Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 17

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 17

World Food Prices

What's the status of world food prices right now, are they still unbearably high compared to...Oh say, 2 years before? 99.226.24.150 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Complex subject. I'm going to point you here for better analysis than we could give. But the short answer is, for some, prices are unbearable. For most in the west, they're merely a slight annoyance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the IMF (annual data back to 1980: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/WEOApr2007alla.xls), the big run-up in wheat and rice prices was in 2004-05, barley in 2006-07, and most other grains in 2007. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Xidan

Any sources for the shopping area in Beijing?Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This search may help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regional Government in England

The provincial governments in Canada have certain roles and responsibilities separate from the federal government in Ottawa. This is also true of the US states. I am curious how it is broken down in England. As there is no provinces or states per say, are there regional government responsibilities that differ from county to county? Does for example Somerset have a rules or laws that would be different from Norfolk or Kent in terms of maybe health care, education or tax rate? I am not interested in every law - just an idea on how responsibility is divided in England overall.142.177.144.118 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You may find the article Local government in England helpful for an overview. Nanonic (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Local authorities in England & Wales don't generally get to make laws - they can only make (relatively trivial) bye-laws. They are mostly concerned with the administration of local services (education, transport, waste disposal, social services etc) and have some control over the budgets and policy for these (within national limits). They also have some control over the rates of tax (Council tax and Business Rates), but again these are subject to national regulation, and in any case a large part of local revenue is in fact from central government. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Check whether you actually mean England or the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales now have much more autonomy than they once did. And Scottish law and Scotland's education system have always been different from the equivalents in England. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also look at Regional assembly (if an article exists?) - there are regional assemblies in the Uk. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

London is the only English region to have an elected regional assembly, the other 8 Regions of England do have regional assemblies, but these are unelected bodies composed of councillors from counties and boroughs within the region, and they don't actually have much authority - they're mainly a method of passing central government funds down to the local authorities. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to be too much of a pedent how do we define 'authority'. Regional assemblies certainly have a lot of power to influence and impact upon local-government policy. Power in the country may be formally quite centralised but in practice that is not especially the case. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

poem by douglas macarther

looking for a copy of a fathers prayer attributed to general macarther, any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.216.68 (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you are [1], it appears it wasn't by MacArthur though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Goverment buying bad debt

What is the point of buying bad debt? Can't the government simply let these people fall? It could also help the poor with some sort of bonds it that is the matter. If I personally run into too much debt with my credit card, it is my fault, isn't it? It would only mean that the guys at Wall Street aren't the smartest guys on town. Mr.K. (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because not buying it may have potentially worse consequences for the economy. See Too Big to Fail policy. Remember that a bank's liabilities are its promise to repay depositors (and policyholders for insurers). Some reasons for the recent AIG bailout are given here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What about a preemptive intervention? It would have potentially less consequences for the finances of the government. Mr.K. (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that, in this case, rely on time travel? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailing out a big bank is a very drastic action, so governments don't want to do it unless it's clear they have no choice - that means waiting until the last possible moment. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Related to Zain's answer, these financial giants are parties to a huge number of derivative contracts. Greatly simplifying, these are contracts between Party A and Party B, which say something like "Party B pays Party A $X. Then, if Event Q happens, Party A pays Party B $Y." These can be bets on stock prices, oil prices, credit defaults, whatever. The total amount of money at stake is staggering—possibly much, much larger than what either company is worth. Normally, this is OK, because a company's portfolio of such contracts will be largely offsetting—some contracts will pay off if oil goes up, and some will do the opposite. Now, if Company A, which is worth $10B fails, but is a party to derivatives contracts that involve $100B or $1T, there's a lot of other companies—the counterparties to these contracts—that are well and truly screwed. AIG, in particular, wrote a lot of contracts that pay out in case of credit defaults. We now know that there's going to be a lot of credit defaults. If AIG can't pay out in a default event, then all those other companies could end up going under, as well. This problem is called counterparty risk, but our article is weak in the context of derivatives. The point of a bailout is not really to help AIG, it's to keep it from taking a lot of other companies down with it. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@Zain: very funny, but no, I was not asking about a concrete case like AIG.

It is understandable the huge amount of wreckage that a bank can make. And that is exactly why the government should intervene when the banks start to take more risk that they can cope with. The question is what instruments of early intervention does the government have.Mr.K. (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Bank regulation and Capital requirements in particular. But these are clearly not enough. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another factor affecting this decision is that BIG MONEY people have a lot of political clout. Saukkomies 08:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences of government buying bad debt

So, once again, the government (or in this case its unelected quasi-arm, the Federal Reserve) has propped up the house of cards of derivatives by bailing out another megacorporation, justifying its action by saying that the risks to the economy were too great for it to do otherwise. Clearly, the risks were high for the ultrarich who have parked their money in hedge funds that have bought the risky derivatives backed by AIG. What nobody seems to address is the risks or consequences of government (or Fed) bailouts to the taxpayer or the long-term health of the economy. What are those risks or consequences? Could these bailouts have a long-term net benefit for the ultrarich at a long-term net cost to the ordinary taxpayers who will have to foot the bill? Marco polo (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the ref desk. If you have a genuine question, then ask it, if you just want to rant, go elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a tangent, one reason for buying bad debt (meaning debt that doesn't look like it'll be 100% repaid) is that you pay a discount because you expect to make a profit based on your outlay. If MegaStore has $100,000 in past-due bills, it might be willing to sell them to me for $50,000 in order to avoid the expense of trying to net more than that itself. Meanwhile, I've got skilled collections people and believe I can net $10,000 after my expenses. If I manage that within a year, I've got 20% return on my initial investment. (Not that the government is doing this -- but what the heck is with the 79.9% figure for AIG shares?) --- OtherDave (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the expense of collecting, it's the risk. MegaStore may not be willing to take the risk of people defaulting whereas you are. You are basically offering MegaStore insurance - in exchange for them paying you a fixed amount (in the form of the discount on the debts) you will absorb any losses incurred, that's exactly what insurance companies do. --Tango (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First Survey of Wikipedians

