Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 August 1

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.

August 1

Political "strenght" of incumbent US presidents

By studying the American political history I soon found out, that there have been four persons who succeeded the presidency (succession from the office of Vice President) in the 19th century. Presidential succession also occured five times during the 20th century. All four Presidents of the 19th century only completed the remaining term and have even not been nominated for reelection. In the 20th century all five presidents were nominated for reelection and won the general-election except of one (Gerald Ford in 1976). That indicates that the political position of an incumbent president in the 19th century was much weaker, especially those who assumend the office rather than beeing elected to it (Franklin Pierce was the only elected president not nominated for a second term in 1856). Except of Gerald Ford, who struggled with Ronald Reagan in a hard fought primary election, all accidential presidents of the 20th century easlily clinched their party nominations (Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, Harry S. Truman in 1948 and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964). Is my presumption correct? What are the reasons for this? --84.160.181.149 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there are many answers to this, however the very first example of what you mention (John Tyler) was disrespected by even his subordinates, and those in Congress and elsewhere by never calling him Mr. President but Interim-President and Temporary President etc. This may also have much to do with the more modern reverence for the office of the President. Aside from a few exceptions most 19th century Americans considered the Speaker of the House the leader or co-leader of the nation with such statesmen as Henry Clay and in a general Congress case Daniel Webster, being revered in their times to a much greater extent than the "Executive". In many ways the view of the Speaker of the House being the leader of the nation isn't as strange as it may seem since the Prime Minister form of government in other nations is basically having the person elected to lead the lower house be the leader of the nation as well, and it could be argued that the Speaker of the House is actually the most directly elected democratic leader, especially in the 19th century when Senators were chosen by state assemblies and the overruled the popular vote with the 1828 and 1876 results.

Many historians admit that in today's 24/7 visual media atmosphere people like Abraham Lincoln etc. would not be "pop-culture" enough to get elected and by the 1960s we had candidates like Richard Nixon winning the same debate on radio but losing it on TV, forward the 1968 claim of Laugh-In that they got Nixon elected with his "Sock it to me?" piece, Reagan as a movie actor, Bill Clinton on Arsenio Hall with the Sax and Obama doing late night and you have a kind of cultural pedestal for the Presidency that did not exist in the 19th century. Without the pomp and ceremony, the photo ops of the big plane and house, and ability to be in everyones living rooms with an oval office address the stature of a President compared to a Speaker or President Pro Temp is leveled.

And of course you have the dynamic that wasn't present in the 19th century, the so-called James Cox excuse that Harding had the rugged good looks/voice in both the first election (1920) to be carried over the radio and allowing women to vote. Any political consultant will admit that looking good to an electorate that comprises 53% of the population & though just as intelligent & qualified as men also tend to make snap judgments based more on appearance and likability, has led to the necessary glamorization of the presidency and thus how in some ways it has drifted to a rock star/sports star like persona which when compared to other branches of the government gives an instant impression that the others are somehow less in ways.

With these more modern developments in mind a party & its donors have more incentives to prop up & stick with an "accidental president" with renomination & showing respect. Not only were these not present in the 19th century but for the above reasons there were incentives to abandon an accidental president that don't exist much anymore. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that, in the post Civil War period, from Andrew Johnson through William McKinley, is largely considered the period of the "do-nothing" Presidents. It wasn't merely that people didn't trust incumbents, it is that the office of President wasn't a major political force in America and many of the 19th century Presidents were political weaklings who exerted very little political will. The idea of an activist president who used the office to push through legislation and exert political power both within the U.S. and abroad was certainly Theodore Roosevelt. There's a very good reason he's on Mount Rushmore as one of the four greatest Presidents; he revolutionized the office and literally invented the modern Presidency. --Jayron32 01:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal accession of twins

