Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 3

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 3

Why is the phrase "I'm going to the city" applied only to Manhattan, but not to the Bronx as well historically speaking?

People have told me all sorts of reasons as to why Manhattan is sometimes referred to as "the city" by New Yorkers of the outer boroughs even though Manhattan is part of "the City:" Manhattan is the most urban of all the boroughs of NYC, Manhattan is the center of the New York metropolitan area, Manhattan is the special borough that is more than just a borough, Manhattan is an island unlike Center City (Downtown Philadelphia) in Philadelphia or "the City of London" in Greater London, everyone wants to live in Manhattan, everyone commutes to Manhattan to work, Manhattan is more associated with NYC than any other boroughs, there is so much to do and see in Manhattan compared to the other boroughs, it was hard to go to Manhattan before the bridges and the subways were built, etc. That is all true, but one of the reasons also given to me for the phrase was that before New York City consolidated into the 5 boroughs in 1898, New York City only covered the island of Manhattan, but that is not true. Wikipedia's article on the Bronx in the introduction says that "The West Bronx was annexed to New York City (then largely confined to Manhattan) in 1874, and the areas east of the Bronx River in 1895. The Bronx first assumed a distinct legal identity when it became a borough of Greater New York in 1898. Bronx County, with the same boundaries as the borough, was separated from New York County (afterwards coextensive with the Borough of Manhattan) as of January 1, 1914." So historically and in that context, why wouldn't the Bronx be considered part of "the city" by New Yorkers, including those from the Bronx, even though the Bronx was already part of New York City before 1898 and even though it was part of New York County until 1914? Willminator (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the expression "the city", as used in the region, dates to earlier than 1874. Marco polo (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the Bronx in 1874 was still pretty rural; even as it was being annexed into New York City. It never had a defined "city center" of its own; it was basically a few small villages which had grown, or were growing, into bedroom communities as public transportation was extended across the Harlem River. Some areas in the Bronx, even today, retain some of their earlier "small town" or rural feel, see City Island, New York for one example. --Jayron32 14:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about this earlier annexation of part of The Bronx. A bit of googling seems to show Jayron has it right. There's a bit about the annexation and reasons for it here. Pfly (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Jayron is also right. Marco Polo could also be right too. By the way, didn't you ask a similar question recently? 71.98.161.166 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Contacting a New York Times journalist

Hi! I am having trouble contacting Noam Cohen, a New York Times journalist. I used the "e-mail him" function on the NYT website, but I haven't heard back from him. I need to hear from him because of an issue on the Wikimedia Commons. Does anyone know how I can get an e-mail address to contact him or how I can e-mail someone who will relay the message to him? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, he may not care about the Wikimedia Commons issue and is probably under no obligation to respond. In a situation like this, I would try phoning the New York Times editorial offices. I found the following phone number for the office: 212-556-1363. I would ask for Noam Cohen. You will most likely get his voice mail and can leave a message asking for his help and hoping that he cares enough to respond. Sometimes people are more likely to respond to voice mail. Another tack would be to do a little research and contact an editor who is likely to work with Cohen. Again, I suggest the phone, as e-mail is easy to ignore, especially if you are someone who gets 100+ e-mails a day and has to choose some to ignore. Also, if you don't get a response to voice mail, you can dial the number repeatedly (at decent intervals) in hopes of getting a live person. If the issue is that you need information from Cohen to determine whether an asset is fair use or public domain, be prepared to go without that information and to act as if that asset is not free for public distribution. Good luck. Marco polo (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I left a voice mail. If I hear back I will post more details on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The reporter himself is unlikely to have the decisive word on a copyright issue. The NYT probably has a department or person dedicated to the licensing of content who might be able to help you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not a copyright issue. I want to ask him a question about whether the way a name was ordered was a mistake, or was intentional. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Somalia aid

