously acknowledged anyone, and have now acknowledged this connection after a century has passed, and with an additional 40 passing between the Congressional resolution and now, it's... well, it's a done deal. There'd have to be dramatic revelation of some other citizen who had a superior claim to this distinction for Congress to go through the trouble of voting on a new resolution. Finally, I'd like to add that I did a little searching around myself on the "Irish Immigrant Theory" theory of Uncle Sam's naming and only found the retelling of the story - no source material. I also think it should be removed. Pakaal 09:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) aja tanta basura y no dicen nada bueno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.67.149.28 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