Does anyone know when the recent survey of Wikipedians will start reporting its findings? This survey is a collaboration between the Wikimedia Foundation and UNU-MERIT, and was announced as starting this January. It was said that preliminary findings would be reported to the Wikimania conference held this summer in Alexandria. I have tried emailing both the institutions doing the survey, without any answer. Dano'sullivan (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Elton John

I am planning to dress up as this rather flamboyant musician for Halloween, and (I am female and it's going to be awesome and) I would like to be able to plop down and play at least one of his songs if I am challenged to do so. I do have a small amount of piano-playing ability, I can read sheet music, and I have a lot of time to practice. What I don't know is which of his songs would be the easiest to learn and play. Any suggestions? Or alternatively, better places to ask? --Masamage ♫ 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I can play "easy" versions of Candle in the Wind and Can You Feel the Love Tonight. I'd recommend the first of those, naturally. I can't remember what books I got them from though, sorry, but I'm sure google knows. I'll post back if I remember &/or find it. AndyJones (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I found Your Song to be fairly easy to learn. --LarryMac | Talk 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is of course terribly subjective. I'd suggest Rocket man, Daniel, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Nikita or Crocodile Rock. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the music to any of his songs, but I was also going to suggests Daniel. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is my favorite, but it's got some tricky little flourishes in it, so I'll look into all the rest of these, too. Whatever the case, though, I can always just leave the hard stuff out. X) --Masamage ♫ 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

20 most important world dates

From christs birth to the present day, any takers? --217.227.96.141 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few possible considerations:
• May 20, 325 - The First Council of Nicaea is convened under orders from Emperor Constantine, the result of which will become the Christian Church.
• March 31 to April 25(?), 627 - The Battle of the Trench in which the supporters of Muhammad defeat a confederation of their enemies, the Meccans, some Arab tribes, and a few tribes of Jews. The result of this battle was a permanent weakening of Muhammad's enemies, and the military ascendancy of the Islamic forces.
• October 14, 1066 - The Battle of Hastings, in which the English language eventually doubled its vocabulary with many new French loanwords, among other consequences.
• April 12, 1204 - The sacking of the city of Constantinople by Crusaders from Western Europe, thus permanently weakening its ability to fend off Muslim Ottoman Turk invaders
• April 5, 1242 - The Battle of the Ice (also known as the Battle of Lake Peipus), which checked the eastward advance of the Teutonic Knights and the spread of German/Prussian influence, thus preserving Russian independence.
• October 12, 1492 - Christopher Columbus discovers the New World.
• October 31, 1517 - Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, thus beginning the Protestant Reformation.
• July 14, 1789 - The storming of the Bastille in Paris, inaugurating the French Revolution
• June 28, 1914 - Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria inaugurating the beginning of World War I.
Saukkomies 20:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quibble - I don't think an assassination qualifies as an inauguration. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Saukkomies 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think an assassination lacks the sense of occasion that an auguration involves. My Merriam-Webster defines inaugurate as

1: to induct into an office with suitable ceremonies

2 a: to dedicate ceremoniously : observe formally the beginning of <inaugurate a new school>

b: to bring about the beginning of. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what would be so wrong to use the word "inaugurate" according to the definition 2b above, namely, that Archduke Ferdinand's assassination brought about the beginning of World War I? It seems as if you're just digging yourself a deeper hole... A piece of advice here, Wanderer57: before you go out of your way to criticise someone, make sure you have solid facts behind you, otherwise you may end up appearing to be a bit foolish. Saukkomies 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Saukkomies: By labelling my comment as a quibble, I thought I signaled that I was raising a small point. I'm sorry you took it as anything more.

Would it be petty to go searching for support for my point of view on the "inauguration" issue? ... Yes, I think it would. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your compassionate response, Wanderer57. How about we make a pact where we will trust that each other is not out to criticize the other, even though such an interpretation may be warranted from initial superficial reading of a particular comment? I tell you what, I actually do sort of like how I used the word inaugurate in the context that I did. I had no idea that it would be conroversial at all. However, if it really bothers you that I've used it in the way I did, I'll strike it out and put in another word that will satisfy your preferences better. Saukkomies 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree to your proposed pact.

Please do not alter anything you have written, or write in future, in response to a quibble of mine. It would be an overreaction. (Moreover, in this instance, changing "inaugurating" to something else would render this entire discussion well nigh incomprehensible. I expect you would agree that that would be a loss.) Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh! Well, actually what I was proposing was to strike out the word, which would give me the chance to use the fancy strike out feature in the Wiki editor. Hee hee! Saukkomies 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Corvus, I see you beat me to the Battle of Hastings, which I later added after my first post. Saukkomies 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

October 14, 1066 - the Battle of Hastings. The Norman Conquest meant that the small, isolated Germanic kingdom of England would become tied to the continent, leading to the Anglo-French wars. Corvus cornix_talk 20:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

