Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 10

Modern Phillis Wheatley

Who is a famous person who is still alive who could be compared to Phillis Wheatley? Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post questions on multiple reference desks. Miscellaneous is probably the right place for this. Algebraist 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Phil Wheatley, if only on the grounds of name... in what respect were you thinking of?--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate of this question which you posted on the misc. ref desk. Please post questions only on one desk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was on Misc first, and is kinda Miscy, but whatever. Comparison is dead easy. George W Bush, for example, has significantly paler skin than she did. What do you actually want to know? Algebraist 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

She's a poet. They're sometime miscellaneous, but nearly always humane... --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that would be so hard. A poet who faced difficulites (eg being a slave), etc. but is modern-day. Just something like that. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For most countries of the world, the slave qualification would be hard to match. If we choose some other tribulation, like book banning, exile, death threats, then someone like Nawal El Saadawi. You can find more of the same by searching google for banned CCC poet, where CCC is a country such as Turkey, Egypt, and many others, I guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

She may work. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos safe?

A terrorist group may break into the missile silo and kill the guards and then take the keys to control the launching of the ICBMs. They may even want to change the co-ordinates of the missile targets. I hope this never happen. Are the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos well-secured and protected from terrorism today? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes they are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How secured are the the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Secured enough. See Strategic Rocket Forces for some more details of the force, if not their security methods. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A terrorist group may break into the missile silo and kill the guards and then take the keys to control the launching of the ICBMs

Terrorists could do this anywhere and to anything if they were smart/good enough. ;) Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Imran Zakhaev would agree that with a ultranationalist force of ~150 one could take a silo over. --mboverload@ 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia's nukes are protected by launch codes (see Cheget, akin to the U.S. Nuclear Football) which make it almost impossible to launch nuclear missiles merely by taking over a silo. If that weren't the case, I'd be more worried about some Russian (or American) missile silo guard having a really bad day and deciding to blow up Washington. —D. Monack ^talk 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. For many years the top-secret code that would allow a US launch was "00000000". The suitcase holding the president's underwear probably had better security, thanks to the Curtis LeMays of the world. (source). --Sean 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want to spend your time worrying about unsecured nukes (which is not an unreasonable thing to worry about), I'd concentrate on Pakistan. --Sean 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A faith-based Christian experience.

One of our biography articles talks about conversion to a "faith-based Christian experience."

I'm wondering whether the phrase "faith-based Christian experience" is well enough defined and broadly understood to the extent that it can be used in the encyclopedia without explanation.

Or perhaps there IS an explanation elsewhere in Wikipedia to which this article could link.

Answers on these points would be appreciated. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Editorial nonsense. Which article? --mboverload@ 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Baldwin - I have marked the statement as needing clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The word 'experience' sounds kinda dodgy to me. You don't convert to an experience, you have one. I think if you can't find a reference for a particular denomination then just shorten it to Christianity. - Lambajan 02:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Christianity all about faith? Isn't any religion all about faith? If so, "faith-based Christian" seems a tautology to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the writer is trying to draw a distinction between the "cultural" Christian ("I'm a Christian because it's my heritage" kind of reason) and the person who has made a conscious decision to believe and follow the Christian doctrines. (Just as you can be a Jew by descent and/or one by belief.) It's not a very clear way of putting it, but then my comments fairly ill-thought and rambling, so I'm not one to propose a better way! You could rephrase it with "deeply-held beliefs" or "strong faith", perhaps? Gwinva (talk)

Or perhaps "converted to the Christian faith"? Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I haven't seen "faith-based Christian experience." In the U.S., faith-based is often used in the political or public sector for endeavors that have some religious underpinning. For example, an explicitly religious group might develop a program for helping addicts overcome their addiction. The program could combine various therapies and medication with, say, prayer and Bible study (or might leave out the therapy and meds altogether). The result might be called a faith-based treatment program.

As Jack says, "faith-based Christian experience," for a Christian, seems something of a tautology, like "Torah-based Hasidic study." On the other hand, the expression "conversion experience" (like Paul on the road to Damascus) is common, though I don't know if it applies in this case. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Thinking about the above comments, it seems to me there is a problem with using adjectives such as "strong", "deeply-held", "faith-based" to describe a person's faith or conversion. Not to deny that someone's faith may be strong, but (for example) if A is described as being a person of faith and B as a person of strong faith, the implication is that B's faith is stronger. Even for someone who knows A and B well, this may be a tough call. It is a "ranking" that Wikipedia would be well to avoid, IMO. I wonder if this or similar questions have been discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NZ discovery

Who was the Dutch explorer who became the first European to discover NZ?

219.88.61.112 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He was Abel Tasman.

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question. So, instead of giving you the answer, I suggest you read New Zealand: the answer is a few paragraphs in. Gwinva (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (Ah, I see someone just has told you the answer. However, I still suggest you read the articles!) Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on speeches by American politicians

Would copyright laws apply to a public speech given by an American holding a political office, or is it in the public domain? If that speech is reprinted verbatim by a news organization, does copyright apply there?

