Talk:Shot heard round the world/Archive 1

Archive 1

World War One

Interesting little article. But, from my UK perspective i somehow associate 'a shot heard around the world' as the murder of archduke whatever (ferdinand?) of Austria, which started world war one. Sandpiper

After a little googling I found out that others share this perspective. The Times of Zambia uses it here: http://www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=8&id=1110179227, but...Emerson came up with the diaria almost 80 years before the archduke was assassinated, and (for what it's worth) google shows the phrase receives about 500-1000 times fewer hits refering to Ferdinand than to Lexington and Concord. The phrase has also been used to describe other assassinations. Still...I think if someone can come up with a good source that compares the usage of the phrase for the two war-related events, this alternate meaning should be in the article. The fact that the later meaning is more prevalent in the UK is really interesting! Flying Jazz 03:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I was still thinking about this today and came to the conclusion that maybe in some dimly remembered lesson about the american war we might have been read the poem. However, i stick to my immediate reaction, when I saw the link in the american revolution article, WW1 was what came to mind. No doubt people have taken a very memorable image and used it for all sorts of things. An Americanocentric view would obviously be much more likely to give it its original meaning. But might be possible to collect other events it has been used for. It could have been used as a book title. Don't recall exactly how I heard it used. Maybe it'll keep bugging me and I shall think of something else. Sandpiper 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It would seem you're not the only one who associates it with the Great War. That was the phrase I remember being taught as part of High School history in Australia. There are also WWI websites that refer to the same context [[1]] ~~Brother William 28th April 2006 05:30 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

After discussing the phrase with friends in the UK and Australia it seems that, despite the Emerson origin of the poem, outside of the US the phrase "the shot heard round the world" is more associated with World War 1 rather than the Revolutionary War (many were not even aware of the association with RW in the first place). I'm proposing to rewrite the article with a view to showing more on the international usage as well as the US one. Alternatively I could re-activate the disambiguation page and write a seperate article in a similar vein to the Assasination in Sarajevo page. ~~Brother William 3rd May 2006 00:12 (UTC)

I like the idea of showing more about the usage worldwide, but I think doing this in a disambiguation page would be a mistake. This is an opportunity for Wikipedia to teach different things to different readers in one article. I agree that the current article has big problems. It lumps both sports and Ferdinand's assasination into an "Other Uses" section, and I don't think that is appropriate. My suggestions: I hope that you divide up the article into sections in a more appropriate way in your rewrite, I hope you include some other notable assasinations besides Ferdinand's where the phrase has been used, and hopefully add more references. I hope you try to get some input about usage of the phrase from sources that are neither American nor from Commonwealth countries. This would truly represent an international perspective. It is possible that cultures with historically strong British ties would be more likely to embrace a non-Emerson usage and teach that usage to their children. Of course, it should be possible for the article itself to not be Americanocentric and still be about a phrase that originated in an Americanocentric hymn. Flying Jazz 08:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

References

• Original research is strictly frowned upon and against Wikipedia policy. Also, this site needs some help with sources and citation. (Looks like it hasn't been touched in awhile though). Colonel Marksman 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right that original research is frowned upon. What part of the present article constitutes original research? Flying Jazz 08:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern usage

I've added the reference to the most notable use of the phrase with reference to Dick Cheney. If you google "Shot heard 'round the world" +cheney you get over 14,000 hits.--Brother William 13:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Shot at Point Pleasant not Lexington

It seems that it is quite popular to say the shot heard round the world was at Lexington, but this is simply not true. The shot heard round the world was in Concord at the North Bridge. The shot it's referencing was the first shot fired by a colonial militiaman that killed a British Soldier. The statue that the poem is on is on one side of the bridge, while the grave of that British Soldier is on the other side of the bridge. The poem mentions the bridge, the farmer and is called the Concord Hymm. I think the article should be clearer in saying which shot is the actual shot heard round the world, and then mention the phrase being attributed to the Lexington shot as being a common misconception. Comment was added by Noldrin (talk • 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Concord Hymn is not about one farmer killing one British Soldier with one shot. The plural "the embattled farmers" fired "the shot." The issue of Emerson's usage vs popular usage seems to be addressed by the current version of the article. I think that labelling the popular usage (the first Lexington shot) a "misconception" would be too much of an academic POV because I think that's what the phrase means to very many people. It would be a misconception if people thought that this was what Emerson meant. Please take a closer look at the relevant parts of the article. Flying Jazz 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it was Concord or Lexington, the article should not contradict itself. In the introduction, the article says the shot was fired in Lexington. In the caption to the picture of the statue, it states that the shot was fired in Concord. Shouldn't the two sections at least agree with one another? Lenggries 16:26, 9 Sep 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.56.20 (talk)

