Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 5

= November 5 =

Town planning
Is the profession of town and transport planning quite mathematical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.94 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aspects of Urban planning may be. It's not a singular person's lone job, it generally requires a collection of people (architects, engineers, public policy experts, accountants, bookeepers, etc.), at least some of which would have mathematical backgrounds.  -- Jayron  32  02:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The profession of urban planning certainly aspires to be mathematical or scientific. In practice, however, it is just as often a matter of politics and local clout. In fact, many of the factors that might be considered in, for instance, the economics of planning a road would be influenced by political pressures. As an example, the land on which a road is to be built might be given up at a very low price in order to stimulate an increase of traffic. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Officer of the court required to report a crime?
In the US, if a judge appoints a lawyer to a position of responsibility, they become an officer of the court, right? I've heard that if they learn of a crime, they must report it. Is that true? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Short answer: It depends. Particularly on whether there's a lawyer-client relationship. You can spend a whole semester exploring the various wrinkles of an attorney's oft-conflicting interests between clients and justice. An interesting if dense and opinionated source might be Daniel Markovits, What Are Lawyers For?, 47 Akron L. Rev. 135 (2014). I don't have anything representing a contrary view exactly handy, but that might be a good starting point. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I know about client-attorney privilege, I'm assuming that there isn't one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole concept of "officer of the court" more often refers to the fact that lawyers, as judicially vested with the right to practice law, have a duty to uphold the legal process rather than subvert it to their clients' own ends. While you are correct that the concept of attorney-client privilege is involved here, it's only one small part of it. You may find the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers interesting: As far as I can tell, there's nothing in there that doesn't either deal with (1) attorney licensing generally, or (2) relationship between an attorney and his clients or prospective clients. Duties to report crimes completely unrelated to the attorney are, as far as I can tell, just not discussed.
 * On the other hand, some states do maintain duties to disclose things like attorney misconduct; the purpose and effectiveness of these is a matter of debate. I'm of the opinion that it's more to prevent the attorney with knowledge of misconduct from using it to blackmail another attorney, since if the blackmailed attorney refused to comply, the blackmailer would probably be doing as much damage to himself as to the other attorney by reporting it late in the game.
 * Anyway, in short, I reject the premise that an attorney, with respect to having general knowledge of a crime committed by an entirely unrelated party, is somehow put in a different position than a layperson. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Mendaliv. Generally speaking, if an average citizen learns of a crime, they have no affirmative duty to report it.  A lawyer is no different.  I prefaced my statement with "generally speaking".  Usually, in the law, there are just as many exceptions (if not more) as there are rules.  Some "common" exceptions (to the general rule) would include the following.  If one person has a duty to another person (for example, a parent and child).  If the father is abusing the child, and the mother knows about the crime, then – yes – she has an affirmative duty to report it (i.e., an affirmative duty to protect the child).  Many states (in the USA) have statutes that call for mandatory reporting of crimes and/or suspected crimes.  For example, teachers who suspect child abuse of their students.  They have a mandatory obligation to report.  I believe (not 100% sure) doctors have a similar duty.  You often read about emergency room doctors who call the police in when they get a child patient for whom the doctor/nurse suspects abuse.  I think (not sure?) they even have to report when a patient has been shot.  If a financial crime is being committed, certain individuals have an affirmative obligation to report this (for example, they must notify their stock holders or any to whom they owe a fiduciary duty, etc.).  They can't just turn a blind eye.  Another example of the duty to report: a psychiatrist has a duty to report when a client will (in the future) commit a crime or pose a threat to himself or others (in other words, if the client threatens to commit a crime or confides in his plans to the doctor).  Also, somewhat related, there are criminal charges such as obstruction of justice; lying to the police; impeding an investigation; harboring a criminal; destroying evidence; tampering with a witness; perjury; accessory after the fact of a crime; etc., etc., etc.  So, many of these types of crimes somewhat intersect with the idea of an obligation to report (or at least, to not hinder and obstruct) when a crime has been committed of which they have knowledge.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I could give more details, but that would probably sound like asking for legal advice.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ask your question. If it's inappropriate, I'm sure someone here will let you know.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm getting answers from Ask A Lawyer, and the guardian says that she is going to do what I thought she should do. Thank you everyone.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Question for people that lived through the 1960s/1970s.
