Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 6

= November 6 =

US Line of Succession
The article on the US presidential line of succession lists the top 16 or so, but I was wondering, who comes after that. If by some happenstance the president, his entire cabinet and both houses of congress were eliminated, who would take over? Would there be an emergency general election? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no contingency for this. After 9/11, some people got together and made some recommendations for constitutional provisions to cover such an emergency situation, but their ideas weren't acted upon. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Mwalcoff, there's not any law that contemplates such a situation. From a practical standpoint, the U.S. government always assigns at least one designated survivor during major state events (the State of the Union, the Presidential inauguration, etc.).  The designated survivor is a member of the Cabinet from the United States presidential line of succession who remains in a safe and undisclosed location; if a foreign power or terrorist organization were to launch an attack, the designated survivor would remain to assume the Presidency.
 * Note that designated survivors are only assigned for major events; it is conceivable that a surprise attack or widespread disaster could actually wipe out the line of succession. (This is one of the major criticisms of the designated survivor protocol.)  One also wonders how the country would fare if America woke up in the morning to find that the Secretary of the Interior had assumed the Presidency.
 * Honestly, though, my money is on a military coup if all of the Cabinet and both houses were eliminated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The governors of 47 states have the power to appoint senators and representatives. Three states require special elections. If the national leaders were somehow wiped out, without the rest of the nation being wiped out, it would thus be possible to reconstitute a quorum by prompt appointments from the states. Then the representative elected by the representatives as Speaker of the House could resign that office and become President. If there were no Speaker of the House then the new President pro tem of the Senate could become President of the U.S. Edison (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless there is a secret succession like the Eisenhower Ten. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A correction here -- governors can appoint replacement senators in most states, but not representatives. Members of the lower house must be elected. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How quickly could a special election for replacement representatives be conducted if the old ones suddenly were defunct? days? Weeks? Months? A functioning appointed Senate could still elect a Vice President of President pro tem who could be sworn in as President, although both houses would need to be in operation to pass legislation. Edison (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Congressional research service provides guidance. It is left to the legislatures and governors to set the time for elections to fill House vacancies. Nothing says it couldn't be set for, say 2 weeks after the vacancies occurred, in a national emergency. The Continuity of Government site says that today, practically speaking, it takes 45 days to hold a special election. In a national emergency, primaries could be dispensed with, with parties nominating candidates. In practice it has taken 4 months. The Continuity of Government site notes that the practice by parliamentarians has been to look only at "sworn and living members" in deciding what is a quorum, so if 430 out of 435 were killed a quorum would be 3 members of the House. The Speaker they elected could become President. This is from testimony by Norman Ornstein to the House Judiciary Committee in 2002, so it is not "original research." The first few states to elect replacement representatives could choose the next President, if the Senate did not get there first with newly appointed Senators selecting a President Pro Tem. Edison (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

and if that fails
On a somewhat related question, I sometimes wonder whether any of the Several States has a constitutional provision for what to do if the Potomac regime should appear permanently nonfunctional. —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not rely on how a regime happens to "appear nonfunctional." (Didn't a few of those several states have an experiment along those lines in the 1860s?)  And with 135,000,000 million Americans appearing to find value in voting, it's good to keep in mind that prediction is hard, especially about the future.  Just ask Karl Rove and his permanent majority. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that such a provision would have more precise language in place of "appear nonfunctional". (No, 1861 is not an example.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some states have provisions to deal with such governmental disfunction. The Kentucky Constitution, section 4 says "All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper." The state legislature has construed this literally, and in the 1960's used it to place on the ballot a replacement constitution, disregarding the unwieldy amendment procedures in the old constitution. Edison (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote a short story in college that had one possible scenario - surviving governors meeting at a secret location to appoint a temporary head of state. I would even guess that there could be some secret plan like tht, but I'm not sure. What someone else said about a coup sounds drastic, but that's only becuase I think of it in terms of how other countries have a military that takes over and doesn't relinquish control. Perhaps "intervension" is a better term; just a general getting on the TV and telling everyone what just happened and that everything's okay. And, promising to hold new elections at some point months later.Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama's dress
Who designed the dress Michelle Obama wore to her husband's victory rally?
 * I hear she likes J. Crew  Louis Waweru   Talk  00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this source, the designer is Narciso Rodriguez. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess since you aren't really allowed to kill the President Elect - if you start to ask him "Does this make me look fat?" - the secret service guys whisk you away before he gets to answer. So clearly she never actually asked...because wearing a dress with a large red oval over the top of your stomach is certainly going to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The shape of the red oval made her look not so much fat as pregnant; perhaps it was some sort of symbol for the rich fertility of the American... something-or-other? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Srsly, she's not being compared to an anorexic supermodel, is she? Welcome to the White House Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Let's see your clothes before we make commentary on your political impact. Wasn't it Nancy Reagan who was criticized for wearing dresses more than once to occasions? And wasn't it Palin who was criticized for spending a buttload of money for a new wardrobe? --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, the piece I saw on the news about her dress had her picture next to a picture of a model wearing the same dress. Recury (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The source that Marco Polo linked to includes a picture of the dress on a model. Dismas |(talk) 18:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to put the picture of the original dress on the model next to Michelle Obama wearing it. Often runway versions of garments are different than production versions, and fashion-savvy readers would be interested to see that difference. (Here, the neckline is different and the fabrics at the bottom seem slightly changed as well.) Actually in this case, Michelle was wearing the dress before it has even reached stores (that was a Spring 2009 dress shown in September) so it may have been specially made for her--who knows if this will even be the same as the production version that eventually is shipped out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What the comparison photos posted by Marco polo prove conclusively - is that not all clothing looks good on all people.  You've gotta pick something that works for YOU...and in this case, it's pretty darned obvious that what looked good on that model certainly doesn't look good on our future first-lady.  If you are very tall and very skinny (ie a super-model) - then adding a little emphasis to the stomach area merely makes our anorexic model look a little more human.  But put on someone with a more normal build - and you've got "OMG - She's PREGNANT!"...which seems to have been most people's first reaction. SteveBaker (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The supermodel comparison isn't really fair though. The picture is a lot less satured and so the red a lot dimmer so it hardly stands out as much Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, everyone looks better in photographs taken under carefully controlled conditions that in ones taken by press photographers at a public event. You need to take that into account in your design choices as well. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder. What human is widely considered to have been the greatest in the area of...