Removed extreme minority sports usage

I removed the basketball, soccer, and cyberathlete references. None of these have invaded and persisted in the culture of the particular sport like the baseball and golf usage. Flying Jazz 05:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I returned the soccer reference - it is a VERY common usage in the soccer world when referring to Caligiuri's goal. I agree on the other two, especially the "cyberathlete" reference, which is far too niche. - RPIRED 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would debate the soccer reference being given equal prominence - I'm sure it is very commonly used indeed among U.S soccer fans but most fans outside the CONCACAF region - i.e at least 90% of soccer fans worldwide - won't have ever seen the goal, and in many cases wouldn't have heard about it either - CONCACAF games get next to no press NOW in Europe, despite the region's strength having vastly improved in the last 17 years. Baseball and Basketball are so US-Centric at the top levels that fans of the sport everywhere are aware of what happens there - the reverse is not usually true for soccer, and certainly wasn't in 1989

Figurative language

This article is just insulting to the reader. The shot wasn't really heard around the world? Shocking! Some guy 01:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article is just fine. While it may be true that the "shot" wasn't "heard" in places not proximal to the battle, the use of figurative language, especially within poetry, it not only normal and acceptable, but also recognized as demonstrative of the maturity of the writer. In this case, regardless of the underlying "facts" the phrase accurately describes the net effects of the battle, regardless of the various ways it might be interpreteted. The very validity of the phrase is only enhanced by the fact it has been pirated in so many other venues. There is nothing in the article that isn't adequately factual for inclusion. Wood Artist 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for tone

"While it is true that "the pen is mightier than the sword" (and this anomaly is proof), it is also true that the first shots of the American Revolution, though not "heard ‘round the world", were the first in a war for freedom that, ever since and forevermore, will be written in blood on the hearts of every man, woman, and child." The above is a prime example of an extremely non-encyclopedic tone that persists throughout the article, and definitely needs to be attended to. Tozoku 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Urban Myths and Legends"

I deleted a section of text that is very similar to those popping up across several articles related to the Battles of Lexington and Concord. An editor or group of editors is determined to "debunk" the idea that these battles marked the outbreak of the American Revolution, asserting instead that the Revolution began with an insurrection at Fort William and Mary. The fact that this claim is nonsense aside, this "debate" has nothing to do with Emerson's poetic phrase, which is the subject of this article. The text was inappropriate for this topic. Venicemenace 11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Shot heard 'round the world → Shot heard round the world — The spelling 'round instead of round is a hypercorrection by those who mistakenly believe the word is an abbreviation of around. It may well be that "Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)" is canonically spelled with the spurious apostrophe, but as a generic phrase not specific to baseball it's inappropriate. The original Emerson poem doesn't have it. —jnestorius^(talk) 13:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The title with the apostrophe became the name of the article as the result of an IP user's cut-and-paste move in 2005. I'll restore the page to the original title and merge the histories, as there doesn't seem to have been much interest in discussing the request here. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

tone or whatever?

i find it disturbing that an article on wikipedia, the source of all official possibly misleading information yet entirely allowable nonetheless, would, even COULD have a tone that was unfortunate, unsettling, distasteful, disgraceful, even outright silly.

when you have voluntarily put up the equivalent of an encyclopedic tagger wall what do you expect?

quit flaggin the shit and just goddam fix it if it aint to your damn standards.

me, i know that there are some people you just don't let into your house 'cause you know they will fuck it up. case in point? that colbert guy. the elephant thing. remember? you know some of the rest. i dont give a damn how good u are, you don't know the all of them and you don't have time or knowledge to find them. just rest assured i aint one. i only look here for references from the posts. you know, the ones that can't be fucked with on a whim. like books. and stuff.

right now i'm laughing my ass off for two reasons. first, you know (probably a while back) that i'm right to a good degree, and second, that you put up with my deliberate childish phrasing and lack of punctuation which i also know probably got on your nerves too. so do us all a favor and FIX THE SHIT INSTEAD OF TELLING EVERYONE THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE UP TO YOUR STANDARDS YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

PS- i haven't looked but i bet the ron paul page is about 980000 feet of real paper long about now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.227.11 (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(cough cough) WP:CIVIL (cough cough) --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of link to band named this