I'm asking this because I've obtained a copy of a speech given by then-Honolulu Mayor Neal Blaisdell in 1966, which is from a verbatim reprint in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, and I'd like to know if I can reproduce it and distribute without having to worry about copyright. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the copyright would belong to the news agency, as they didn't create it; but I could be wrong. If you don't get a firm answer here, go to WP:MCQ. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know about that page, thanks. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would expect the copyright belongs to the politician (or possibly their office, rather than them personally, in the same way that what you produce while at work often belongs to your employer). It almost certainly doesn't belong to the news organisation, since they just reprinted it and there is no creativity involved. If it were a film of the speech, the copyright of the film may belong to the news organisation (as a derivative work, or something), but the words of the speech would still be the politician's. --Tango (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most politician's like their speeches and ideas to be disseminated, so a request to use it would probably be accepted. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to the creator of the work, not the news organization that reprints it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What if it's an US pol who cribs a UK pol? Saintrain (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in constitutions

I've wondered for a long time: why is it that the US Constitution has articles that are so much longer than other constitutions? For example, the Stalin Constitution has approximately 150 articles, versus 7 for the US Constitution; although this is due partially to its greater length, the articles of the Stalin Constitution are typically smaller than the sections of the US Constitution. Perhaps I should say: why aren't the chapters of the Stalin Constitution called articles, and the articles called sections? Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there's no set definition, let alone length, for any of these things. How long is a rope? How many words should be in a chapter? In a section? In a paragraph?

If you want to have some fun, take a look at the relentlessly prolix constitution of Alabama, largest in the world. Eighteen articles, 287 sections, and 799 amendments (example: amendment 781, "Baldwin County: Wastewater Utilities." Even Stalin in his glory was not arrayed like one of these. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it gets worse: Amendment 492 states that "the legislature may hereafter, by general law, provide for the promotion of the production, distribution, improvement, marketing, use and sale of catfish." — Lomn 14:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That one cracked me up by how they left the essential word to the very end; Catullus could have done no better! --Sean 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they actually have ordinary laws or is everything in their constitution? Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I've not read it, I'd guess that the Alabama constitution has a provision similar to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that is more faithfully observed than the Tenth Amendment. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

State constitutions are often treated just like any other legislation. New York's state constitution has a provision regulating the width of ski slopes (article 14 sec. 1). —D. Monack ^talk 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Nyttend is right. I've read that in 182x several States lost a bundle building canals and suchlike that never amounted to anything, and responded by adopting constitutions forbidding or severely restricting such spending; Alabama's may be the only one not radically rewritten since that period. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulbenkian collection images

Can someone[s] from the humanities department identify who or what is shown in any or all of these pictures from the Gulbenkian Museum? Just curious. They are: [1], [2], and [3] The images can be placed on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickr photo no. 3 shows 3 of a set of 7 Chinoiserie tapestries incorporating designs by Jean-Baptiste Pillement, woven in the Aubusson manufactory, after 1773 (ref: Maria Gordon-Smith, "The Influence of Jean Pillement on French and English Decorative Arts Part Two: Representative Fields of Influence" Artibus et Historiae 21.42 (2000:119-163) described and illustrated pp 142ff); one of a pair of encoignures: Charles Cressent (attrib.), ca 1735; bureau plat, Bernard II van Risamburgh?; fauteuils à la reine upholstered in Beauvais tapestry: M. Gourdin?. The gallery view is too general for this to make a good encyclopedia illustreation, though. --Wetman (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• The third picture can't really be used...agreed. It has too many different things in it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are multiple-murderers rare?

I wonder if it is true that most murders are committed by someone who has never murdered before (either because crimes of passion are more common than organized crime, or because the justice system prevents murderers from re-offending most of the time). Has anyone come across any statistics on this? -- Beland (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember an oft quoted statistic that most murder victims are murdered by someone known to them, I think that would suggest that the murders are usually one-offs. It may depend, however, on whether you could killed more than one person at the same time as a multiple murder (obvious, it is, technically speaking, but you can't consider it a failing of the justice system to prevent re-offending!). --Tango (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Members of rival gangs, for example, generally know each other's names; the statistic only means that most murders are not random (such as spree killings or robberies gone wrong). —Tamfang (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating My Dentist

Not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere on the reference desk, but I think this is the best fit. So, here goes...

My dentist is good looking. Very good looking. I've peeked around at various articles about medical ethics and my understanding is that medical professionals are allowed to have relationships with patients if doing so will not compromise their care. Putting aside all other considerations (i.e. she's still married but decided not to wear her ring anymore, she's divorced but seeing someone, she makes it a personal policy not to date patients, she's way out of my league, I creep her out, etc.), is there anything baring her from going out with me? Specifically, is my understanding (above) correct and does that apply to dental professionals too?