It's really depressing to read about how aid is not getting through to starving people in Somalia. I'm looking for any references that point to solutions - any organizations that reliably can say they are getting aid in. Is the Red Crescent, for example, or Muslim or non-Western organizations having better luck than the UN and western aid groups? Thanks.Dreenik (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The typical problem is that local warlords use food as a weapon. That is, they give food to those who support them and starve those who don't. So, it's not about religion so much as power. Therefore, the only way to guarantee that food gets through is by military intervention, to defeat such warlords. However, there may also be limited success by bribing them (but, in the long run, this gives them more weapons and power, which may ultimately lead to even more deaths) or perhaps parachute food drops. The warlord's soldiers will still try to collect this food, but, if enough small drops are made, they may not be able to get them all. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with StuRat here: This is one of those situations which is really frustrating for which we really can't do much about it. The problem is with the people in power in various parts of Somalia; and until and unless those people are either forcably removed or miraculously become better quality people, the famine will go on despite our frustrated attempts to ammeliorate it. Either some major world power goes in and kicks ass and cleans the place up (an act usually seen, perhaps rightly, as imperialistic and colonial on the part of the "invader") or the situation isn't going to get better. This sort of shit happens all the time, all over the world, largely because the countries that have the technical power to fix the situation don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the backlash from what is likely to be the only solution. Somalia is NOT a new situation, just look at the situation in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or Rwanda in the 1990s or the Balkans in the 1990s or Biafra in the 1960's or any of a number of other analogous situations where simply wanting to peacefully help isn't an option. --Jayron32 16:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Forcably removed"? Is that removing them with a fork? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting discussion. I do appreciate it. I still hope, however, that someone might help me find references to any particular aid groups that say they are trying approaches that work or might work.Dreenik (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This website, of the UK Government's Department for International Development, might have some relevance to your commendable interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.52 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A recent BBC article claims that SAACID are having some success at getting aid to the people who need it. Warofdreams talk 15:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You might find more information in the sources used for 2011 Horn of Africa famine. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Laborism

Could laborism be an alternative to capitalism? In a laborist system, labor is treated as the critical resource of production. Salaries or wages stem from the sale of time, instead of the deployment of capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.96.241 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Under capitalism, salaries or wages can also be said to amount to the sale of labor power, typically measured in units of time. The distinguishing feature of capitalism is ownership of the means of production by private entrepreneurs who invest to make a profit. In other economic systems, the means of production are owned by different entities. It isn't clear to me, in your proposed system, who would own the means of production (the tools, equipment, hardware, software, intellectual property rights, etc.) used to produce goods and services. Can you clarify? Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See "Criticisms of the labour theory of value". Gabbe (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question… …I take it from your use of "laborist" that you're either Ameriphone, or Australian. You may wish to strongly investigate the periods of Australian Labor Party governance, both at a state and a federal level, in Australia. In particular the Australian "long boom" period from the 1940s to the 1970s, when "Laborism" in the Australian sense was quite significant (it is the local variant of the social-democratic or Fordist bargain). This society was still fundamentally capitalist. Other people talk about the "Australian settlement" of arbitration, racism, living standards, capitalism and democracy. This is also associated with Laborism. Rick Kuhn provides a vehement and closely developed critique with others of his group, focused on the failure of the ALP to ever be a worker's party. Correspondingly there are ALP leftist thinkers, and ALP rightist thinkers who also provide information on Australian Laborism. These are not connected with using labour time (either simple, or socially necessary average productivity) to price goods. For that you'd want to look at socialist idealism in the mid to late 19th century, including anarchists. There's also a trend within vulgar marxism that advocates the use of socially necessary average labour time to price goods—as Marco polo observes, these often assume that the proletariat isn't in possession of the means and tools of production directly, and tend to have a statist tinge. Gabbe's suggestion is a good one, but may misdirect you into vulgar criticisms of vulgar marxism due to the low quality of our articles on Marxism. I'd suggest, quite strongly, 19th century idealist socialists. Is it an alternative to capitalism? No—it is capitalism, see Marx on capital's reliance on socially necessary average labour time to produce long run values, and the broad acceptance of long run values being dependent upon labour as the fundamental input in a fair bit of Keynsianism.