September 28, 480 BC: the Battle of Salamis - Persia was prevented from conquering Greece, thus insuring Athenian independence and keeping Greek thought, philosophy and democracy alive. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, from Christ's birth. That would negate the above. Sorry. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some of the examples above, I see that the importance depends on which part of the world you come from! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so give us some ideas, not just criticism! Hey, I was just shooting from the hip. If I'd really wanted to make this a scholarly treatise, I'm sure I could have come up with some more events and places that would have been more well-rounded in scope. Saukkomies 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just kidding! But, since you want me to put my money (what little is left of it after the last few days!) where my mouth is, then I notice that the date of Buddha's enlightenment is not included anywhere. The birth of Buddhism is certainly an important day in world history.--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't fit into the OQ's timeframe. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks, RegentsPark, for the effort. (grin) Saukkomies 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are only two memorable dates in history. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another quibble-like comment: I don't think that Columbus can be said, in any sense of the word, to have "discovered" the New World. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Columbus did discover the New World, just as others had done so before. Discovering something does not specifically imply that you were the first person to do it. At any rate, I do concede to the spirit of your argument, if not to the letter. ANd of course (believe it or not) I was fully aware of the Scandinavian discovery of North America, as well as its possible discovery by Brendan the Irish Monk, the Basques whale hunters, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Book of Mormon Israelites, and even the Native Americans themselves. However, Columbus' discovery of America was very important and significant because it came at a time when some European societies were poised to launch an era of discovery, conquest and settlement of the vast lands in the western hemisphere. Columbus' discovery provided the direction for these countries to exert their efforts in expansion. If Columbus had not come along, it is theoretically possible that the Spanish Conquistadors (who had just that same year finally completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula) would have crossed the Straights of Gibralter, and would have continued to have waged their age-old war against the Muslims, spreading eventually across North Africa and perhaps even so far as Egypt. Instead, they went west to the New World, along with many other Europeans. This was a very important historical turning point. Saukkomies 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of that list, but I'd probably think about inserting October 10, 732 somewhere in there, as the crux of the conflict between the Christian and Islamic worlds. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was looking for that, and couldn't remember the damn name of the battle.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good choice, GeeJo! I would only amend it by saying it was the crux of the conflict in Western Europe between the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Crux between the Christians and Muslims in the East took place somewhere else. Dang. Now I'm going to have to look it up! Saukkomies 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the date of Jesus Christ's own crucifixion, or, more particularly, the date (whatever it was) of his alleged resurrection 2 days later (by our reckoning). That - or, at least, the belief that it happened - changed the world far more than any military or political event. Also, what about 11 September 2001? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about including the crucifixion of Jesus, but decided against it. The reason is that there is no objective, historically verifiable proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. To include his crucifixion as an historic event would, therefore, be controversial and not necessarily accurate. Instead, I included the Council of Nicaea, since it is pretty solidly clear that that event did take place, and moreover, it was during the Nicaean Council that the doctrine of Jesus' divinity was firmly esconced as official Christian doctrine - which it wasn't before, being that there were quite a few people who called themselves Christian who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, even in spite of the fact that Jesus' resurrection was recorded in some of the books that later were incorporated into the New Testament. Saukkomies 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice answer. My only comment is that the question did not explicitly ask for dates involving people historically proven to have existed. It asked for "the most important world dates". No matter how long the process took, the resurrection ultimately came to be believed by billions of people, and there is no question that the belief in that event led to the course of history being altered more profoundly than probably any other single event. Of course we cannot say that the resurrection actually happened, because we cannot say that JC even existed to begin with. But if he existed, and if the resurrection took place, it took place on a specific date. We may never know what it is, but that's not the issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz, this is an interesting discussion about the actual impact of the belief in Jesus' resurrection. I think that Christianity has indeed had a significant impact on world history, but what I'm wondering is whether the effects that Christianity had on history would have mostly taken place whether Christianity was around or not. What I'm getting at here is that from a certain perspective Christianity - and by that I mean the kind of Christianity that emerged from the Nicaean Council and was accepted as the state religion of the Roman Empire - whether it would have been just as influential had the state religion been Mithraism or some other religion. What I see about this is that Christianity was a way for some of the basic precepts and practices of the Greco-Roman civilization to be spread out beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. But would this have happened anyway, had Christianity not been made the state religion? Perhaps I'm being biased in favor of the inevitability of the spread of Western Civilization, thinking that such a process was inevitable. I do think that religion gets blamed or credited with a lot more of historical significance than it probably ought to be. So, for instance, the conflict between people in the Middle East and the West would probably have happened anyway, regardless of religious differences. The conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland was really more of a conflict between different ethnic groups than that of religion. The list goes on. I'm not saying that religion is not a part of these conflicts, but is it the major foundation for the conflict that many wish to attribute it to? Perhaps not. And so, perhaps the actual impact of Jesus' possible crucifixion is not as significant as it might seem. On the other hand, this is just a fun little discussion we're having so why not include it? Saukkomies 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Sept 11th...Did it change anything, really? Will people remember or care about it in 500 years time? Anyway, more for the melting pot:

4 September 476: traditional date given for the fall of the Roman Empire]] when Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor was deposed. Odoacer.

18 June 1815: Battle of Waterloo, ended long-running wars in Europe, redrew map of Europe, ushered in long period of peace, last of the "old style" warfare.

1 September 1939: Hitler's invasion of Poland, which precipitated WWII.

9 November 1989: fall of the Berlin Wall, ultimately symbolising the end of the Eastern Bloc and the Cold War. Gwinva (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it changed quite a lot. Whether it will be remembered in 500 years' time is neither here nor there, mainly because nobody alive now can possibly know the answer to that question (with the greatest respect to my esteemed colleague). History is by definition a backward-looking discipline, and we can only view past events through today's prism, not tomorrow's prism. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Some additions: from the Roman Empire, I think we should count the Ides of March in 44 BCE (although technically, that was before Christ, I guess) and whatever date Diocletian decided to split the empire in half and install Maximian as emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I think many of the most important things that have happened in history can't be pinned down to a specific date, but nevertheless changed humanity for ever. Some examples:

Thomas Newcomen inventing the steam engine, thus laying the foundations for the Industrial Revolution

Galileo rolling two balls down an incline and realising that they actually accelerated and weight didn't have anything to do with it, thus creating science.

Norman Borlaug creating new types of crops that would eventually save a billion people from starvation. This is probably less known that many of the other things mentioned, but in my mind there is nothing in history that have had such an effect on humanity. A billion people, in just about fifty years. Imagine how many people will have lived in 2500 because of it. Jesus may have fed a few thousand people on some loaves and fishes, but Borlaug fed the entire starving nations of India and Mexico, just using some wheat. Jesus ain't got nothin' on Borlaug!