 * Military?
 * Politics?
 * Science?
 * Writing?
 * Music?
 * Cinema?
 * Sex?
 * Architecture?
 * Philosophy?
 * Religion?
 * Everything?

A barnstar to each of those who post the human that most others agree is the winner in each category. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's extremely subjective. I doubt you could find an answer to any of those that even 50% of people would agree with. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean "most" in the Electoral College sense. They don't need the absolute majority, just the proportional. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Say what now? You do need an (absolute) majority in the Electoral College to win the election there.  Otherwise it's decided in the House (if you're running for president) or the Senate (if you're running for veep). --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to relate to popular vs. electoral vote, but you're right, bad comparison. What I mean is, if User:Example has 3 out of 10 users agree with his choice, and no other users have 3, than Example does not have absolute majority (70% disagree), but he still wins. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't think we want the refdesk turned into a giant pin-the-name-on-the-label competition.--Tagishsimon (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not like I'm posting a seperate tab for every question, clogging up the Reference Desk. I'm not trying to be disruptive, I just want to hear some educated opinions on this (something which are rather hard to find in my hometown). If you want this question removed, I will gladly do so. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Anglo-Saxon world... for politics, Machiavelli, for writing, Shakespeare, for sex, Casanova, for military, Napoleon, for science, Einstein. Dull, standard, stereotypical answers that are extremely contestable—best you can come up with for something like this. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only Anglo-Saxon person in that list is Shakespeare. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean that they were all Anglo-Saxons, I meant those are answers people in an Anglo-Saxon world would probably give. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I read the list as "Shakespeare, for sex; Casanova, for military..." which would have been more controversial. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why semi-colons should be used in lists involving commas. I originally read it like that, too. Useight (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And Frank Lloyd Wright for architecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.52.204 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's what I would call productive ambiguity ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As for music, people like J. S. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (all Germanic, funnily enough) are usually mentioned in polls of the "greatest" composers, but really, it's so utterly subjective as to make it pretty meaningless. When it comes to singers and other performers who didn't compose, the field is wide open, and it would be a different set of names for every different genre, of which there are hundreds, and they seem to be sprouting new genres by the day. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For me, at extreme focus, it's specialist sniper Simo Häyhä. For your last point, Everything, at Polymath there's a long list of recognised polymaths from wa-ay back, a short list of sports polymaths, and polymaths in fiction. To some they're cultural constructs and the idea of a Renaissance man can be anything down to someone who's ambidextrous or walks and chews gum at the same time. Btw, in CliotheMuse's time there were some snappy straw polls on what makes a person sexy, best novels, etc – livened things up a little with loads of interesting links and revelations. More please, Julia Rossi (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good times, good times. I miss Clio. :(  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We all miss Clio. Things aren't quite the same now... Gwinva (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you ever get the feeling that all of that was orchestrated by Clio and/or her drooling toadies? Was it really just a coincidence that so many questions happened to be asked about things she could answer expertly? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think she might come back if we all turn into drooling toadies, asking the right questions? Gwinva (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a coincidence, I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I think her expertise was entirely genuine. However I also think she was quite haughty and intolerant of people who didn't share her views, which is something she seemed to get away with on a fairly regular basis. --Richardrj talkemail 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But we got some great questions. (No offence to the current posters.)  Gwinva (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Clio phenomenon was quite strange, in a way, not so much about Clio herself, but about the effect she seemed to have on others (which is not about Clio exercising some power, but about others suspending their critical faculties). I was often amazed by the tendency of other people to become what seemed like fawning acolytes who hung on every word she said and sent her regular messages extolling her virtues.  Don't get me wrong; I have the greatest respect for her academic creds.  But often, she'd produce a lengthy response - sometimes with refs, sometimes not - but even without any refs, others would often simply copy her responses wholesale into relevant articles.  That is surely not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.  The words of Clio or anyone else on a Ref Desk page do not constitute a published source.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Reference Desk is not for polls or discussions. If you want to discuss things go to a forum. Those are the house rules. If this had been some anon asking about the best football player or wondering how he could fix his acne he'd would have been blasted off the page. Some older hands should know better!! Richard Avery (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Awww Richard A, you are correct! but polls for suggestions would fit. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weeell, OK, just this once ;-)) Richard Avery (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the internet, Chuck Norris is the master of everything.--Dlo2012 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for those areas ruled by Bruce Schneier. Algebraist 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My silly little suggestions, not definitive or anything:
 * Military - As one might surmise, I've always been a fan of Belisarius
 * Politics - My sense of national pride and patriotism makes me want to nominate Axel Oxenstierna
 * Science - I'm goin' with Newton!
 * Writing - Hard to beat Shakespeare here, really.
 * Music - Mozart or Beethoven would be the obvious picks, but honestly, I like Miles Davis and Bob Dylan better
 * Cinema - Again, my fiendish sense of national pride and patriotism makes me nominate Ingmar Bergman (although he'd be at the top of most people's list)
 * Sex - Hmm. Are self-nominations allowed?
 * Architecture - No clue.
 * Philosophy - Aristotle's gotta win this one.
 * Religion - "The greatest" in what sense? Most influential? Most devout? Let's just say that Jesus and Mohammed can share this one.
 * Everything - Leibniz. The man was bad-ass.