In fact, your suggestion that there are two means of appropriating social goods: "sale of labour" and "deployment of capital" mirrors the methods of appropriation, and control over productive things, that the workers and capitalists respectively possess at the moment: workers sell their labour and are paid for their labour, capitalists own capital and are paid for owning capital. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose

In "James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose" site his date of birth is given as 25 October 1612. Where as most authors and historians do not give a specific date for the Marquess's birth but agree that it must have been in late October to early November 1612. Now I am finding references that use Wikipedia as a source when citing 25 October as his date of birth. Where did Wikipedia obtain this date of birth for the first Marquess of Montrose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagrarian (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when User:baraqa1 added the birth date in this edit in November 2008, they failed to follow Wikipedia policy, and added the information unreferenced; so we can't tell where it came from. You could try asking baraqa1 on their talk page; but they don't seem to have been active since December 2010, so you might not get an answer.

If you have researched the matter, and been unable to find any sources independent of Wikipedia which give the date, I suggest you remove it from the article. But if you do so, make sure you give a useful edit summary, so that neither people nor bots will think your edit is vandalism; and preferably post on the article's talk page explaining that the date was unreferenced and that you have tried and failed to verify it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage and Cokayne's Complete Peerage give only 1612 with no month or day. I've cut the "25 October" from the article and added a note to the talk page requesting references for any more specific date that anyone might want to add to the article. A referenced footnote including information that it was "probably in late October to early November 1612" might be added, for example. - Nunh-huh 18:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

12 Angry Men (1957 film)

Why was the film called 12 Angry men? Indeed, only 11 were angry.... Quest09 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Which one are you saying wasn't angry? Surely you don't mean the Henry Fonda character? He's as angry as the rest of them. --Viennese Waltz 22:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The title is not "12 men, angry against the accused" or "12 equally angry men." Each one is angry in a different way, and towards a different goal. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In politically correct terminology it could be called The 12 Disgruntled individuals. : ) Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

12 angry people would be PC enough, but not necessary. There's a 1997's version with the original name, 12 male jurors -4 of them black- and with a female judge. ASAIK, no one complained about the lack of PCness of this new version. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

An Indeterminate Number of Disapproving Life Forms. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent performances involving a cast containing both male and female jurors have been titled 12 Angry Jurors. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that a joke? What next - The Aristocrat of Monte Cristo? The Two Citizens of Verona? The Adult in the Iron Mask? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Monte Cristo" won't work: you are offending the non-Christians.193.153.125.105 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Markets "attacking" bonds

When the Spanish Minister of Economy and Finance talks about "markets attacking the Spanish debt/bonds", is she just talking BS or does it have some meaning? The price on the market for Spanish bonds is certainly higher, but how can investors "attack" bonds? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthropomorphizing "the markets" as though "the markets" were a sentient being has a long history, going back atleast as far as the "Invisible hand of the markets", a concept dating to the middle-late 18th century when Adam Smith coined the phrase. --Jayron32 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good beginning. But still: "Investors attacking bonds" is not very meaningful. If they demand a higher interest, is that an attack?193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The most common way for investors to attack a security is by short selling to flood the market -- unfortunately our article doesn't really explain that concept, although it is well known to economists. I don't know if that's what the minister was talking about, though. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While I don't know any details about the situation in question, to me this sounds like defensive political language. The minister might hope to create pressure for regulatory action that would aid the Spanish bond-issuers by curtailing certain types of trading, or perhaps more likely, to engender sympathy for the Spanish plight that could be leveraged into concessions in other areas. I'm skeptical how much it has to do with the reality of the situation, but I suppose you never know.

(My skepticism is not particular to Spain — this is just what finance ministers do.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The finance minister is looking for a scapegoat so that she won't be blamed for what is happening; her scapegoat is "the markets". It is true that high-volume short selling can give the market a downward nudge, but it only works if demand is already weak at a given price. Meanwhile, short sellers help to slow market declines because they have to buy back whatever it is they sold at some point. So, a persistent decline cannot in any way be described as an "attack" by investors. Instead, it reflects a loss of confidence and a retreat by investors. Marco polo (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Marco polo. μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

United States presidents turning 50 in office

Barack Obama turning 50 today prompted me to do a bit of research. He’s the 7th US President to turn 50 while in office, but the spread is quite revealing.