From these three examples, you may discover where my biases lie :) As for dates that aren't so Euro-centric, I can't really think of any (I was going to say Qin Shi Huangs unification of China, but that fails the not-before-christ-was-born test). Most of the other good ones that I can think of have already been taken, so I'll stop there. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dare I suggest the above reflect a bit of a Western bias? ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a valid criticism, I believe. However, it could be argued that Western Civilization has had a more profound and significant impact on the course or world history, and has affected the lives of more people, than any other. As such, events that take place in Western Civilization have a stronger impact on history. Not that I'm saying that this is the correct interpretation, but it is just one argument in support of a stronger Western bias for such a list... Saukkomies 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but no. I'm just saying, if you lived in China, you'd see a different engine pushing the world. It's all about your perspective and what you consider to be influencing what. Remember that for a huge amount of time, Europe was a backwater of civilization. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Europe was a backwater for quite a long time. However, there was one thing that makes Europe different from China - a very important thing - Europeans expanded outside of their homeland, while Chinese (with a few minor exceptions) did not. The end result of this is that today European culture dominates the world, while Chinese culture has yet to really make as significant an impact on the world. I am sure that for people living in parts of the world that are mostly cut off from outside influences that European influence is not as important as it is in most places, but what the op is requesting here is a list of events that are important not just for Brazilian rainforest natives, or for Siberian reindeer herders, or for other groups of people who are isolated from the outside world, but a list of events that effect the greatest number of people in the world. Chinese isolationism is therefore the reason why most of the events listed are not Chinese - even though they were actually the original inventors of many important discoveries and such. But without contact beyond their borders Chinese influence was just limited to their immediate neighbors mostly. So, like it or not, European/Western Civilization simply has a greater impact on more people in the world today than any other, including that of China, in spite of the fact that most Europeans were covered with lice and filth and eating with their grubby fingers in manure-covered houses just a few centuries ago... Wait - that sounds like some of the people who live here in America today! Saukkomies 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of serious dates here. My candidate for the Top 20: September 3, 1189. This is the date at which time immemorial came to an end in England, according to the Statute of Westminster of 1276. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of later additions to my list:
• July 16, 1945 - The first Atom Bomb is detonated at the Trinity Site at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Thus, E actually does equal MC².
• July 20, 1969 - Apollo 11 lands on the moon, and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first human beings to step foot on another planetary-type celestial object.
Saukkomies 23:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Moon landing, splitting the atom, end of China's dynastic system (Oct 10, 1911), manned flight, transoceanic communications . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. I hate to do this, because I really don't want to be a "quibbler", but I think I would choose another way to describe the change that took place in China on October 10, 1911, than to call it the end of the dynastic system. The reason being is that I believe it can be objectively and intelligently argued that the Communist Revolution was actually the beginning of a new dynasty in China's history. It is different in some respects, but there are many similarities with the current government in China and other dynastic governments that have seized power during interim periods of chaos between dynasties. And although Mao outwardly spoke against Confucianism, again, it could be argued that Maoist communism incorporates many Confucian ideas in its application as well as the philosophy that underlies it. Again, I do not wish this to seem as a criticism, because I think that the events that took place in China during the last 100 years ought to somehow be marked in a list of top 20 most important - but I would urge prudence in how to label such things... Saukkomies 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Have to add another ... September 9-11, 9 A.D.: the battle of Teutoberger Wald, the high-water mark of the Roman Empire: the place where they reached, were overwhelmed, and died. That the Romans never conquered Germany, and that for two thousand years there has been such an enormous cultural fault-line on the Rhine, I think is one of the most momentous events in world history (yes, the world, not just the West). The subsequent history of Europe, and the world, would have been incomprehensibly different had Germany developed a Romance language and culture (imagine, for a moment, Gaul as Celtic as Ireland). There's a good collection of essays collected by Robert Crowley entitled What If that covers these kinds of scenarios. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." (Leon Trotsky) Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Antandarus. Yes, I would support including Teutoburg to the list. Saukkomies 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

20 most important world dates - arbitrary section break

A couple more considerations:
• February 3, 1868 - Emperor Meiji declares himself supreme authority for all of Japan, thus formally beginning the Meiji Restoration.
• August 15, 1947 - India gains its independence from Great Britain, becoming the largest democracy in the world. Saukkomies 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the birthday of the Internet? Or computers? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought of several, most of which have already been mentioned, but here are some that haven't been yet:

• 4 July 1776 – the beginning of the end for the British Empire
• 17 December 1903 – the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight. I never cease to be amazed that humans landed on the moon only 66 years later. I wonder how much sooner it would have been if two world wars hadn't intervened.
• 6 August 1945 – the first use of nuclear weapons in warfare
• 9 August 1945 – the last (in the sense of most recent, and hopefully in the sense of final) use of nuclear weapons in warfare
• 12 April 1961 – the first human orbits the Earth

As for 11 September 2001, it seems very important to us today, but only time will tell if it is of long-term importance. Actually, the same is true for the beginning of the end of the Cold War on 9 November 1989 – in 300 years, will the Cold War even be remembered by anyone but highly specialized historians? —Angr 08:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the British Empire was at its largest extent in 1919, the America-centric date 4 July 1776 really is just a bit too early to be "the beginning of the end for the British Empire". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It was the first time citizens of the British Empire said, "No thank you, we'd rather not be citizens of the British Empire anymore." No one had dared do such a thing before, and it was a very long time before anyone dared do it again. The American Revolution was also an inspiration for the French Revolution, suggesting that 4 July 1776 is a more important date in world history than 14 July 1789, already mentioned above. Not everything that happens in America is irrelevant to the rest of the world. —Angr 10:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it "the beginning of the end". The end of the beginning, perhaps. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to fall on the side of not including July 4, 1776. There had been many previous instances when people under the rule of the British Crown had tried to rebel and kick the Brits out, albeit unsuccessfully - specifically Scotland and Ireland. Indeed, one could make a case that the American Revolution was actually the grandchild of the English Civil Wars, in which English commoners tried to get rid of the monarchy (among other things). Many of the early settlers of New England were among some of the most radical rebels of that event, and their grandchildren inherited much of their misgivings over being under the rule of a monarchy. I think instead of looking at American independence as the beginning of the end of the British Empire, it would be better to look at the impact it had on how the people seized power away from a monarchy. This inspired the much more significant French Revolution.