There have been repeated attempts to add a link to the website of a musical group names "Shot heard round the world". There is no evidence that such a band is notable in any way, and without such evidence, the link is inappropriate. This sort of blatant advertising and is not what Wikipedia is about. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Other usage

Wasn't it also used about the JFK assassination? And John Lennon? --Dbjorck (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never read anything connecting the phrase with either Kennedy or Lennon, but if you can provide references, then add it in. ~ Brother William (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the Human League song " Seconds " links to a U2 song in error. Can anyone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.47 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Shot

I had always understood the phrase to refer to one specific farmer who fired the first shot back against the British, or more accurately the first shot across the bridge ("By the rude bridge that arched the flood") where the British were turned back and began their long bloody retreat to Boston. And if that is the case, it was a singular shot. I believe that I have read the name of the Minuteman who fired it, but my copy of _Paul Revere's Ride_ is packed away right now. OrionClemens (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, It's said that no one knows who fired first. It could have been a random farmer, could have been a redcoat, could have been a militia man. Theres no definate proof. Joesolo13 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The war to end all wars.

When I read the page this is what i see:

it was the death of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne that propelled Austria Hungary and the rest of Europe into what was known as the "War To End All Dinosaurs".

emphasis on the war to end all dinosaurs.

When i go to edit it i see it as the war to end all wars. I dunno where the problem lies, but this needs to be fixed immediately. Clearly vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.80.85 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism was fixed in the time between when you read it, and when you tried to fix it yourself. See [2]. --Jayron32 17:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Lexington vs. Concord is irrelevant.

This article is not literally about the Battles of Lexington & Concord. It is about a phrase coined by RW Emerson in a poem about the North Bridge fight and its greater significance. In that context, the "shot" is clearly mentioned in particular reference to the conflict at the North Bridge ("By the rude bridge...HERE once the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard 'round the world"). However, there is no question that the actual "first shot" of the battle was in Lexington, whoever may have fired it, so the confusion that formerly existed in the lead of the article was understandable. (By all accounts, the shooting both at Lexington Green and North Bridge was chaotic and sudden, so it's not as though there is one particular person who fired first.) The key is the METAPHOR of the shot heard round the world, the incident that had far-reaching ramifications in history.

Therefore, with regard to the phrase to which this article refers, it does not matter whether one considers a particular and crucial gunshot to have transpired in Lexington or Concord -- certainly Emerson himself was biased towards his town in a fashion perhaps not supported by history. The battle itself, which took place in both towns and others on the road back to Boston, is the "shot heard 'round the world" of which Emerson wrote, the event that led to massive changes in history. Consequently, to try to quash constant edit-warring between partisans of both towns, or between those who prefer historical fact vs. literary license, I have removed ALL references to the locale of the "shot" in the article and simplified it in an NPOV fashion to state that the reference is to the battle(s). Venicemenace (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, I cannot agree with it. Couple things. First of all, the poem is about a specific place. It's a short poem and you can read the entire thing at Concord Hymn. It opens "By the rude bridge that arched the flood". Here Emerson is referring to an actual physical bridge. Emerson was not talking about a metaphorical "bridge to freedom" or what have you. Later he writes "On this green bank, by this soft stream, We set to-day a votive stone again emphasizing that this is an actual place where some people are placing a physical stone marker. Thus when he writes "Here once the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world, "Here" does not refer to "this general time in history" or "this continent" or "this place in our hearts" or whatever. It refers to a particular actual physical place. (FWIW "once" in this context does does not mean "one time only" but "at one time".) (It may be that Emerson should have written a different and better poem that was longer and more generalized, but that's not what the Battle Monument Committee asked for and it's too late change it now.)

Following this, we have "Here [the embattled farmers].. fired the shot heard round the world". Granted, "farmers" (plural) can't fire a "shot" (singular) and for strict grammatical congruence Emerson should have written either "Here [an embattled farmer].. fired the shot heard round the world" or "Here [the embattled farmers].. fired the shots heard round the world". Dunno what to say about that except to claim poetic license. It's a poem not an after-action report. It could be that Emerson meant the very first shot fired by militiaman. Or the very first shot that killed a British soldier (if these were different shots, which no one knows). Or even (using poetic license and stretching the meaning of "shot") the first ragged volley, which probably took several seconds and consisted of several individual shots. Or it could be that worrying about that is over-thinking the matter. The main point is that he's talking about a particular event covering a small area and taking few seconds at most and poetically making the case the that was the beginning of the war.