• In the 19th century there were four in the space of 31.3 years: Polk in 1845, Pierce in 1854, Grant in 1872 and Cleveland in 1887. (Garfield would have been a 5th in 1881 if he hadn’t been assassinated and died 2 months short of his 50th birthday)
• Then a 21-year gap till Teddy Roosevelt in 1908.
• Then an 88-year gap till Clinton in 1996. (Kennedy would have turned 50 in his 2nd term in 1967 if he’d been given a chance, but that’s still 59 years since Roosevelt.)
• And now 15 years on, we have Obama.

So, what happened in the 20th century to have a string of relatively older people being elected US president, compared with the 19th century? Or is my logic complete crap, mathematically speaking? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's somewhat misleading to phrase this in terms of years. 88 years is 22 presidential terms, but they often come two at a time (and FDR took four, although he died shortly into his fourth term, which popped Truman in there without an election, so I don't know how you'd count that). It's still interesting, but it's not as far from "statistical fluctuation" as the phrasing in terms of time intervals might make one think. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a graph showing how age when first assuming Presidential office has changed over time might be more revealing than this somewhat-arbitrary point. Let's see what I can find... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States by age has the necessary data to work this out. Time for some spreadsheet magic, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Male life expectancy in the 19th century was about 50 years (of course this was low in part because of high infant mortality). I would expect to see younger presidents mostly due to the fact their were fewer people over 50 to compete with. --Daniel 00:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the effect is much less; most deaths in a pre-modern-medicine society which dragged the average life expectency down were children dying very young and women dying in childbirth. For men who reached adulthood, most of them lived into their 60s and 70s, just as with today. So I wouldn't expect the average age of Presidents in the 1800s to be signficantly younger for that reason. John Demos did an excellent demographic study of Plymouth Colony, some 200 years before the time frame in question, and found that adult males in Plymouth Colony lived to an average age of 70 years old. Being all adult males (to this point), Presidents should be expected to live into their 70's, even in the earliest days of the Republic. If you look at the oldest presidents by age at death (rather than by age when they served) you'll find John Adams at #3 (aged 90 at death), James Madison (85) at #8, Thomas Jefferson(83) at #9, John Quincy Adams(80) at #11, Martin Van Buren at #12 (79) and Andrew Jackson(79) at #14. That's 6 of the first 8 presidents. So, the earliest presidents actually had LONGER lifespans than the later presidents. This has nothing to do on the age when they served, but demographically there's no reason to assume that the presidents had to be younger a long time ago merely because they should have all died before they reached their 60's and 70's. They didn't. --Jayron32 01:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pesky Microsoft Works spreadsheets - I've got a graph, but it looks a mess. It looks as if there may be a slight trend towards younger presidents over time, but I'll leave this one to the statisticians to figure out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The average age at inauguration for the fist 22 Presidents was 55.6 years, and for the last 22, 54.7 years. However, I'm not sure that this tells us much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything, given that your sample size is 44 people, the statistical error is significantly larger than the difference. Meaning that, statistically speaking, your two numbers are identical for all intents and purposes... i.e. that there is no difference. --Jayron32 01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I've never done a lot of statistics, and its years since I've had to calculate significance etc. In any case, even the limited data we have is flawed, what with Cleveland getting in twice, and Ford playing a walk-in (not necessarily while chewing gum) part... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Male life expectancy of the sort of person who becomes president (rich men, generally from wealthy families) has been around 80-85 years since the founding of the country. The improvement in general male life expectancy has been through improved living conditions, working conditions, and health care for the rest of the country's population. --Carnildo (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At birth? I doubt it. I might believe that such a person who reaches the age of 18 would have an expected age at death of 80-85, but not from birth, unless you have something to back it up. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A good question. It might be summarized "Why was it that between President X and President Y the US elected very old men to the presidency?" Perhaps medical advances made it less likely that an old man would die in office from high blood pressure, cancer or heart disease. Grover Cleveland had surgery for cancer in his mouth in 1893 at the age of 56. Woodrow Wilson had a disabling stroke at age 62, which his wife and handlers somehow kept a secret for a considerable time. Franklin Roosevelt had terribly high blood pressure, which his doctor apparently lacked the drugs to treat effectively, leaving it at over 200 systolic and 100 diastolic by 1944. By February 1945, at age 63, it was 260/150. It was 300/190 on the day he died. Were there no "water pills"/diuretics in 1945? Eisenhower survived a heart attack in 1955,at age 65, which his doctor treated with morphine as a pain killer. Kennedy, the youngest man elected president, had severe medical problems which were concealed from the public. Reagan, the oldest president inaugurated at 69 for his first term, served while increasingly senile during his second term, from Alzheimer's, but lived years beyond his presidency. In the Cleveland, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan presidencies, the doctors served their patient rather than the public. Edison (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You threw me off for a few minutes with "Kennedy, the youngest man elected president", since Teddy Roosevelt was younger taking office, but he was only elected vice president. —Akrabbim^talk 13:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Raw data - if someone can format this properly, I'd be grateful (Age is in years, at inauguration):