During the 1960s and 70's, was there a general impression amongst the older generation that the children and teenagers of that generation were much less disciplined and discipline standards in schools had became more soft as opposed to people who went to school in the 1940s and 50s? I am looking for answers from people that grew up in the UK but I would appreciate other answers too, Thank you. --Teaxodarty (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * An answer from Australia here, but a part of Australia with a lot of Pommy immigrants, so maybe relevant. Many of my parents' generation thought we kids were a bunch of ratbags, but I think they were pretty happy with the schools. Conditions in the schools were so much better than when they were young. This attitude to schools all changed, of course, when corporal punishment was banned. (Late 1970s?) HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. This was thought to be due to the Permissive Society (can't believe we don't have an article on that!). However, it is apparent that this attitude is general throughout the ages. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See Permissive society, Tammy. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't "Pommy immigrants" a pleonasm? Isn't "Pommies" good enough? Don't they teach those things in those permissive Australian schools? Sheesh. Contact Basemetal   here  12:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This claim has been around, on and off (more on than off ;-) since time immemorial. There are (fake) quotes about this attributed to Socrates and Hesiod, and I think there may be a real one by Scipio or Tacitus or some other dead Roman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was at school in the UK in the 1960s (and little of the 50s and 70s), and remember that teachers sometimes used to regale us with stories of how tough things were in their day, including children being caned for writing left-handed. But Stephan is right, and no doubt they heard equally gruesome tales from their own teachers. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was at primary school in London the 1960s and secondary school in the 1970s. Children as young as eight were still being hit with canes, plimsolls, wooden blackboard rubbers, rulers or anything else that came to hand. However, my parents were surprised to hear the sound of children talking during lesson times at my secondary school, and my father was once caned for making an ink blot in his exercise book with a dip pen (in the 1920s). So discipline was more relaxed but still much stricter than today.Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was at school in the early 1980s. Then it was still common for teachers to hit kids. There were no canes, but straps, basically a doubled up belt end, or a ruler were common. AFAIK it was possible for parents to exempt their kids from corporal punishment from 1982 on. None of our parents did so, though. The attitude was basically "it did me no harm." In state schools corporal punishment was finally banned in 1987, but lingered on in private schools until about 1999. On the overall question, it seems to be a general thing with older people to allege that things are getting worse, including kids' discipline, even though the evidence may point to the contrary, see for example press hysteria over crime in the UK, even though it's been falling for the last decade. Valenciano (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * They said it about the baby boomers, and the baby boomers said it about their kids, and so on. Larry Miller said it this way: "My father worked three jobs and went to school at night. If I have to go the bank and the cleaners in the same day, I need a nap. And can you imagine if this continues to the next generation? 'In my day, we didn't have jet packs - we had to drive to school'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen sketch wasn't just made up, you know. Well, apart from the characters.  And the script.  But the punch line "And you try and tell that to the young people of today, and they won't believe you" was a direct quote from the lips of thousands of parents over the centuries.  That's why it works so well.  Almost everyone who's ever had responsibility for children has said this, or words to that effect.  Adulthood seems to involve forgetting, in some respects, what it was like to be a kid.  That's the problem with adults: they always think they know better.  They have some hard lessons to learn.  "It takes a long time to grow young". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but there has been a genuine progression of treating children less harshly and paying more attention to their individual welfare over the previous century. What the effect of this amelioration has been on society as a whole is a matter of debate. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's perhaps some truth to the notion that children were treated in a much more abusive and shitty manner in past generation (under the guise of "discipline") but I'm not sure the implied subtext (that they were better because of it) is necessarily true... -- Jayron  32  23:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking back at school records - actual factual evidence - reveals a disturbing truth: the level and severity of corporal punishment correlates directly with both the drop-out rate and students' lessened earning power in later years. When a teacher hits a child, the child's primary response is to hate learning. --NellieBly (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not all that clear-cut. It depends which country's records you look at. Worryingly, you don't always need to look back! If you look at records of corporal punishment in present-day schools in the USA, they show that black children and disabled children are disproportionately more likely to receive corporal punishment, even just considering schools that permit it. (Google will find lots of refs about this.) That in itself should give any thoughtful person good reason to oppose its use in schools in general, although my personal opposition comes from experience of how it is often mis-used even in settings where it is usually used appropriately.