No, I would say that the beginning of the end of the British Empire took place when Britain declared war on Germany in World War One. This embroiled many of Britain's far-flung colonies, and the result of this was that local colonial subjects were for the first time given weapons and uniforms and taught how to be soldiers. For many of these people it was the first time they'd ever held a rifle, and the personal empowerment it gave to these colonial subjects was something that could then not later be taken back once the war ended. The end result of World War One was that there were trained militaries among the indigenous populations in many of Britains colonies, where there had been none before. And the result of that was from that point on, these colonies began the struggle for their independence from the Mother Country. Saukkomies 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, I disagree that the French Revolution was "much more significant" than the American Revolution (on a global scale, I mean, of course it was much more significant in France), and if you agree that the FR was inspired by the AR, I don't see how you can consider the Storming of the Bastille more important to world history than the signing of the Declaration of Independence. —Angr 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence was probably signed on 2 August 1776 anyway. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Margin re-adjusted. Okay, let's look at this business of the American and the French Revolutions. Which was more significant, both for its time and for the overall impact on subsequent history since the late 1700s? I suppose it could be possible to devise a method that would objectively measure just how much of an impact each of these events had, thereby allowing us to have an empirical answer at hand. However, I cannot myself think of how such a method could be devised, so we're left with purely subjective, if not rational, analysis, which of course is ... well ... subjective. Let's compare what happened as a result of the two revolutions: American Revolution:
• created a democratic republic. However, there were other democratic republics already in existence in Europe at the time (notably the Dutch Republic, and the Old Swiss Confederacy, but also the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the semi-independent French Department of Goust, the recently defunct Corsican Republic, the small Italian states of Lucca, Republic of Genoa, Republic of Venice, San Marino and Cospaia, the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa, the Russian Pskov Republic).
• gave the Middle Class power. However, this was happening anyway.
• got rid of the monarchy.
• created a new country that would eventually become the most powerful on earth.
French Revolution:
• created a republic.
• gave the Middle Class power.
• got rid of the monarchy.
• inspired the French to export the ideals of the revolution across all of Europe, thus changing the history of almost every other European country to some degree.
So, which of these two events had the most immediate consequences for the most number of people? Obviously it would be the French Revolution, since the American Revolution directly affected the lives of just a few million people who lived in the United States, while the French Revolution directly affected the lives of tens of millions of people thorughout all of Europe and elsewhere. However, which of these two events had bigger consequences over the subsequent years is a matter of debate. Assuredly an independent United States has proven to be a very powerful influence in world affairs - especially in the 20th Century up to now. However, the reason that the US became powerful was due largely to the fact that it was the only industrial power to emerge virtually unscathed after the ravages of World War II, which could easily and safely be argued was a product of the Treaty of Versailles, which was a result of World War I, which was a result of the shortcomings that were built into the Treaty of Vienna, which was a result of the Napoleonic Wars, which were a result of the French Revolution. This direct line of descent of cause-and-effect domino-like events going from the French Revolution down to the major wars of the 20th Century is quite easily delineated, and therefore if one looks at the causes for why the US emerged supreme on the world stage after WWII, one must attribute this in large part to the chain of events that began at the storming of the Bastille in Paris in 1789... Therefore, the result of America being a powerful country is only partly due to the American Revolution giving the US independence, but also due to the French Revolution insuring that Europe would self-destruct within a hundred and some odd years. It is, therefore, apparent from this analysis (in my opinion, at least) that the French Revolution was the more important and significant of the two events. However, I'm open to further discussion on the matter... Saukkomies 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One more addendum to your comments above, Angr. It is true (perhaps) that the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, but that does not necessarily indicate that due to this inspiration that the American Revolution was more significant. For one thing, the French Revolution would have almost assuredly taken place regardless of whether the American Revolution would have occurred or not. Look at it this way - the American Revolution was inspired (at least in part) by the English Civil War. So, would that mean that the English Civil War was more significant than the French Revolution? I doubt it. Saukkomies 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the English Civil War was 120 years before the American Revolution, any influence must have been extremely indirect. (You might as well say the American Revolution was "inspired at least in part" by Caesar's civil war.) Certainly English Civil War#Aftermath says nothing about any influence on the AR. American Revolution#Worldwide influence, on the other hand, makes it clear that it affected the lives of far more than "just a few million people who lived in the United States". —Angr 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at some of the things that took place between 120 and 140 years ago, to see whether they might have some influence in our lives today... 1) 120 years ago - the Spanish American War - hmmm. There's a possibility that that conflict might have some influence today, no? 2) 127 years ago - Edison invents the Kinetescope, thus paving the way for motion pictures and television. Hmmm, influences? 3) about 130 years ago - invention of the teletype machine, which led to the invention ultimately of the Internet. 4) about 140 years ago - the US Civil War - hmmm. do you think that this could still (after lo these many years) be having some kind of an influence on our lives today? I do agree with you that the Americans were probably inspired in part by the Roman Republic when forming their own. However, the fact that the Wiki article about the English Civil War does not mention that it influenced the American Revolution obviously must mean that such a connection must not exist - after all, how could it be true if it's not in a Wiki article? [/sarcasm mode]. Here's the facts: the Puritans who settled New England in the 17th Century were the very people who supported overthrowing the Monarchy and establishing a republic under the leadership of Parliament. Their grandchildren were the people who ended up overthrowing the British Monarch's rule, and established a government that was led by congress. So, you are saying that there is no connection between these two things? Interesting indeed. As per the reference to how the American Revolution affected the lives of people, you were misquoting me. I stated that the American Revolution directly affected the lives of just a few million people at the time that it took place. Saukkomies 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure there's influence in a subconscious "this is the way the world works" kind of way, but not the immediate, direct causation within the space of less than thirty years seen in the Atlantic Revolutions, which were started off by the American Revolution. —Angr 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, other than saying we disagree about this, I don't know what else to say about it. I did write a 30 page article about the influences of the English Civil War on the American Revolution, which I presented at an AHA conference held at the Montana State University in Bozeman back in the 1980s, in which I dug through scores of primary source material (journals) and secondary source material to uncover what convinced me was a direct link between those two events. However, if you insist on maintaining that there is no direct connection I will just have to say that we're basically done here, right? Because you are really not going to convince me otherwise, and there's only so much pounding a dead horse can take before it becomes absolutely pointless. Additionally, it was NOT the American Revolution that inspired most of the Atlantic Revolutions of the early 19th Century, but rather the French Revolution. Simón Bolívar, who was very hugely influential in many of the Latin American revolutions of that era spent some of his formative years serving under Napoleon Bonaparte's French Army! The Brazilian Revolution occurred as a result of Portugal's king fleeing from Napoleon's invading army, and the Brazilians took heart from the French revolutionaries and seized the opportunity to get out from under direct Portuguese control. The Mexican Revolution of that period was also directly inspired by the French Revolution - most specifically, it was actually inspired as a reaction against it! Napoleon had siezed control of Spain, and replaced the Spanish King with his own brother, Joseph Bonaparte. It was a reaction against this new king that led to the Mexican rebellion - which had absolutely nothing to do with the American Revolution. Even the Irish Rebellion was mostly connected with the French Revolution, which did a lot more than the American Revolution to inspire the Irish to rebellion. Indeed, I hardly see how you can make a statement that the Atlantic Revolutions were "started off" by the American Revolution, other than the American Revolution happened to have taken place chronologically before the others did... Saukkomies 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Angr, having re-read through my postings, and having given it some cogitation, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps I may be pushing my own agenda about the influence that the English Civil War had on the American Revolution, seeing as how I presented a paper on this very subject once. And so, instead of trying to present this debate in terms of what my own ideas about the subject may be, I'd like to say that what I have proposed - i.e.: that the Puritan settlers of New England influenced the American Revolution a century later - that it is a subject open to debate, and that one should not take what I am proposing as "the truth" about the matter. Of course I still am convinced that such a connection exists, but I am just one voice of many. If someone wants to disagree with this idea, I won't mind. But all I ask is that if someone were to disagree, to support his or her argument with solid evidence and sound logical points. Saukkomies 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See my response to Gwinva above. I really don't quite understand why people are wanting to qualify the current importance of 9/11 by reference to events that haven't happened yet. They haven't done it for any of the other dates suggested in answers. Right now, it's a significant date in the history of the world. That may not always be the case, but, as far as this question is concerned, so what? -- JackofOz (talk)