--98.112.20.247 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any ethical problem. With a dentist I would expect it to be even less of a problem than many other professional-client relationships, as her professional relationship with you is pretty limited and impersonal (teeth cleaning and reminding you to floss) and easily interchangeable (dentists are, in my experience, all pretty similar from a professional perspective—it's not like you couldn't get a new dentist if things didn't work out well, and there's no real consequences to switching dentists). The areas where this sort of thing gets complicated is when they are a psychologist, a teacher, a boss, etc. But I don't see dating your dentist as being any ethically different than, say, dating your mechanic. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no laws barring health professionals from dating patients in the United States. However, the companies that the doctors/dentists work for may have regulations against it. -- kainaw™ 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you have nice teeth! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remember: breaking up can bite. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For educational purposes, I recommend watching the dentist´s scene in Marathon Man. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"jus primae noctis" on a tropical island

I have heard some years ago on radio that there is a custom of "jus primae noctis" on some small tropical island kingdom, far away. It is said that the king must deflorate all the girls on island, sometimes 7 girls at one night, so that he is very exhausted. Also the outlook of girls is not an excuse, so he must delforate even the ugly, handicap and fat ones. Is this true? Which country it is? I recently remembered the places name is Tonga, but found nothing about such custom on the Tonga article. Maybe I remember the name wrong, and it is some other country? Tarvast (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you know this island, please add information about it on the article "jus primae noctis", thanks! Tarvast (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was Tonga I would be surprised - given the lack of attempted coup d'etats. Richard Avery (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very distorted version of what happened on Pitcairn Island. Adam Bishop (talk) 205.210.170.49 (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No its nothing like that. The story was about a native king and apparently an old and respected custom.

I feel myself a bit fool now, because I really believed for years that such a custom exists, just because I once heard it on radio. I even told it to some of my friends. Its suprising that media has so much power!

Still I can't believe it was a total lie told as a fact. Maybe it is some historic custom, that is ended? Or maybe it is a historic story that such a custom existed? Tarvast (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as a story, I could see it. Think of all the mermaid tales and whatnot told by lonely, horny sailors over the centuries. A simple tale of "I met this one girl on at this one port..." could quickly distort to "all the girls on this island..." and then "the king gets to..." --98.112.20.247 (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidates on the issues

I think I have this right as to how each candidate stands on the issues and I hate to ask the reference to check it but I do not want to cast a vote on the basis of any misunderstanding or any misinformation nor do I think anyone else does either.

Political Positions of the Candidates

There are five possible positions

• a - strongly support
• b - support
• c - no opinion
• d - oppose
• e - strongly oppose

And your reference desk question is? Algebraist 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really how each candidate stands on the issues or have I got it wrong?

I guess they want to know if we see any glaring misrepresentations of the candidates views as shown on the table. Do we have a pro-gun Obama, or a pro-abortion Palin etc. Just to ask the OP for clarification, what is "protect sexual orientation"? Fribbler (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Protected By Civil Rights Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what this 'foreign aid Russia Israel etc.' McCain's opposed to is. Algebraist 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Continue Foreign Aid to Russia, Israel, Others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very broad category. I don't think McCain is opposed to aid for Israel. And does the US even give any aid to Russia? Algebraist 13:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Had the US not helped Russia recover from pure economic absurdity we'd have loose nukes and plutonium all over the place not to mention anything else Russia could have ripped out of the ground and sold. American aid bridged the gap long enough for Russia to limit such sales to oil and Vodka and rocket engines and computer programs and a whole bunch of stuff that puts dollars in its pocket but does not represent that great of a threat to the rest of the world and it was not all one sided. America greatly benefited and continues to benefit as well. Both Countries should be proud of what they accomplished in not just ending the Cold War but in helping so many people as a result.

No, I am not kidding, and I would still like to know if the US is currently providing economic aid to Russia. Algebraist 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though the owner of the shop has not revealed the price he pays for a sack of potatoes I can pretty much assume that I am providing him with economic aid every time I pay the "market" price he charges me for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Buying and selling are not economic aid. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The US does still give Russia money: [4]. We also spend a lot for nuclear security stuff that is good for both the US and Russia. Also, the idea that McCain would oppose aid for Israel is an absurdity; half of US foreign aid goes to Israel, and most of the other half goes to Egypt to be nice to Israel, and any whiff of reducing these amounts would be a political death sentence for any US presidential candidate. --Sean 15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Short version for people who don't want to rummage in pdfs: The US foreign affairs budget included about $80 million allocated to Russia this year, a third to a half of which went to anti-Kremlin NGOs, media and suchlike, and so probably doesn't count as aid in the usual sense. Algebraist 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

According to McCain's campaign website, he does not "strongly support" privatizing Social Security but merely wants to "supplement" Social Security with private accounts. Pres. Bush's Social Sec. proposal was similar. —D. Monack ^talk 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two questions here. What is McCain's (and Bush's) current plan, and what does he support. A person may have an opinion on something, but not be willing to commit to it yet because he doesn't feel the time is right (or for a variety of reasons). In other words, just because McCain's plan is to supplement SS with private accounts doesn't mean he has never publicly supported privatising SS. My gut feeling is that McCain has never publicly supported privatising Social Security, but I know next to nothing about American politican Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, no sitting U.S. senator has ever publicly advocated privatizing Social Security as this is considered political suicide (this is even more true for presidential candidates). McCain's home state of Arizona has a large retiree population, so he would be especially sensitive to this issue. —D. Monack ^talk 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be to go with the flow but I believe Obama has repeatedly stated he supports death penalty. I remember hearing he would not be opposed to extending it to child rapists, "as a father". 190.244.186.234 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it natural to feel this way?