 * In some school systems, particularly those not associated with deprivation or racial bias, it seems that wildly excessive corporal punishment (some boys being beaten on average more than once per day) could live alongside near-zero drop-out rate and very successful students. . Although, that's an extreme case and is perhaps just downright weird.


 * I am pleased to note that school corporal punishment is banned in the UK, in New Zealand, and in many other Commonwealth countries. Not in the USA.


 * User:Mbz1, you previously asked several questions about school corporal punishment at this Reference Desk, and mentioned me repeatedly in your questions, so I'm pinging you just in case you still have an interest in this topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the broad area of physical discipline, it is fairly often the case that people who themselves were forced to undergo physical discipline will complain about the "laxity" of systems that do not continue such physical discipline. So, as someone from the US Plains, yeah, there were a lot of adults complaining about "lack of discipline" in the schools. There were also some, although not as many, complaints about the teaching in the schools, although these tended to be of the "Why the f#$@ do my kids need to be taught (African/Asian/non-European) history?" type and satisfaction in the level of knowledge of students in the then-current schools was generally fairly high. In lots of cases, the adults didn't have much of a clue about some of the topics like "new math" and geometry and engineering and physics, because they kinda didn't exist when those adults were kids, but the adults still generally thought it was worth having the kids know them. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

UK Judges' Sentencing Remarks
I have recently read the sentencing remarks of the judge in the Ann Maguire case at this link and decided to try to find the remarks for the Ched Evans case, but can't. Why is this? Is it due to the automatic anonymity of the victim as that was a sexual offence? If so, why can the victim's details not just be redacted? If not, why then can I not find it? Is there a maximum amount of time sentencing remarks are stored for? If they are available at all - at least on official government sites - would judiciary.gov.uk be the place to find them? Very interested in the workings of the UK criminal justice system, so all answers and relevant comments welcomed (and I guess comments related to comparisons with other such systems across the world). Thank you for your help. 2.99.78.84 (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant statutory provision is (currently) the Criminal Practice Directions, section 5. (See here for the full text).  The rule specifically for sentencing remarks is: "Sentencing remarks should usually be provided to the accredited Press, if the judge was reading from a prepared script which was handed out immediately afterwards; if not, then permission for a member of the accredited Press to obtain a transcript should usually be given."  However, the decision to publish the sentencing remarks is at the discretion of the court - there's no absolute rule (unlike the sentence itself) that they have to be made available to the press or the public.  Sentencing remarks that the court has decided to make public are available at www.judiciary.gov.uk.  If a judgement doesn't appear on the website, it's possible for a member of the public to apply to the court at which it was made for a copy of the transcript (on payment of the appropriate fee), but, if the person applying isn't an accredited reporter and has no connection with the case, it's quite likely that permission will be withheld. Tevildo (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, we have an article on the case at R v Evans and McDonald, which refers to this BBC article for a summary of the sentencing remarks, but presumably you're interested in the verbatim text. Tevildo (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Exact term for "thin plastic (imprinted and/or fluorescent) vests worn by stikers"
I try to figure out, when these plastic vests were used first. However, I do not know the exact English term for those "strike plastic bags worn during demonstrations or factory occupation". Thx for hints!  GEEZER nil nisi bene 13:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The general term for such a garment is a tabard, but I don't know if there's a specific term for the plastic ones used in demonstrations. Tevildo (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking poncho, but I'm not sure that's it. (Be they stikers or strikers.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "tabard" is probably right. They look rather like the disposable jackets sometimes seen at the start of marathon races. Runners used to take a black bin liner and make some holes for head and arms to keep themselves warm before the start of the race. Sports businesses then began making bags with pre-cut holes and their logo printed on, as a means of advertising. Alansplodge (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll search in this direction. Case closed.  GEEZER nil nisi bene 16:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Man turns mobile off whilst committing crime?