Interesting. Would it be correct then to say that the question is flawed because it asks us to compare the relative importance of dates when the importance of some of those dates is currently unknown? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point Angr is trying to make is that it's far easier to look back at an event 50+ years ago and say it was truly monumental event then it is to look back at a 7 or 19 year old event and say the same thing. And I would have to agree I don't really think September 11th is anywhere near in the top 20 world events. Perhaps time will prove me wrong but I'm far from convinced. I suspect this has a lot to do with how people see history. For some, September 11th was the catalyst for the Iraq war and made an dent on the US and/or world economy we are still reeling from today. For others, the Iraq war was probably always going to happen and definitely can't be primarily attributed to September 11th (or at worst, it was a convinient excuse) and while the US economy was badly affected by September 11th, a lot of things contributed to it's current problems and September 11th is not the primary cause of it's current problems. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But, but... after 9/11, everything changed! That's why we can ignore international law, start wars without cause, torture our prisoners, abduct people without due process, violate national sovereignty when it is convenient, shred the Constitution.... if 9/11 doesn't justify all of that, what does? ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Nil Einne. I had a history college professor back many years ago who once said that events cannot be properly understood until at least 20 years after they took place. Indeed, even people who were directly involved in some events are not necessarly the ones who are best equipped to understand what happened. History is like a pond which is surrounded by children throwing rocks into it. Some rocks are larger than others and will make larger waves and ripples. A particular place on the pond's surface will have ripples pass over it from all the various rocks being tossed hither and yon, and some of those ripples will be bigger, depending on the proximity of the rock's splash, as well as its size. If you happen to be located right next to a splash it will seem to be large, but once its ripples spread out for a while it may not be as large as it seemed right next to it. Measuring these splashes and the impact they have over the entire surface of the whole pond is what we're basically attempting to do here by making a list like this. Which splashes made the biggest ripples over the largest part of the pond? Perhaps this analogy is not the best way to look at history, but I thought I'd just put it out there in the hopes that it might help some get a handle on this thing. Saukkomies 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree you: recentism plagues history analysis as much as it does WP! To Jack, I must say that my comment regrading 9/11 was not qualified by "reference to events that haven't happened yet", but to things which have. The Iraq war, the current economic recession and so forth have roots far deeper than 9/11. I have no wish to belittle the suffering of those involved, or the impact it had on the community, but I'm not sure it was unique, or world-changingly influential: there was plenty of rhetoric and flag-waving, of course, but I'm not sure how much cause and effect can be directly attributed to it. I'm happy to listen to any who can present the case, of course: I have mounted no soapbox, just musing on how it might be perceived in the context of the late 20th / early 21st century. I have a suspicion that it cannot be isolated, but forms part of the picture of "terrorist" activity which has occured throughout the period: just thinking of the events affecting the UK there are myraid examples, of which the IRA bombings of the 70s-90s, and Lockerbie are particularly memorable (but by no means the only ones). A browse of Category:Terrorism by country will keep you busy for hours. (I was going to move on from the UK, for other examples but then decided I didn't have the hours to spend.) I'm not sure it's possible to rank the significance of such events, and certainly make no attempt to place 9/11 on any scale, merely to mention that terrorism, and governmental response to terrorism has existed for quite some time. 9/11, however, is certainly one of those "collective moments" we discussed a few days ago, and perhaps achieves significance because of its symbolism; after all, I did mention the Berlin Wall, as representative of the fall of the Eastern bloc... Gwinva (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, I must say I've been considering it form the perspective of "20 events in history since the birth of Christ", and thus comparing it against the fall of Rome, and such like. Now, if we were to exclude the 20th century from our considerations (on the basis that significanc can't be judged as such a near interval) and set up a separate debate regarding the 20 significant events of the 20th/21st centuries, then that would allow a different approach, given different benchmarks. We are already 20th-century heavy: I can't beleive that of the 20 most significant events of the last 2000 years, the majority have occured in the last 100 years.Gwinva (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1) the end of the explorative period in the Ming Dynasty, when large ocean-going expeditions ended. However, from the article it seems that there is no definite date for this, more of a gradual process. 2) The event of June 30, 1908 could potentially have made the list if it had not happened in the middle of nowhere. Jørgen (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True; the eruption of Krakatoa on 26–27 August 1883 also had world-wide impact. It was probably far more global in its effect than the vast majority of the political events discussed above. —Angr 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point about Krakatoa; it struck my mind when I wrote the above but didn't stick stick for long enough to make it into the post. Jørgen (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooh Saukkomies, i was almost your biggest fan for a second. Just to quibble, Scotland didn't reject the British empire. Scotland is british. Had you said English, of course we'd have no issue82.22.4.63 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I do stand corrected. Would it help rectify things if I said that I'm married to a Scottish lass who's family's from Skye, I love Scotch whiskey, and that Robert Burns is my favorite poet? Saukkomies 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No true Scotsman would spell whisky with an E. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Double Ouch! Okay, well, at least in this case I can beg amnesty, since I'm not only not a "true Scotsman", but am not even an untrue one! However you want to spell it, though, good single malt Scotch whisky is like nothing else on earth. I'd say it was ambrosia, but that isn't quite accurate - it's ambrosia distilled and kicked up a notch! Back in 2001 when many of we Americans received "Bush Bucks", I took my wife to a very nice pub in Chicago and spent my $300 on Scotch whisky. That might sound like we would have had to been taken home in wheelbarrows, but see, we were buying TOP SHELF Scotch, which at $35 to $50 a shot doesn't take much to add up fairly quickly. When you get to that level of quality in Scotch it is an entirely different thing than the sort of Scotch one typically finds in a regular ma and pa type liquor dispensary... Some of that stuff is like you're sipping from clouds. It was a memory I'll cherish all my life. Saukkomies 07:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on that subject, Scotland didn't fail in their attempt to reject the English. During the Wars of Scottish Independence in the late 13th / early 14th centuries, Scotland responded to an English take-over bid, and eventually won. They remained completely independent for another 300 years, until the Scottish king inherited the English throne. They followed their own path during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. People have different views on the Acts of Union 1707, when the parliaments merged, of course. England's parliament taking over Scotland's, or the forging of a partnership? But Scotland hasn't "rebelled" since. The Jacobite rising was not an attempt by Scotland to throw off English rule, but a civil uprising of some English, Scots and Irish aiming to restore a Stuart king to the throne. They didn't want to break from the Empire: just have a different head. There were Scots and Englishmen on both sides, and certainly wasn't "England v Scotland". Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you'd be a fan of the song "Both Sides the Tweed" then, no? Saukkomies 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Followup to the Holocaust Question From Yesterday