George Washington 57.18 John Adams 61.34 Thomas Jefferson 57.89 James Madison 57.97 James Monroe 58.85 John Quincy Adams 57.65 Andrew Jackson 61.97 Martin Van Buren 54.24 William Henry Harrison 68.06 John Tyler 51.02 James K. Polk 49.33 Zachary Taylor 64.27 Millard Fillmore 50.50 Franklin Pierce 48.28 James Buchanan 65.86 Abraham Lincoln 52.05 Andrew Johnson 56.29 Ulysses S. Grant 46.85 Rutherford B. Hayes 54.41 James A. Garfield 49.29 Chester A. Arthur 51.96 Grover Cleveland 47.96 Benjamin Harrison 55.54 Grover Cleveland 55.96 William McKinley 54.09 Theodore Roosevelt 42.88 William Howard Taft 51.47 Woodrow Wilson 56.18 Warren G. Harding 55.33 Calvin Coolidge 51.08 Herbert Hoover 54.56 Franklin D. Roosevelt 51.09 Harry S. Truman 60.93 Dwight D. Eisenhower 62.27 John F. Kennedy 43.65 Lyndon B. Johnson 55.24 Richard Nixon 56.03 Gerald Ford 61.07 Jimmy Carter 52.30 Ronald Reagan 69.96 George H. W. Bush 64.61 Bill Clinton 46.42 George W. Bush 54.54 Barack Obama 47.46

AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, as usual Grover Cleveland screws up the data, and should Ford be included, or Truman? (I'll not comment on GWB...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You just did.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Like this?

President	Age
George Washington	57.18
John Adams	61.34
Thomas Jefferson	57.89
James Madison	57.97
James Monroe	58.85
John Quincy Adams	57.65
Andrew Jackson	61.97
Martin Van Buren	54.24
William Henry Harrison	68.06
John Tyler	51.02
James K. Polk	49.33
Zachary Taylor	64.27
Millard Fillmore	50.5
Franklin Pierce	48.28
James Buchanan	65.86
Abraham Lincoln	52.05
Andrew Johnson	56.29
Ulysses S. Grant	46.85
Rutherford B. Hayes	54.41
James A. Garfield	49.29
Chester A. Arthur	51.96
Grover Cleveland	47.96
Benjamin Harrison	55.54
Grover Cleveland	55.96
William McKinley	54.09
Theodore Roosevelt	42.88
William Howard Taft	51.47
Woodrow Wilson	56.18
Warren G. Harding	55.33
Calvin Coolidge	51.08
Herbert Hoover	54.56
Franklin D. Roosevelt	51.09
Harry S. Truman	60.93
Dwight D. Eisenhower	62.27
John F. Kennedy	43.65
Lyndon B. Johnson	55.24
Richard Nixon	56.03
Gerald Ford	61.07
Jimmy Carter	52.3
Ronald Reagan	69.96
George H. W. Bush	64.61
Bill Clinton	46.42
George W. Bush	54.54
Barack Obama	47.46