I know this is a unusual question but is it natural for a normal human being (like me) to feel that there is something wrong with the world? 122.107.177.150 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. But with 180,000 google hits for the phrase "There is something wrong with the world", you would not be alone (if you happened to think that way).--Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by it. If you mean, the state of political affairs is not going particularly swimmingly, then I think a good deal of people would (at any given time in history) agree with you, because indeed, such is something of the status quo (and at the moment, I would consider it an absolute mark of sanity). If you mean that you suspect everyone around you has been replaced with exact duplicates, well that's a psychiatric issue. As it is, you've stated something very vague, so who can tell what you mean? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Many people have felt this way, at least in the U.S, since the end of the year 2000. The Gallup poll showed 36% of the US responders "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States" before the 2000 election, compared with 81% dissatisfied today. Edison (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slartibartfast would say that's perfectly normal paranoia and everyone in the universe has it. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Not directed at Edison... Directed at the general U.S. population...) I have a strong feeling that it goes back a little bit before 2000. I know it is rather surprising that the world wasn't a utopian environment before 2000, but there were problems. Some people thought the entire world was messed up. It resulted in some nasty things, such as attempting to exterminate entire populations, killing world leaders, sending young men off to pointless wars... In the United States in particular, an elementary understanding of history is obviously not required to graduate high school. -- kainaw™ 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Answering the question... There is a natural maturation that people go through (which you can study in psychology). To be overly general, as a kid you think the world revolves around you. As you mature, you experience many things where the world does not revolve around you. As a teen (ie: living with parents, but experiencing the world outside of family life), you will experience more conflicts between the world and your personal self. Eventually, it will be apparent that much of the world does conflict with your personal self. Governments want to take your money. Other religions don't believe what you believe. Other people think their music is better. Other countries dress differently. The natural reaction is that there is something wrong with the world. That isn't the end though. It is possible to mature past that point to a realization that most of the world is different and then accept that fact. As my grandfather put it to me when I was young, "No matter what you believe or how strong your beliefs are, at least half the world disagrees with you. Get over it." -- kainaw™ 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is/are something(s) wrong with the world. If ever I haplessly forget that, the more red lights pop up at intersections, the more ignoramuses cut me off, the more megalomaniacs hog all my work, and the more idiots I hopelessly run into, just to remind me. Personally, by no means do I think it is unusual to just throw up your hands, turn your eyes to the sky and ask "Why?" every once in a while.

But then, we can always assume that there is always more that is right with the world than wrong. Why else are we able to use a free, open-content encyclopedia to share knowledge, thoughts, and ideas, with people halfway around the world in the blink of an eye? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it another way: "Is there something right with the world?" If you can ask that question and get an answer that is satisfactory to you, then why could you also not ask its opposite? Saukkomies 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The year’s at the spring and day’s at the morn,

Morning’s at seven’

The hillsides dew-pearled;

The lark’s on the wing;

The snails on the thorn:

God’s in his heaven

All’s right with the world!

Sometimes. Saintrain (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Credited with Introducing Potatoes into Ireland?

This is quoted from the article Thomas Harriot:

"Thomas Harriot (c. 1560 – July 2, 1621) was an English astronomer, mathematician, ethnographer, and translator. Some sources give his surname as Harriott or Hariot. He is sometimes credited with the introduction of the potato to Great Britain and Ireland."

Considering the potato famine, would the Irish people have been better off if potatoes had not been introduced there? Wanderer57 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty goofy hypothetical question. Who knows what would have happened if you change a major variable for a country's agricultural situation 200 years in the future. Maybe they would have developed other monocultures. Maybe they've had done something else. Maybe maybe maybe maybe. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the introduction of potatoes maintain a fairly constant population, or did it spur fast and unsustainable population growth leading to famine when the 1845 potato blight hit? A graph of the Irish population [5] found in the article Great Famine (Ireland) compared to the population of the rest of Europe shows an amazing increase in the Irish population from about 3.2 million in the mid 1700's to about 8.2 million when the Hunger hit in the 1840s, with a drop of about 2 million due to the famine over the next few years, and a continuing drop for some time thereafter. Edison (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think of the well-being and quality of life—indeed, the existence at all—of the "extra" six million Irish who were probably sustained to some extent (presumably great extent, considering the population devastated by the crop's failure in the Famine) by the potato. Or as the OP words it, those Irish people were better off— until the Famine generation. This is (nod to first respondent, 98.217.8.46) if we're allowing only the one variable. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Crediting someone with something doesn't have to mean giving them a pat on the back. For example we credit Oppenheimer with inventing the atomic bomb but that doesn't mean we're saying "well done, son". 90.192.223.127 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is warm, windy, and damp. There are few other staples suitable for such a climate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. The rollercoaster rise and drop in Irish population suggests dramatic changes. I should turn to history books to get an idea of the human toll taken by those changes.

I agree that my question was hypothetical - I almost used that term in asking the question. But "pretty goofy"?? Though my experience of the reference desk is much less that that of 98.217.8.46, my impression is that compared to some questions, mine is quite sensible.

