5 ms·

I don't understand the fascination with (merely) the number 11. Wouldn't NY Times November 11, 1918 be more appropriate today?[1] Or maybe Philip Larkin's MCMX

I don't understand the fascination with (merely) the number 11. Wouldn't NY Times November 11, 1918 be more appropriate today?[1] Or maybe Philip Larkin's MCMXIV.[2] [1] http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/world-war-i-ends http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/world-war-i-ends [2] http://net.lib.byu.edu/english/WWI/influence/MCMXIV.html http://net.lib.byu.edu/english/WWI/influence/MCMXIV.html

suivix 15y ago
Today will be 11/11/11 again. Just like in 1911.
- telemachos 15y ago
  Right. But what I meant by "I don't understand" was more along the lines of "So it's 11/11/11 again. Who cares? Oh, and by the way, every 11/11 is Veterans' Day..."
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    I don't think we need to read too deeply into the selection of the date. This is little more than a slice of trivia, the equivalent of saying "On this day, 100 years ago...". The choice of back-dated front page doesn't have any profound consequence, other than as a passing curiosity. I don't think the NYT is trying to make a statement with it.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > every 11/11 is Veterans' Day Veterans Day has only been held on 11/11 every year from 1954-1971 and 1978 to today. This is older.
    - telemachos 15y ago
      First, Veterans' Day, by that name, was only recognized after WWII, as you say, but 11/11 was a day of remembrance long before that under other names (Armistice Day or Remembrance Day).[1] Second, obviously a newspaper from 11/11/11 is earlier than a holiday on 11/11 precisely because the 11/11 dating comes from the end of World War I on November 11th, 1918 (on "the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month"). I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear, but my original comment refers to World War I, 1918 and a poem about the start of World War I. My original point remains: Today is (in many countries, not only the US) a national holiday in remembrance of the veterans of World War I or veterans more generally. I find it depressing that people care more about a piece of numerical trivia than that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_Day
      - ugh 15y ago
        “I find it depressing that people care more about a piece of numerical trivia than that.” You don’t know that. Unless you want everyone to care about nothing else whatsoever. Don’t always assume zero sum games.
  - officemonkey 15y ago
    Well, not the one in 1911.
- thestoicjester 15y ago
  Tomorrow will be 11/12/11 again. Just like in 1911.
jobu 15y ago
If it makes you feel better, at least there isn't a front-page article about it in the NY times today like there was 100 years ago: http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser/1911/11/11/104881854/article-view http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser/1911/11/11/104881854...
- ugh 15y ago
  That article is pure fluff. I can just imagine the editor saying to some reporter “Tomorrow is 11-11-11, now go and blow that up to a few dozen characters”.

suivix 15y ago

Today will be 11/11/11 again. Just like in 1911.

telemachos 15y ago
Right. But what I meant by "I don't understand" was more along the lines of "So it's 11/11/11 again. Who cares? Oh, and by the way, every 11/11 is Veterans' Day..."
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  I don't think we need to read too deeply into the selection of the date. This is little more than a slice of trivia, the equivalent of saying "On this day, 100 years ago...". The choice of back-dated front page doesn't have any profound consequence, other than as a passing curiosity. I don't think the NYT is trying to make a statement with it.
- derleth 15y ago
  > every 11/11 is Veterans' Day Veterans Day has only been held on 11/11 every year from 1954-1971 and 1978 to today. This is older.
  - telemachos 15y ago
    First, Veterans' Day, by that name, was only recognized after WWII, as you say, but 11/11 was a day of remembrance long before that under other names (Armistice Day or Remembrance Day).[1] Second, obviously a newspaper from 11/11/11 is earlier than a holiday on 11/11 precisely because the 11/11 dating comes from the end of World War I on November 11th, 1918 (on "the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month"). I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear, but my original comment refers to World War I, 1918 and a poem about the start of World War I. My original point remains: Today is (in many countries, not only the US) a national holiday in remembrance of the veterans of World War I or veterans more generally. I find it depressing that people care more about a piece of numerical trivia than that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_Day
    - ugh 15y ago
      “I find it depressing that people care more about a piece of numerical trivia than that.” You don’t know that. Unless you want everyone to care about nothing else whatsoever. Don’t always assume zero sum games.
- officemonkey 15y ago
  Well, not the one in 1911.
thestoicjester 15y ago
Tomorrow will be 11/12/11 again. Just like in 1911.

jobu 15y ago

If it makes you feel better, at least there isn't a front-page article about it in the NY times today like there was 100 years ago: http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser/1911/11/11/104881854/article-view http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser/1911/11/11/104881854...

ugh 15y ago
That article is pure fluff. I can just imagine the editor saying to some reporter “Tomorrow is 11-11-11, now go and blow that up to a few dozen characters”.