 * I've taken the liberty of moving this from the Science Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I vaguely recall hearing about a case where a man turned his mobile phone off before committing a crime, and the fact that he did so was used in evidence against him. However I am unable to find any reference to this - does anyone know if this case actually took place and if there are any references to it in news etc? 83.104.62.107 (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This Question is missplaced here. --Kharon (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean? 83.104.62.107 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(At this point in the discussion I moved the question to Humanities) Wnt (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Eventually ... Israel Keyes ?  GEEZER nil nisi bene 13:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be an interesting fact, but what does it prove? There's no law against turning off your cell phone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Circumstantial evidence and alibi are the relevant articles. Different jurisdictions will have differing rules on the admissibility of the former and the evidence required to prove the latter. Tevildo (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So not by itself, but merely a piece of the puzzle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The media likes to make a big deal out of taking legal maneuvers out of context. As Bugs puts it, it's something that was a piece of the puzzle... if even that. It's hard to say how juries think or what actually weighed on their minds in coming up with a verdict. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would have to be part of a pattern, like he only turned it off during the time frame of a crime. If it was his habit to leave it off most of the time, it wouldn't prove anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place to be arguing the legal technicalities, B Bugs. I'm sure the trial transcript is available if you want to know how this actually played out in court.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First things first. We don't even know if Keyes is the answer the OP was looking for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First things first indeed. And irrelevant things, such as the arguments you've been airing, nowhere at all (on the Ref Desk, at least).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot that I'm not allowed to ask questions. I should log out and post as my IP, and then you'd treat me like royalty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You weren't asking questions. Well, you started out with a question, then progressed to arguing that if his habit was to leave his phone off most of the time, then doing so on this one occasion wouldn't prove anything about his involvement in the crime.  That's where the line got crossed.  This isn't the place for argument or debate.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So shoot me for failing to add question marks. How about you worry about your own behavior and I'll worry about mine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. That means not telling me "first things first", particularly when you've just been doing the exact opposite of that.  Have a nice day.  :) --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ellis Island 1902
I'm trying to understand exactly what we see in this photo of Ellis Island in 1902, in terms of buildings and structures. I'm hoping someone can say more definitively than I can. My guess is that the large building is the then-new, still-extant main building, but with its upper stories and towers not yet built, but I can't work out the orientation; I'm guessing the smaller building to its right is something that no longer exists. I realize much of the island as we now know it didn't even exist at that time, but most of the later fill was on the hospital side. Are the immigrants walking on the bridge to the New Jersey mainland (or a precursor to that bridge)? Or is it this structure something else?

My guesses are based on http://www.schundler.net/Ellis%20Island%20Map%20Color.pdf. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 16:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The large building in the photo is the hospital, I think. We are looking at the hospital from across the ferry slip. Compare this later view, with the hospital building at right.--Cam (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that the people shown are walking down a pier, after examination and admission, to take a ferry to Manhattan or perhaps Jersey City. Marco polo (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thanks! - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

refugees Bangladesh from where?
Which nations are these refugees coming from to Bangladesh? I am surprised about this. I thought only India and Burma, but that can't be true because I suspect that besides India and Burma, there are other nations that have people becoming refugees in Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.180 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you are referring to as "these" refugees. To answer your question we need specifics. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 70.29.32.180 -- there are the "stranded Pakistanis" or "Biharis" who never wanted to be part of Bangladesh in the first place, and some Rohingyas fleeing persecution in Burma. Not sure what you mean otherwise... AnonMoos (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