Could we institute a rating system for reference desk questions, the "goofiness scale"? (Now that is a pretty goofy question.) ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a historian and all hypotheticals get a 3/5 on the goofiness scale by my rating anyway, and those which try to make sense out of how history would be different by changing some broad variable get an extra goofiness point. Now I'll admit though that even with this rating there are far more goofy questions on the Ref Desk, but this one struck me as goofy in the utter unanswerable nature of it. I think the answers offered are a bit too simplistic—I find it highly unlikely that the potato alone was responsible for all it is being given credit here for. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is far from goofy. The famine would likely not have killed as many people if the population had not increased so swiftly. But maybe the world was a better place for those extra people being in it, and were they personally better off being born than not being born? Hunger in Ireland provided Jonathan Swift with material for a satire, "A Modest Proposal" in 1729, Hunger and overpopulation were commonly understood to be the lot of the Irish over a century before the famine, before the same farmland was called on to feed another 5 million people while exporting grain for the financial benefit of the absentee landlords." (Ah Clio, where are ye to refute this?) Edison (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgent requirement!

I am a new user to Wikipedia.Can anyone please specify an internet link(External) from where I can get informations concerned with the 'Role and Duties of Judges in India'?Anyone to help is wholeheartedly welcomed.117.201.96.162 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We have great articles on many topics. May I ask why only an external link will do? --Sean 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of biting a newcomer, I'd suggest it's because they've been told not to reference wikipedia on their assigment. Steewi (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Indian law has a number of internal / external links which may be useful in your research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance

The Oath of Allegiance is required to be taken in the UK and other Commonwealth Realms by MPs, clergy of the Church of England, police constables and others. It is now sworn by new British citizens at citizenship ceremonies. To me, the oath appears feudal and obsolete; it pertains to swearing faithfulness and 'true allegiance' to the queen and her successors. I'm looking for comments and thoughts, legal and otherwise, as to what the oath legally or morally binds one. Is it possible for one seeking to abolish the monarchy to make such an oath? Certain MPs are avowed republicans and have made the oath. Has anyone, or can anyone, be prosecuted for breach of this oath? Has the oath been modified, scrapped or made optional in certain Commonwealth Realms? Thanks. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Police and Assembly members in Northern Ireland don't need to swear it. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you've already look at the UK specific page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(UK)) and looked through the linked parliamentary report/document (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-116.pdf). That goes into some detail about the current oath and includes examples of Sinn Fein MPs that were not allowed to sit because of their refusal to take the oath. Seeing as the oath has very little to I would find it unlikely for anyone to be prosecuted...

I ..... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Apart from abiding by the laws of the land (which all would need to do) there is little to it. Yes there is the allegiance to the Queen but that's a hard one to 'prove' in terms of enforcing this. It's more symbolic than anything else I would say. ny156uk (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The UK oath of allegiance is much shorter and simpler than the equivalent US oath of citizenship. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In Australia, new MPs have the choice of an oath or an affirmation. The oath starts with "I do swear that ..." and ends with "So Help me God". The affirmation starts "I do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that ...", and there's no reference to God at the end. Otherwise, they are both about allegiance to the monarch and their heirs and successors. The wording is hard coded into the Constitution, and cannot be changed except by referendum. Any referendum that proposed to do away with swearing or affirming allegiance to the Queen would also probably propose to do away with the monarchy entirely. We had such a referendum in 1999, but it failed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

UK MP's also have the choice of swearing or affirming. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, Oath of allegiance (Canada). Americans are often astonished when they learn (on admittedly rare occasions) that the citizenship oath for new Canadians begins, "I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors..." "Queen of Canada" is virtually unknown in the U.S., except perhaps by bowtie-wearing columnists. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Who then do Americans imagine the Canadian Head of State to be? DuncanHill (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine they imagine her to be Queen Elizabeth II of "England". That's the response most people would give, even in relatively enlightened places. Some few would say QEII of the United Kingdom. Even fewer are aware of the 16 separate crowns she wears, one for each Commonwealth realm. (She must have an awful headache by now.) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The Prime Minister, of course. I do find it a bit odd to hear citizens of a democracy pledging allegiance to a monarch, though I'm not a big fan of the U.S. Pledge either. -- BenRG (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a little problem with people of other religions persuasions bearing true allegiance whilst 'An Act for the Security of Her Majesties Person and Government and of the Succession to the Crown of Great Britain in the Protestant Line' is still in force. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if they intend to ignore the "according to law" part of the oath or affirmation. One can bear true allegiance while lawfully attempting to change a particular law. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that religious tests have been removed from the oath as it now stands, especially as one can decide whether to swear by God or not, or to affirm rather than swear. That the succession is religiously limited by law seems a somewhat separate issue. In UK law, the oath has been whittled down to allow for a multitude of non-Anglicans to take it, thus suggesting that the limited succession is no impediment. There also seems to be a consensus that a republican can swear the oath on the basis that the allegiance boils down to a respect for rule of law, and allows for legal abolition of monarchy. Even so, I feel the oath is a rather outdated nonsense. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an English judicial review against the UK MP's oath, proposing an alternative to the country or constituents. In Northern Irish Queen's Counsel don't have to take it either. Even still, monarchists will tell you it reinforces national unity. As Edmund Burke said, Parliament isn't a Congress of hostile interests, but one Parliament of the entire Kingdom.78.144.107.126 (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Woman Vice President