If twins are born, what is their order of succession to the throne, particularly British?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Shot in the dark here but aren't even non-royal twins sequenced by order of birth, one twin is always the oldest and one always the youngest. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding genders, the first born, literally the first one out. The fact that the children could be minutes apart instead of the usual years makes no difference. However, to my knowledge this question has never been put to the test in recorded history. That is, there has possibly never been an accession to a throne while the acceding royal had a living twin, and definitely not in britain. This is likely because until recent times, infant mortality rates were quite high, and were even higher than normal if the infant was from a multiple birth. Adult twins period were extremely rare until recently, let alone royal twins with a good chance of inheriting a throne. Similar questions have been asked before, see: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_April_27#Ruling_monarchs_with_twin_siblings, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_November_20#Twins_as_heir_to_a_throne, and, while you're at it, List_of_twins#Twins_in_royal_families. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the second twin immediately put in an iron mask? μηδείς (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the first one. That way you have a better story: "retake the throne from the evil usurper twin, rescue the innocent good prince"! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been told (no handy source, alas) that twins in France are considered differently: the one that's first born is the younger, on the "first in, last out" principle, as if the uterus were akin to an elevator. (But primogeniture is not so important under the Napoleonic Code.) As to the assertion that royal twins are unknown "in recorded history", I give you these, from 2010:

Heart-warming news for all legitimists and those who cherish the heritage of Christian Europe. The Duchess of Anjou, Princess Marie-Marguerite of France, wife of the Duke of Anjou – Louis XX, de jure King of France and Navarre – gave birth on Friday 28 May to twin sons. Prince Louis, the elder (by five minutes), is the 34th Dauphin of Viennois and Duc de Bourgogne; the younger, Prince Alphonse, is the Duc de Berry.

I wouldn't trust The Telegraph to get the elder part right, necessarily. Source: BrainyBabe (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but that doesn't invalidate my statement :D. You see, I specifically stated that such a twin acceding while his brother was alive, is what has not been tested. It's possible I'm still wrong, and if I am, I would love to be proven as much. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

de jure? Yeah, right. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 I don't think that is the case. Maybe not in Britain but there must have been a known case on the continent maybe in the thousands of German principalities. And the Duke of Anjou's children don't count because the throne of France is defunct and all the elder twin would be acceding to is a pretendership.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The story of Perez and Zerah in the book of Genesis is more peculiar than anything that you're likely to encounter in a historical royal family... AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt answer your question but Procles and Eurysthenes were twins and their birth gave rise to the double kingship in Sparta. Also check out Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 12#Co-Monarchs who were twins or triplets.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

SEGxi?

Abbreviation of which book? --132.64.31.27 (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia, you have found the Reference Desk for humanities and as you probably read above we cover a wide and diverse area of topics here within the social sciences. Leaving a cryptic acronym that matches no wikipedia searches doesn't enlighten any of us on what exactly your asking. Please give a few more details such as what book your speaking of or where Wikipedia references this. Thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is entirely a wild guess, but I wonder if it could refer to Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum - that is, the eleventh (XI) issue of this publication, which our article suggests was published between 1923 and 1950. Our article does indeed use the SEG abbreviation. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. There is some more information here. This suggests it was published in 1954. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Jadoo Ghar

I am hoping to clear up a minor bit of confusion at our Masonic Temple (Lahore) article, and need some help finding sources. The confusion is over the term "Jadoo Gar" and which building(s) it applies to. The article discusses Rudyard Kipling's novel Kim .. which mentions the lodge's building and how it is called the "Jadoo Gar" (or "Magic House"). Given the time that Kim is set, I assume Kipling is referring to the lodge's original building (occupied by the Lodge prior to 1914, then demolished). However our article also uses the term when talking about lodge's second building (constructed in 1914, and now owned by the Pakistani Government). It is certainly possible that the term has been applied to both buildings... but I need some sources to clarify and confirm this. Any suggestions would help.Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Best I can find is a reference to another Masonic hall (in Kharagpur, West Bengal) also being called a ‘’jadu bari’’ (magic house). [1] By retired railway worker Abdel Ahmed, telling historian Laura Bear about the history of the town. The conversation was held between 1993 and 1997. Of course, it’d be extrapolation to guess this is/was a common name for masonic lodges generally. Everything else I can find online refers to ‘’Kim’’. English may not be the right language to search in. What about WikiProject India? They are a helpful bunch. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