Why would he do that? Because something important happened there. Massachusetts militia fired on regular soldiers, and killed three. This was a big deal! British regulars dead on the ground! This was a real crossing of the rubicon, so to speak, and after that (unlike Lexington IMO) events took on a life of their own as other American units were emboldened to deal death, the British presumably went into full "holy shit!" mode, and there was no turning back from a real battle and a real war.

Emerson could have written about the events at Lexington, and he could have made the case that it was there that the battle, and thus the war, began. One could make a reasonable case that the skirmish at Lexington was the actual beginning of the battle and thus the war. It's a weak case IMO for various reasons but not unreasonable to advance it. If Emerson had written about Lexington that'd be different, and maybe he's done history a disfavor by not doing so. I don't think so, but it's basically a matter of opinion. The point is, we have to go with what Emerson did write not what he could have or should have written. Herostratus (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Shot heard 'round the world → Shot heard round the world – Note the difference is that the apostrophe is dropped. Reasons being, First, "round" is not a truncation of "around" but a perfectly acceptable alternative to "around" (see the adverbial form of round at Wiktionary, for instance.) This is not even archaic but still current, for instance "All-around good guy" and "All-round good guy" will both be seen. It's a false hypercorrection to think otherwise. Second, Emerson's poem which is the origin of the phrase, uses "round". Google and Google Ngram can't distinguish between the two forms, so I don't have data on usage. Not having that, I think we ought to go with the original form of the phrase. (It is true (I think) that Thompson's home run is commonly called "Shot heard 'round..." but that's the third-most-common use for the term.) According to this it was actually moved to "Shot heard round..." in 2007 but somebody must have moved it back. Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support. I find nothing persuasive in the nominator's argument, but the fact is that the items listed on this page use different renderings of round/Round/'round/etc. It's reasonable to have the page at the simplest title in such a case. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. All later usages directly or indirectly depend on the phrase in the Emerson poem, and it makes sense that the title should follow the usage there. That some people don't know that round is not a contraction of around, requiring an apostrophe, doesn't mean that we need an apostrophe in the article's title. Deor (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Red Slash 02:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is a non-controversial technical move, because it's simply a reversion of an undiscussed erroneous move. This doesn't even need discussion -- simply a speedy deletion tag on the redirect and then a move back to its proper place. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

School House Rock

The reference for that leads to nothing related to school house rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.38.224 (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The url is correct (schol-house-rock.com) but it must have lapsed and was bought up and used as redirect by, of all things and for some reason, and Spanish dictionary. However, apparently Disney has bought up the old rights and products of Schoolhouse Rock and I was able to find it on a Disney site and update the url. Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

More mud for the waters

My understanding of the shot, as I was taught in the 1960's, was actually Washington's attack on the French forces of Jumonville in the Ohio River Valley which kicked off the French and Indian war, which acted as a catalyst to the Seven Years (global) War and which resulted in the taxes which triggered the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution as well as the French Revolution. Truly a shot heard round the world. By comparison, the American Revolution was a localized skirmish, the first shot of which was relatively insignificant. Emerson's ditty wasn't written until 1837 and it seems less likely that he originated the phrase than that he simply (mis-) appropriated it from common usage in military academia. At any rate, the story I was taught is a helluva lot more enlightening and globally significant. Jus sayin. (Actually, the story I was taught is even more interesting, though I can find no reference for it this evening. The shot was a single shot fired by an English settler who shot an Indian allied with the French in the Ohio valley. The French saw this as a threat to their control of the region and were spurred to establish a military presence in the area. Washington was sent to challenge them. The rest, as they say, is history.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.173.32 (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Should it be Shot heard round the world or Shot Heard Round the World? Another editor put in the caps, but I reverted. It is not capitalized in the original poem, but that doesn't matter; what would matter is common usage. This Ngram seems to indicate that the lowercase version is used more, if it's constructed properly. Looking at the first ten Google results:

1. is Wikipedia, doesn't count.
2. This is lowercase.
3. This is capitalized. It's just a YouTube title though.
4. This is capitalized, but its just in the headline where you might expect that.
5. This is capitalized.
6. This is lowercase, but it's just the text of the poem so it doesn't count.
7. This is lowercase outside of the headline.
8. This is lowercase.
9. This is lowercase outside of the headline.
10. This is capitalized.

So I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

This article in its present form is really a violation of WP:NAD. It is defining a term rather than discussing a topic per se. It is almost a disambiguation page now. I would propose going ahead and turning it into a proper disambig page instead of an article. To the extent that the phrase needs to be discussed in any detail for any of the specific events, let it be discussed in those articles, not on this page.

- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:A0F6:5A6F:432B:C761 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)