Why do so many women jump boat and go from being a democrat to being a republican only because the republican VP candidate is a female. This is crazy to me.... Before Palin was announced as Mccain's running partner, the polls showed they were neck to neck, now Mccain is up. Why will women just vote for a woman?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The same happened here in the UK and we got Maggie Thatcher for 11 years. Astronaut (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

People want leaders that will make the same decisions as they would make, which often means people support candidates that are most like them, that could well include gender. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It just demonstrates that politics is not necessarily about policies. In fact, in the majority of cases it's not about policies, which is why the "charisma" or other personal qualities of candidates is considered so important; as is whether they've ever in their life put a joint to their lips, even if it happened when they were 15. JFK probably got over the line because of the Catholic vote; if Obama wins, it will no doubt be helped by lots of African-Americans voting for him who may not have voted for a white Democrat candidate. It also works in reverse: there will be people who would have voted Repulican if the VP running mate was a male, but will now not vote Republican; and there will be people who would have voted Democrat if the presidential candidate was white, but will now not vote Democrat. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All presidential elections are decided by the "undecided" voters who are not ideologically attached to one party or the other. These people tend to pride themselves on voting for the person rather than the party. Because the parties nationally are so far apart on many issues, anyone who would vote Democrat one year and Republican the next presumably is not an issues-oriented person. Such a person would be swayed by little things like which candidate seems more honest or which seems more like a "regular person." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we are actually talking about not too many voters here — a few percentage points — who are dumb enough to vote for someone just because they look (or don't look) like them. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tango, most of these women were democrats and moved over to being republican as can be seen with the polls. It comes down to the only similarity is sex, and not beliefs. I just cant believe how incompetent people can be these days... And about the last comment, we are talking about a lot of voters, not just a few. I know these polls that they conduct dont cover all American voters or even close, but they show what American voters will do. These small studies of a few thousand people shows pretty much how all voters will vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way of knowing if anyone will tend to change party affiliation until after the vote on November 4th. Until then, it is only opinion polls and those are frequently inaccurate. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is based on a faulty assumption--that is, that McCain's jump in the polls is primarily attributable to women "crossing over" to support Sarah Palin purely because she is a woman. If one has been watching the polling figures (The Gallup Organization and Rasmussen Reports, for starters), a different picture emerges. It appears that few women have crossed over: if anything, counterintuitive as it might seem, the new McCain supporters are men. Statistically, McCain's gains among women voters in the last 10 days are very small...almost within the margin of error for the polls being taken. When we further consider that the rise in polls generally is likely attributable in part to a "convention bounce", I don't think there is a phenomenon to explain--at least, not the phenomenon the questioner believes is at work. Just my two cents, User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.41.113 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How dare you spoil a good discussion with references to actual data! ;-) You're right: there seems to be no data that shows Democratic women shifting support to McCain. Gallup, in fact, suggests that McCain actually lost ground with both Democratic and independent women after the selection of Palin. So far, Palin seems to have helped McCain primarily with white male independents and GOP women. Palin will presumably help McCain with conservatives, but whether she will attract many independent or Democratic women remains to be seen. —Kevin Myers 05:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I saw a news report earlier today on the Internet which quoted one poll (dont' know which one) that said that women's support had gone from 8% more for Obama, to 10% more for McCain. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