According to "List of countries by refugee population", it says that Bangladesh has 229,669 refugees. So, I want to know where are these refugees coming from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.180 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The UNHCR map http://www.unhcr.org/442bafe34.html show that all its refugee camps are on the Burmese (Myanmar) border. The UNHCR says they are only 32,600 refugess under its care http://www.unhcr.org/50001ae09.html these include 32,355 described as Myanmar - Rohingya, 221 desribed as Myanmar - non-Rohingya and 24 others. Lots of other information on the UNHCR website. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I never offered an opinion till I was 60 ...
Hello, dear friends. I'm reading a newspaper clipping (I have literally thousands of them) from January 2013 which contains this:


 * "A character in a novel contemporary with Flaubert says: I never offered an opinion till I was 60… and then it was one which had been in our family for a century."

I am interested to find out its exact origin, but a google search produces only the very article in which I read this in the first place. Can anyone assist me here?

Bayley's A Dictionary of Idiocy also contains the quote whose authorship I seek (p. 7), but is likewise tantalisingly reticent about identifying it. There he just attributes it to "a character in a nineteenth century novel". I daresay Bayley himself does not know the answer, but trusts whoever told him that it's a genuine 19th century artifact.

PS. The Dictionary is otherwise very witty and enjoyable, and I can recommend it. It contains such gems as "It is often easy to be daringly original about a subject of which one is magnificently ignorant" (p. 41), and "In Britain, topographic and gastronomic references create a pretentious complication intended to excite favourable anticipations of sophistication" (p. 21). Lovely. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I daresay the quotation is from Benjamin Disraeli's work, The Rise of Iskander. I found the exact quotation in Chapter 8 as said by "an old Turk", anyway, here's the link on Project Gutenberg.  ~Helicopter  Llama~  21:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Such quick work. I might have guessed it was Disraeli (except I didn't).  Thank you very much, HelicopterLlama.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Youngest lawmaker in U.S history? (Saira Blair)
I've been reading that Saira Blair is supposedly West Virgina's youngest lawmaker in state history. However, some sources are claiming that she supposedly also is the youngest lawmaker in U.S history. If she isn't, who is? Matt714 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian Zimmerman was elected mayor of Crabb, Texas at the age of 11 in 1983, but I don't know if he counts as a "lawmaker". The youngest Congressman was William C. C. Claiborne, who was elected to Congress at the age of 22, 23, or 24 (depending on which sources are to be believed), despite the constitutional limit being 25.  We don't have similar statistics (that I can find) on State legislatures.  See also Age of candidacy laws in the United States. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This kid was first elected mayor when he was 3. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those very young mayors and other weird similar situations are certainly all where the settlement is run by a town planner or administrator or similar, and they just retain a mayor for purely symbolic purposes. And in any case, I don't think I'd call a mayor a lawmaker; I think that term should almost exclusively refer to members of legislative bodies. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some preliminary work with Google gives us Derrick Seaver as an 18-year-old member of the Ohio state legislature - I don't know the precise difference between his and Ms Blair's ages on taking office, but he's in the right ballpark. Search continues. Tevildo (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * She may be the youngest state legislator currently serving, and also may be an absolute record. For the interest of the general topic, Wikipedia does have an article titled List of youngest members of the United States Congress.  The youngest senator was Armistead Thomson Mason and the youngest representative was the aforementioned William C. C. Claiborne; they BOTH served in violation of constitutional law, which requires minimum ages of 30 and 25 respectively; apparently they played a bit fast-and-loose with such rules in the 19th century.  Regarding the youngest ever, she may be.  The youngest I have found through some web searches was James E. Wheeler, who was elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives at age 18 years, 5 months in 2003.,  Ms. Blair appears to have him beat by a few months.  -- Jayron  32  23:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. According to this site, Derrick Seaver was born in February 1982, and, according to our article, he was elected in January 2001, which would make him 18 years 11 months old at the time of his election.  Both Wheeler and Blair have beaten his record.  (I'm assuming, as it's an American site, "02/06/1982" is 6 February rather than 2 June.  Even if it is June, the relative positions are still the same). Tevildo (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)