Someone asked about the dates of the Holocaust, and after reading the responses and looking at the Wiki article, I have a question myself. Am I to take it that the Holocaust is strictly to be taken as concerning ONLY those who were victims of the Nazi death camps and extermination programs who were Jewish? Would someone who had been killed by these programs during that time who was gay or Romani or had a birth defect be considered to have been a Holocaust victim? Or is that status only reserved for the Jewish victims? Saukkomies 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends who you ask and the context. Personally, I would include the extermination of non-Jewish groups in term "the Holocaust", but there are many who would not. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This question has been reviewed and discussed a lot in the Talk page of The Holocaust. Look in the current page or the archives. The consensus is given at the beginning of the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wanderer57. I really ought to have taken the time to have peeked at that page's discussion before posing my question here. Saukkomies 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Grim Reaper

Where did the concept originate from, or what is it from? The classic dark robes, skull face, and scythe look. Death (personification) mentions him, but never actually states the origins of the entity other than saying it's a western concept. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the Grim Reaper the one who was playing chess with that 14th Century Swedish knight? Oh, sorry, that was just a movie... Saukkomies 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, this takes me back - I wrote an essay on this at college years ago! (What a cheerful course it was...)

As I remember it, the Grim Reaper is supposed to have evolved gradually from a combination of older personifications of Death going back to prehistory, who all contributed a bit of the image. There's the Jewish Azrael, the Angel of Death who must cut the body away from the soul, and also from his alternative coworker Samael, who has a poison-tipped sword for that job. There's also an evolution from the "coach driver" role he's supposed to play, transporting the soul away after it's been separated. See Ankou, for instance. And there is the actual "harvester" role - Sucellus or Silvanus was a Celtic / Gallic entity who in some traditions turned up with a scythe when you died in order to harvest your soul. I had a quick google about and this seems to be quite a useful piece with a roundup of all kinds of Death archetypes and their origins. Karenjc 23:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the attire of the plague doctor didn't affect the robes aspect of things? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As a completely unfounded hypothesis, I would say that old Hades and the horsemen of the apocalypse probably had some influence. Also, lets not forget Odin. Odin was a psychopomp (which is essentially what the Grim Reaper is), which means that he had the task of shepherding the dead from the land of the living to the land of the dead. It seems to me that Odin closely resembles the image of the Grim Reaper, as a large hooded man on a scary-ass horse. He didn't have a scythe, but he did have a spear.

I'm not saying all of these old gods were direct inspirations of the Grim Reaper, but I do firmly believe that they all play into the same archetype, the large, dark, mysterious psychopomp who guided souls to the underworld. If you study mythology, it blows your mind how often extremely similar figures or stories arise in completely unrelated systems of belief (these are sometimes called mythemes or archetypes). As an obvious example, almost all religions have some sort of trickster, whether they be Norse, Christian, Greek, West African or Native American. No one quite knows why this is. Maybe they all arise from the ur-religion that developed when humanity was young, and while changes happened over the ages, the essential core of the story remains the same. More likely though is that these stories reflect real concerns or thinking patterns that all humans share.

Compare for instance the story of The Death of Baldr (possibly my favourite myth of all time) and the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Both detail the death of a beloved figure, and both detail the quest of superhuman people to revive that person (Odin and Frigg in the case of Baldr, Orpheus in the case of Eurydice), and they both just barely fail, just on the finish-line. Odin and Frigg gets the whole world to cry for Baldr except Loki (I've always been curious how they got the rest of the giants to go along with it, but whatever), and Orpheus looks back just at the final second to see his bride, dooming her to spend an eternity in Hades.

In some ways, it is baffling to consider that two such separate religions could have such a similar story, but in another way, it's completely understandable. In all of human history, one of the very few things that have been constant is the inevitability of death, and the impossibility of reversing it. People want to know why, why can't your loved ones be brought back, whether it is your son or your spouse. Are the gods just that heartless? I think these myths offered people an explanation where there really is none: even the gods, the most powerful beings in the universe, are helpless in the face of death. And if the gods can't do it, why should we be able to?