American Helping Everyone

How come the USA is always helping every other country and you never hear of any other countries helping others in terms of free medicine or anything else? I don't have a problem with helping others in need, but I find it pretty sad that no one else cares to contribute, whether they are a wealthy country or not. This country is so broke right now and we are helping everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You will see from this article (Official development assistance) that many countries are (in terms of percentage of GNP) much more generous than the USA in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The ODA data is misleading because it only includes money given by governments. Individual Americans and U.S. private foundations give, collectively, almost four times what the U.S. government gives. When you include all US giving (not just giving by the government), Americans give more foreign assistance in total and on a per-capita basis than almost all other countries. Wikiant (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that (with like-for-like figures for other developed nations)? DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a citation here which suggests that the US, public & private, gives less on a per capita basis than many other countries. YMMV. Oh. And another one which states "Even if you factor in private giving, the United States ranks 19th out of 21 rich countries in terms of per capita expenditures, according to the 2004 Ranking the Rich exercise.". One reason the US is pushed so low is the amount of "tied" aid - 57% of total giving [6] - which can be spent only with US firms. Halliburton, after all, also needs to be fed lest there be no jobs for retired top politicians in the future. Thus 'aid' funds the domestic Military-industrial-media complex and the Pork barrel. </rant>. Okay, to balance it up a bit, a long quote from the Rasmusen blog[7]: "This does not mean that the United States is particularly stingy on other dimensions of helping the poor. The Ranking the Rich exercise included aid as only one of seven components -- the others are trade, investment, migration, environment, technology, and security. When you aggregate the different components, the U.S. comes in at 7th out of the 21 countries (intriguingly, among the G-7, the Anglosphere countries -- Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S. -- come in at 1-2-3). It turns out that the U.S. is comparatively more generous on other dimensions." --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of where the USA ranks on the "giving" scale, one can safely say that many other countries do care to contribute, both money, and other types of aid (such as humanitarian, developmental, military). So, the question is "why do you never hear of any other countries helping"? Probably, because of media/political bias. The American press (or politicians) like to tell about what America is doing. Nothing wrong with that in principle (families like to discuss their own affairs, after all), but you might need to read more than headlines to find out what the rest of the world is doing. Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source (the numbers are from the world bank) I found about the US vs. other developed nations in terms of private donations, I didn't read into it too much. I've always heard that European governments will give more, but Americans give more individually as a percentage of GDP. AlexiusHoratius 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's charitable giving in total, not just giving to other countries. I expect Americans give a greater proportion of their donations domestically than other countries (that's a guess based on general statistics about Americans and involvement with the rest of the world). That link also says charitable giving is generally higher in countries with lower taxes, which could explain a significant proportion of the difference, judging by this. --Tango (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because America is the best! Ra ra ra! See American exceptionalism. USA!! USA!! USA!! What a load of jingoistic tosh. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note also there is a difference in the types of aide countries give. Some give a lot of tied aide, others untied aide. Aide can come with a large variety of other preconditions which may benefit the donating country or can have few or none. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the USA being broke and how that relates to foreign aid, most US foreign aid goes to propping up our only reliable Middle Eastern ally, Israel, rather than good-natured medicine distribution, and most of the rest goes to overpaying Iowa farmers for food aid. The whole kettle of fish takes up less than 1% of the US budget. Also, the USA is ludicrously far from being broke; anyone who thinks so is only counting our debts and not our assets. --Sean 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Iraq but by no means receives most US foreign aid. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good figures on this issue here. Israel plus Egypt far outweigh all the rest, if we put Afghanistan and Iraq to one side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Those figures don't show all countries. I believe Israel + Egypt = about 1/3 of US foreign aid (minus Iraq). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rich countries like to think they are doing great things helping poor countries, but factor in the people from the poor countries who were enslaved, or abused by colonial regimes which worked them to death on plantations or in mines. Significant value went from the third world nations to the European nations who colonized them, and significant value went in the form of slaves from Africa to America. Much of the aid which goes to developing nations is in the form of weapons, and conveys little benefit to the common people, but instead keeps corrupt "friendly" regimes in power. Edison (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In its history, the United States has indeed given a lot of foreign aid to other countries. However, it should not be ignored that all through the 20th Century up to today that the US has immensely benefitted financially from its foreign investments. In other words, for every dollar that US investors have sent overseas, they realize a profitable return - sometimes at an incredibly high rate. What this means is that America has stripped capital - money - from other countries around the world for many years, which is one of the big reasons that the United States has been so rich for so long. The percentage of money that the US has then turned around and given back to these countries is almost negligible compared to the vast wealth it has stripped from the same countries by foreign investments. Saukkomies 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign investment "strips wealth" from developing countries? Do you think it would be better for companies in the developed world not to invest in developing countries? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Economics is not a zero-sum game, it is possible to profit without it being at someone else's expense. A return on investment is usually such a case. I build a factory in China, a load of Chinese people get jobs and wages, some consumers get whatever it is I make and I get some profit - everybody wins (that's a little simplistic, but it is certainly possible to have a net gain overall from an investment). --Tango (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This indeed is true. However, such is not the case for many of the countries that the United States has given foreign aid to - especially in Latin America. When the trading arrangement between two countries - one a developed and one developing - entails that the poorer, developing country provides raw material and cheap labor, and the richer, developed country provides manufactured goods, there will be an inherent trade imbalance of capital (wealth) which will flow steadily from the developing to the developed country. The result of this is a steady flow of capital from the developing to the develoed country, keeping the developing country from fully realizing its potential. There are many examples of this, including the relation between the US and Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, and other Latin American countries. Generally speaking, every US dollar invested in Latin America returns two dollars to the investor. Saukkomies 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

European countries take precedence over the U.S. in the severity of economic and cultural devastation imposed on colonies. In the realm of cultural rape, many countries were forced to abandon even their native languages in favor of those of the occupiers. Few countries (Guam? Puerto Rico? The Phillipines? the Indian Nations of North America?) speak English as a result of U.S. occupation, whereas many speak English as a result of British conquest, or speak French, or Spanish, or Russian due to conquest. Any other languages imposed by cultural imperialism? Edison (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Very edifying, Edison, but this seems to be drifting a long way off topic in order to prove a political point. And I'm sure that's against the Ref Desk rules. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course they don't speak English as a result of US colonisation - the US was a British colony, it speaks English due to British colonisation! The US can't really claim innocence of things that happened before it become independent, since they were part of the British (and some other European countries) empire and were colonialists. --Tango (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

primary historical memories

I want to know if there is, and what it is called if there is a term that refers to a generations first collective memory of a significant historical event like President Kennedy's assassination was the first nation or world wide event that my parents can remember, or 9/11 will be the first worldwide event remembered by today's teenagers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.38.58 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific term for it. But mine was the fall of the Berlin Wall, if anybody cares! ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a term would apply, because what is "historically significant" and what is not, is all relative. From an English stand-point, I really doubt such a term exists. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think events that stand out as you describe are sometimes called landmark events or historical landmarks. However, since a 'generation' of people are not all born in the same year, the first landmark event for some is not the first for others. Because of this, there may not be a name for the first landmark event of a generation. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually though, looking back, what about the baby boomers? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