US states changing capitals

I was interested to hear there have been discussions about changing Alaska's capital from Juneau. Has a US state changed its capital before? --BDD (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Many have - some more than once. Michigan changed from Detroit to Lansing. Illinois changed twice from Kaskaskia, Illinois to Vandalia, Illinois to Springfield, Illinois. Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I found this: List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States#Historical_state_capitals Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

From that list it looks like the last time a state changed its capital was 1910 (OK). Rmhermen (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange — one of those factoids in my head was that the capital of California used to be Auburn. No mention of that in the list above nor in the Auburn article. Quick web search confirms I'm not the only one who thought that. Anyone know why this would have become a common idea? --Trovatore (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Was it the Republic of California? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Per our article, the Bear Flag Republic was proclaimed in Sonoma. As it never exercised effective authority, I'm not sure they ever really had a capital, but that doesn't mean they didn't proclaim one. If they had done so, though, it would have seemed odd to pick Auburn, so far away across the Central Valley. --Trovatore (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

They have been discussing moving from Juneau almost since Alaska became a state. The legislature even budgeted for it a couple times. If memory serves Wasilla and Deer Creek have been candidates. The will to do it seems to drift away each time and one of many reasons is that other parts of the state resist the capital being too close to Anchorage as it controls too much of what goes in in the state already. MarnetteD | Talk 06:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Astrology and new planets

A question about astrology on the Science ref desk got me wondering about how new discoveries were incorporated in the astrological belief system. Astrology predates the discoveries of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Ceres and possibly other celestial bodies that now have significance in astrology. How did astrologers arrive at the conclusion about how the new planet influences the world? It would be pretty silly if they couldn't agree on whether Neptune stand for strenght or serenity, so how did they come to the astrologic consensus (if there is such a thing)? Are there some principles that can be uses to deduce the significance of a newly discovered planet, like you can predict the properties of new chemical compounds? Did they discuss before reaching a conclusion? Or did someone just make a statement and the other astrologers said "OK, that will do, I'll go with that"? Sjö (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you see Planets_in_astrology#Modern_planets? Apparently it's all to do with what's going on in the (Western) world at the time the planet is discovered. So Uranus (1781) is connected to invention, new ideas, genius, as it coincided with the Enlightenment, Neptune (1846) is the rise of Socialism and the working classes, and Pluto (1930) the rise of Fascism and Stalinism, and Nuclear energy. You couldn't make it up, could you? (Oh that's right, they did). Rojomoke (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Uranus the Magician" and "Neptune the Mystic" were incorporated into Gustav Holst's The Planets. Anyway, the outer planets move rather slowly against the background of the stars -- it would be possible to grow to adulthood with Pluto in the same astrological sign your whole life... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but how did they decide that what happened in the world at the time was the important thing? You might as well have looked at the constellation it was discovered in or the abilities of people born when its supposed influence was strongest. And how did word get around that Uranus is connected to invention etc. ? Sjö (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The word got around the same way most other fringe ideas get around... whoever comes up with the idea includes it a book, a book which is primarily read by other fringe proponents. If these other fringe proponents like the idea, they incorporate the idea into their books... and so on... until the new idea is considered "cannon" among believers of the Fringe theory in question. (And if some of the other fringe proponents don't like the idea... the Fringe community splits into rival factions, who then spend many happy years debating how much WEIGHT to give it on Wikipedia.) Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Astrology is, or at least was, closely tied with religion. Religion has also been known to suffer schisms from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Say what now? What religion do you have in mind? The Abrahamic religions, at least, generally condemn astrology, the story of the Magi notwithstanding. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Although they took astrology fairly casually at that time. In any case, you may find this item of interest.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have an early-1930s astrological almanac somewhere which refers to Pluto. I was impressed by how quickly they incorporated it, and how quickly it was treated as "normal" - despite the discovery only being a few years old, there was no sense that it was a new or unusual thing to be referring to. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Much the same happened with the bigger asteroids during the 19th-Century, although when it was realized how many of them there actually were, they were (by-and-large) quickly dropped. Just looking at The Student's Assistant in Astronomy and Astrology an astrology text book from 1836 where the author discusses the inclusion of the big four (Ceres, Vesta, Pallas and Juno) as well as Uranus (going under the name Herschel). I'm still looking for the definitive astrological interpretation of the influences of Larry, Curly and Moe. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:I wonder if it works in reverse - picture it, an astrologic plan for world peace! We just try to get everyone on the world to agree that Mars doesn't actually exist, and its influence goes away. :) We add a few epicycles to our gravity scheme, write off Curiosity as a studio hoax, and good to go. :) Wnt (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Pluto had never been given the status of "planet" to begin with, whether the astrological fraternity would ever have bothered to incorporate it into their thing. They certainly haven't made any sort of special fuss about Juno, Ceres etc, which are of no less astronomical interest. I think it's clear whom we can blame here: scientists, for taking 80 years to get their plutonic nomenclature shit together, taxonomically speaking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are some modern astrologers who incorporate many of the minor planets into their system, and their work makes fascinating reading. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem of new planets was brought up in Mostly Harmless]], by Douglas Adams. The problem is then turned on its head when aliens ask what it means for them to be born when Earth is in Virgo, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about buying/selling stock