I think this is what's going on with the reaper. It may come from some definable source (well, it does come from somewhere), but maybe that's not the point. It may be that this sort of figure scares the bejesus out pretty much anyone, so that it makes a good symbol for death and for that reason many mythologies adopt it (I certainly can't imagine anything scarier than an unstoppable hooded man that brings death wherever he goes, uncompromising and unbeatable). It speaks to a deeper place in our psyche that we don't really have access to.

I realise it's sort-of an unsatisfying answer, but it's the best one I can offer you :) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, but "Grim" is actually the alternate name for Woden, the Anglo-Saxon version of Odin. It might add weight to the idea of a connection between Odin and the Reaper. Then again, it might not. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned that we have a pretty good article on Danse Macabre, which talks about the development of the skeletal Death personification from the "talking corpses" type of story and artwork that were known from early mediaeval times onwards. You know: three healthy young men in the prime of life meet three rotting corpses which tell them "We were once like you, and one day you'll be like us". Very salutary for reminding you that all earthly life is vanity. (See also Vanitas.) Remember, "You may be a king or a little street sweeper / But sooner or later you'll dance with the Reaper." Karenjc 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens if the electoral college ties?

I happened to be reading this nice summary of the polls and possible scenarios for the election, and the author states that there is a not unlikely chance that the electoral college will tie at 269-269, since the electoral college is composed of 538 electors. The wisdom of the electoral college is obviously questionable, but even if you accept that it's there and not going away, it seems to me to be mindnumbingly, monumentally stupid to have an even number of electors. At least the senate has a tie-breaker. What would happen if this scenario played out (I understand that it's not all that likely, but it seems to be possible this time around)? Certainly it would be one of the biggest (if not the biggest) constitutional crisis the US has ever faced. I realise that this is unprecedented so there is no road-map. Would congress make the deciding vote (either the shiny new one or the old stodgy one)? Would there be another election a few months later and Bush would remain president? 90.235.13.101 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Electoral_College_(United_States)#Joint_session_of_Congress_and_the_contingent_election. The House of Representatives picks the president if that's the case. It would not be a Constitutional crisis—it's pretty explicitly described in the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment). It has happened twice already, but both times in the 19th century. There is no tie-breaker—the House must come to a compromise. It would certainly be pretty ugly, I agree, though it hardly seems more ugly than having the Supreme Court make the final decision. At least the House is made up of people who were actually elected, and are made up of people who are actually accountable for their decisions. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification, I should have read the article on the electoral college more carefully :) (in my defense, it's pretty long). Kudos on the constitution-writers by the way, that's just solid planning. Although I still think it's utter foolishness not to have the number of electors be even. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only know about it because someone asked a similar question a week ago. :-) I think part of the danger in mandating even or odd electors is that somebody is going to gain or lose an elector one or another under such a requirement, and debates over representation are pretty nasty. The odds that both the electors and the House vote would be dead-even seems pretty low. (Especially since the House is an odd number of representatives.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but to solve that problem, just make the number bigger: 1001 electors will more fairly represent the nation than 538 will (and 300 million of them even more so, but that's another discussion :) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How would just multiplying the number make it more representative? In a winner-take-all system all that really matters is the percentage of the total. That doesn't change if you multiply the entire thing by 2X or something. (Which isn't a defense of the electoral college. But I'm just saying. In the existing system it wouldn't matter if you increase the number if the proportions were the same.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This section began as a discussion of the effects of a tie vote. The likelihood of a exact tie diminishes as the number of voters/electors increases. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really as long as it's largely a winner takes all system. If you have 5380 electors but who they are supposed to elect is chosen in the same way (winner takes all), you're still going to end up with a tie (ignoring the increase likelihood of faithless electors). Since there are two states which are not winner takes all, an increase in the number of electors will make a small difference but the bigger difference will come if you remove the 'winner takes all' component (and even the congressional district component) from all states and instead make their vote completely proportional (so if people vote 55% Democrat, 45% Republican in California then ~55% of the electors from California vote Democrat, 45% vote Republican) even without increasing the number of electors. The trouble is, states may be reluctant to change their system from a winner takes all system to a proportional system if other states don't do likewise since it gives an advantage to the person who receives a minority in their state. Something like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is what's probably needed. Of course, I expect the chance of an exact tie is not actually that high if you do the sums, since ignoring Nebraska or Maine (or counting them since they've never split their vote) only certain combinations of states can actually produce an exact tie and many of the cominations are probably not likely. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming has about 500,000 residents, Montana has about 950,000 residents, but they both have 3 electors in the electoral college. That means that an voter in Montana has less influence (almost half) over the electoral college than one in Wyoming. It's inherently unfair. The problem is that there are 300 million people in the United States, and there are only 538 electors to divide between the states, so there's going to be pretty severe rounding-off errors (Nevada has 5 electors, California 55, but California doesn't have exactly 11 times the population). The more electors there are in the college, the less of these rounding-off errors there will be. That is, the more electors there are, the better they will represent the people of the united states. I brought up the concept of increasing the number of electors because then there could be an odd number of them, so that they wouldn't tie, and 98.217 argued that then people would complain about the fact that either a "republican" state or a "democratic" state would get an extra elector. That wouldn't happen if you increased the total number of electors significantly, no one could complain about that. No sane person can honestly say that more electors doesn't represent the people more fairly. They clearly do. 195.58.125.53 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned that if you simply multiply existing numbers that doesn't change anything. In any case, in a winner-take-all system the issue of fair representation is pretty murky. If 51% of California favors one candidate and 49% favors the other, is it "fair" to give 100% of California's populational representation to the one that is favored? Adding more electors doesn't affect that basic fact very much. (And as for fairness—a citizen in Montana still has more proportional influence than a citizen in California. If things were "truly" "fair" in this respect people in Montana would have really no say at all—the state has only .3% of the total population.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that when the House of Representatives meets to choose a President in the event of an Electoral College tie, that each state gets one vote. That means that California gets the same number of votes as Wyoming. Now, I don't know if they will divide that vote up proportionately (say that 45% of the California Representatives were Republicans and 55% Democrats, would they give .45 of a vote to the Republican candidate and .55 of a vote to the Democrat, or would the Democrat get 1 vote (assuming party line voting)). Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)