People from the earliest age of reason upward remember these events: how they heard it, where they were, who they were with. It is multi-generational. I know people from an older generation whose memory of that sort is the announcement of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For those a few years younger, it was the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. For a younger generation still, it was the assassination of President Kennedy. People could tell what class they were in, who announced that Kennedy had been shot, and who was sitting in front and behind them in the classroom. The next such event? Maybe the moon landing, although it was not a sudden unexpected event. Then 9/11. Perhaps these events are a creature of telecommunications. Was it such a shared historical moment when a newspaper arrived with word of the outbreak of the American Revolution in the fighting at Lexington and Concord? Then there would have been more word of mouth spreading of the news when a newspaper arrived via stagecoach, or later when the telegraph at the newspaper office received word that President Lincoln had been shot. There ought to be a name for these moments. Edison (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For young people, it might be 9/11 (7 years ago today; the West's bad luck might finally have come to an end) or the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. My first such memory is the launch of Sputnik in 1957. It may not seem like much these days, but it was a very big event then, and I have a very clear memory of my mother going on in some detail about it. I can't believe someone hasn't come up with a name for this phenomenon at some time, but if so, it doesn't seem to have entered popular consciousness. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I too am unaware of a name for these events. Mine is the murder of Lord Mountbatten and some of his family and friends. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The first major world event I remember vividly is the Challenger explosion. I remember the Berlin Wall falling and the Soviet Union collapsing too, but I was mostly interested in the new flags and capital cities I had to memorize...and it seems like there must be a word for this, but I can't think of it. Maybe there is one in German, they usually have words for this sort of thing, right? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely there must be a name for everything that can be described. - Lambajan 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the names of the actual events being used as such a generic term, i.e. "9/11 was our generation's JFK." jeffjon (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Things like this have always happened. Before Pearl Harbor, it was "Remember Lusitania! Before that, farther back, it was "Remember the Alamo!" Things like that go back forever. Maybe "watershed moment" is what we're looking for? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Watershed moment" would certainly describe such events, but it would also describe many events that people don't particularly remember (well, they might remember the event per se, but they don't remember now exactly where they were or what they were doing), so it's too broad. For example, does everyone remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard about Czechoslovakia's decision to break into 2 countries? I certainly don't. But it was indisputably a watershed moment, at least as far as those countries were concerned, and as far as the history of peaceful resolutions goes. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it will always depend on your frame of reference. I had no idea who Lord Mountbatten was until I looked at the article, for example, but that's no huge surprise—I'm betting that most Americans of my age have no idea who he is. And our degree of understanding of said events can be pretty miniscule; all I really understood about the fall of the Berlin wall was that everyone thought it was a big deal and now I had to re-learn my European geography because East Germany and West Germany would now just be Germany and I found that very irritating at that age, the apparent arbitrariness of it all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Could (would) one consider Yugoslavians and Australians born about the same time the same generation? What Berliners (O) remember about 1961 are probably much different than Burmese.

My first political/historical memory is seeing the headline "Ike Wins in Landslide". (I knew what Ike, wins and landslide all meant but was very confused and worried by that juxtaposition!) That event is certainly minor to my "generation". I think a "generation's memories" are formed way after the fact. Saintrain (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there's the day Princess Diana died. One term that comes up over and again is adding "-gate" for any scandal. In her famous interview launching Martin Bashir, PD might have embodied both for some people. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The death of Princess Diana is certainly my first such memory. 9/11 is probably the only other such memory I have. I can tell you exactly where I was when I heard about those two events. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are certainly "collective moments": those events which everyone (above a certain age) can remember, along with the associated details (where they were, how they reacted). JFK, Challenger, Berlin Wall, Diana, 9/11 and so on. These will vary slightly from country to country and, of course, everyone will have a different first event. Mine was the Erebus crash, 1979. I could tell you exactly when and how I heard. The 1981 Springbok Tour was, I think, my first realisation that there was a Big Bad World out there, but that was an event, rather than a moment. (And now you know how old I am, and where I live.) Gwinva (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're reminiscing, my earliest good memory of a historical event is the United Kingdom general election, 1997. The only earlier such events I recall are the death of John Smith (and my outrage that my daytime TV had been cancelled as a result) and a sense of bemusement that anyone thought golf important enough to fight a war over. Algebraist 01:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember going into school the day after the 1997 election and talking with friends about how it was the first day of our lives under a non-conservative government. I don't remember when I heard the result, though, so I don't think that one counts for me (I was only 10 at the time). --Tango (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Count yourself lucky, Tango. Until age 22, I had lived my entire life under conservative federal governments. I'm sure I was irretrievably ruined by then. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know a girl who said she would always remember where she was when she heard that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, and that President Kennedy had been shot. She was sitting in American History class in 1996. Edison (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was 11, and I'd been up till 4 watching it. Algebraist 10:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Up til 4 watching what? Pearl Harbour, President Kennedy, or Edison's friend's history class? Gwinva (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)