After the initial IPO, and all the shared as sold, if you (as an individual) buy a stock or sell a stock, who are you buying or selling it to? The company or other people? I was under the impression that a company never has to repay anyone for the money they get from offering stock, but my mom was under the impression that when you sell a stock, you are selling it back to the company. ScienceApe (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A stockbroker acts as an intermediary, matching buyers with sellers, usually through a stock exchange. Those articles should explain it all. Rojomoke (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, so then why is it that when a lot of people sell their stock, the stock price goes down? If they are all selling to other buyers, shouldn't it remain the same? ScienceApe (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The very simple version is whether, on balance, buy orders or sell orders are being filled. In a selling market, buyers have a surplus of options and so fill orders (buying a seller's stock) at slightly lower prices. In a buying market, sellers have a surplus of options and so fill orders (selling to a prospective buyer) at slightly higher prices. — Lomn 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

First your question about the "company" or "other people" is yes and yes and also brokerage firms will "make a market" in stocks and buy and sell them not necessarily to profit but to "build inventory" as it were (similar to how Wal-Mart may "stock up" on seasonal items to sell later), there are also large institutions (pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds) that though they trade through brokers kind of exist in their own force field financially.

Second, stocks aren't all that complicated, prices go where the the law of supply and demand takes them. If you watch closely your local super market will have 50% off or buy 2 get one free "sales", in actuality the supplier or the store itself guessed wrong on the "market" for beans or soda and now is getting "stuck" with all that inventory so the selling will commence! It's not the store being a great neighbor it is simple supply and demand. The store guesses right too, stocking up heavy on items that actually do spike in "demand" and the store actually raises prices on it. Stocks are like anything else, a classic example of this law of economics that also shows the stock component is the middle of the Hudsucker Proxy where the "dingus" is marked down, down, down, until its "get one free with every store purchase" & then thrown out to the curb, whereupon its an instant hit and you see the store owner rip the stickers off in reverse, increasing the price each time until he places a new sticker doubling or tripling the price where the camera instantly switches to headquarters and we see Jennifer Jason Leigh reading the stock ticker with enthusiasm. It really is that simple, supply and demand. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Or as it says on my userspace, Gordon Gekko sums it up pretty nicely: "It's a zero sum game, sport. Somebody wins & somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another. Like magic. That painting cost $60,000 10 years ago. I could sell it today for $600,000. The illusion has become real & the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it. Capitalism at its finest." ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the easy to understand response. One more question, since the company that is offering the stock makes all their money in the IPO once all the shares are sold, why do they care about attracting more buyers later on? It seems like every company encourages everyone to buy their stock, but what do they care if they already got all the money they wanted to raise from the IPO? ScienceApe (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You can have an IPO for just 30% of the "shares" and many companies do just that or something like it. So the company account with millions or tens of millions of shares of the month old IPO is very much impacted by where that 30% or so of the "publicly held" shares go in price. Even in companies where 80-90% of shares are open to the public the vast majority of total compensation for CEOs and directors are through "stock options" and they already have large chunks of shares from years ago. Mark Zuckerberg of course wants Facebook stock to go way up in price, he literally has all his money in the stock even though the "company" doesn't any longer. Major corporations can also get more favorable loan and credit lines with money center banks using their vaulted stock values as a form of collateral. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also some companies or corporate leaders actually do "short" their stock and either don't care if it goes down or actively seeks it to go down. The Hudsucker Proxy has a case of that led by Paul Newman's character and back to Gordon Gekko exposing Teldar Paper's leadership of that in his "Greed is Good" speech: "in the days of the free market when our country was a top industrial power, there was accountability to the stockholder. The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management has no stake in the company! All together, these men sitting up here own less than three percent of the company. And where does Mr. Cromwell put his million-dollar salary? Not in Teldar stock; he owns less than one percent. You own the company. That's right, you, the stockholder. And you are all being royally screwed over by these, these bureaucrats . . ." If you watch those two films with these stock questions in mind you will actually see very visual answers you can use. Real world examples of when companies might actually push down their stock price is when they seek to take their shares private, a reverse IPO of sorts like Heinz recently did thou that isn't the best example or times when they try to make themselves more attractive to a merger partner or buyout. Big caveat though is that stock manipulation up or down is very illegal, however as Hudsucker Proxy illustrates and Gekko with his "I'll dilute the s.o.b." line states there are legal ways to make yourself "unattractive" to stock buyers. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Senior management's bonusses may be connected to the stock price, giving them a good incentive to try to keep the share price high even after the IPO. And they may want to create/sell more shares in the future to raise more money, so high prices help. Keeping prices high requires demand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unilynx (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ScienceApe's mother's impression, that when you sell stock you are selling it back to the company, may derive from her experience with mutual funds, which do buy their shares back from shareholders. John M Baker (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• One of the things the OP seems to be confusing is that, for all intents and purposes, the people who own shares in the company are the company. That's how publicly traded companies work. If you own 1000 shares of company X, and there are 1,000,000 shares of company X in the world, you are a 0.1% owner of company X. The company has an interest in seeing the share price go up because the owners of the company have an interest in seeing share price go up. It is that simple. The Wikipedia article Shareholder value explores this model of corporate finance and management. --Jayron32 01:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Reform Kibbutz and conservative kibbutz

How many kibbutzim are reform Jewish and how many are conservative? -- 17:47, 1 August 2013‎ 70.54.65.213

70.54.65.213 (talk · contribs) Donmust90 (talk · contribs)

Donmust90 -- You've asked that basic question several times before, and you've received partial answers, and been told that the question in the form in which you asked it contains incorrect assumptions which prevents it from being answered in the way you apparently want it answered. What's the point of asking this again now?? AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis for those just tuning in: In the history of the kibbutz movement in Israel, there have been a few (= fingers of one hand) kibbutzim affiliated with Reform and Conservative Judaism, which are streams located in the United States and other Diaspora countries. Kibbutzim of the Category:Religious Kibbutz Movement follow Halakha practice and observance, e.g. Kashruth. Religious practices on the others, the majority of kibbutzim, are traditions developed in the TaKaM (Hebrew acronym for the former United Kibbutz Movement; labor Zionist) and Ha-Kibbutz ha-Artzi (socialist Zionist), that now comprise the Kibbutz Movement. The kibbutzim of the former are more traditional (e.g., perhaps not serving dairy and meat at the same meal), those of the latter less so (e.g. serving pork during the fast of Yom Kippur). -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)