Is this the formatting you were looking for? ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:52, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, it looks neater and allows sorting by age, though as Jayron points out, it doesn't really tell us a great deal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is really speculative and impressionistic, but there were two long stretches during which no one under 50 was inaugurated: the first 50 or so years of the republic and the long interval between Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. During the first years of the republic, the office of president was seen very much as that of a senior statesman, the father of the country. A younger man during that time would have had less appeal. I think it's kind of a matter of chance that no one under 50 took office after Teddy Roosevelt and before 1930, but the Great Depression had a profound impact on the generations that lived through it, at least as adults. It was a time of deprivation and insecurity but also of unrest, both at home but especially elsewhere around the world. The generations who had lived through that time as adults typically wanted an experienced father figure to lead the country. By 1960, the generation that had lived through the 1930s as children or teenagers and that had fought World War II as young people had come to dominate the electorate, and a younger generation, with no memory of the 1930s, had come of age. There was a fatigue with the stodgy conventionality of the 1950s and a taste for what was fresh, modern, and new. It was in this atmosphere that both nominees, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were under 50. Later, when Baby Boomers came to dominate the electorate, they elected Bill Clinton, one of their own. Marco polo (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a graph with a best-fit line (basically flat, and r squared=0.02!):

I don't see much of a pattern at all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The graph would be useful if the zero point was not "zero" but was instead 35, the minimum age for a US President. As for patterns, I think there are some, but not across the entire period of time. It's interesting that in the 19th century there was a lot of oscillation between the pretty old and the pretty young, in pretty rapid succession. By the early 20th century you mostly have people around the same age. By the late 20th it looks a lot more random. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I think I remember about statistics - and I await correction - a correlation of 0.02 means that 0.04% of the variation is explained by time. Shifting just one or two dots would result in the line going up rather than down. 92.24.140.101 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

An r-square of 0.02 means only 2% of the variation in "y" (age) is explained by the variations in "x" (time), and the remaining 98% of the variations are explained by other factors not captured here.

I'm not sure a straight line fit is the best model to use here, there should not be any particular reason to expect that the starting age of presidents have been trending straight up or straight down. Perhaps more thought should be given as to what kinds of shapes you'd expect to see in the model, and then try fitting those to the data. It could, for example, be a cyclical thing.

Perhaps absolute age is not the best measure to b investigating, maybe it's age relative to median age in the US (this would account for any sudden rise in general life expectancy), or perhaps age difference compared to the predecessor.

Or perhaps we need to just accept that any "trend" in age is better explained by other factors, e.g. economic, rather than simply by time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am listening. Keep going, this is fascinating. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are over-analysing randomness. There is no trend to speak of, just noise. The only measures you can do are the average and standard deviation. 92.24.179.252 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one statistical test for detecting a trend, but I've forgotten what it is called. 92.28.252.178 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mann-Kendall test detects if there is a trend or not in a time series. I havnt been able to find a simple description on the web - see http://www.oga-lab.net/RGM2/func.php?rd_id=openair:MannKendall There may be other tests also. The Trend estimation article dosnt go into numbers or maths. 92.24.133.68 (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The above table makes me realize that if Ron Paul were to become president in 2012, then by the time he was inaugurated in January 2013, he would be the same age (77) as Reagan was when Reagan left office, and, assuming he would live out his full term, he would become the first U.S. President ever to turn 80 while in office. Pais (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC) You guys do realise you've got mathematicians over at the maths desk (quite a few in fact) who could explain all this to you and do the analysis more professionally, don't you ? o_0

So, I ran some statistics on the numbers provided. I am not a professional mathematician, but I have a B.A. in math with several statistics courses. The first model I tested was the linear model plotted above. I can tell you that not only does that model have a very weak effect (for each previous president, the next is predicted to be 0.07 years younger), but that effect is likely due to chance (p=0.339). This means, one in three times, I could get a result like this even if I assigned the order randomly, and therefore knew that no relation existed. For good measure, I tried it with inaugural year, in case that made a difference. It was an even worse model. R^2 of 0.014, coefficient of -0.012 (about the same, since it's now per year, not president), p-value of 0.4413. So, statistically, there is little reason to believe that a president's age is trending either upwards or downwards over the span of the institution. gnfnrf (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A sterling effort. Thanks, Gnfnrf. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)