Belisarius (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise, personal entirely and fairly arbitrary –


 * Military – Hannibal
 * Politics – fave for style David Lange; Aung San Suu Kyi for perseverance
 * Science – Nikola Tesla and Louise T. Chow
 * Writing – Dylan (both) and Neal Cassady/Jacques Prevert, Sylvia Plath struck out by the author of the Tales of Genji. Sorry guys.
 * Music – Dylan
 * Cinema – anything by Akira Kurosawa
 * Sex – Sigmund Freud for weirdness and Alfred Kinsey for being curious
 * Architecture – Frank Lloyd Wright
 * Acting – David Gulpilil
 * Philosophy and for being able to chew gum etc– Hildegard von Bingen; Gilles Deleuze
 * Religion? Lao Tzu
 * Everything? likewise Leibniz
 * my few bits which doesn't really answer your question, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think:
 * Military? - Alexander the Great - undefeated for 22 years.
 * Politics? - Barack Obama - President of America while African American? That takes skills.
 * Science? - Have to go with [[Newton] as well, inventing calculus and physics.
 * Writing? - William Shakespeare. No brainer, really.
 * Music? - Beethoven. The guy was deaf when he wrote "Ode to Joy."
 * Cinema? - Charlie Chaplin, since I'm not sure if Allen Smithee would count
 * Sex? - I wasn't sure, but now I'm going with Casanova after 98's post.
 * Architecture? - Adieu. Frank Lloyd Wright.
 * Philosophy? - Hard to choose between Socrates and Plato. I think I'll go with Plato.
 * Religion? - Jesus Christ. Personal bias here. :)
 * Everything? - Leonardo da Vinci. scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.52.204 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Then again, I'm a gigantic Asimov fan so my view is clearly skewed. But he's a good start for a renaissance man of sorts. :) Chris M. (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For a general "expert on things" I'd say Isaac Asimov. From the article... "Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 9,000 letters and postcards . His works have been published in nine of the ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System (the sole exception being the 100s; philosophy and psychology).
 * Looks like Leibniz and Newton are neck and neck with calculus, with Leibniz out in front with this: "He invented infinitesimal calculus independently of Newton, and his notation is the one in general use since then." Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... 98.227.90.212 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Military? Genghis Khan, probably.
 * Politics? Otto von Bismarck was quite the political mastermind.
 * Science? Isaac Newton. He invented calculus when he was what, 16?
 * Writing? William Shakespeare
 * Music? Johann Sebastian Bach, since his music has become the basic foundation for all music writing (i.e. four part harmonies)
 * Cinema? Akira Kurosawa is probably the biggest name out there.
 * Sex? Alfred Kinsey
 * Architecture? Frank Lloyd Wright
 * Philosophy? Socrates
 * Religion? Jesus, Muhammad, Gautama Buddha, Abraham... Depends on your own beliefs, I guess.
 * Everything? Leonardo Da Vinci, that man did just about everything you can imagine.
 * Oh, I was going to post the final results, but with a new list of votes, some of the winners have changed. Here's the standings currently:

As you all can see, nine out of twelve categories are still undecided, with a one-vote or less margin. Any new votes can influence the balance. Anyone who hasn't voted, your voice would make a big difference! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Military? - Six names, all with one vote. Could go any way.
 * Politics? - Same as Military.
 * Science? - Newton leads with three votes. Einstein, Tesla, and Louise Chow all have one.
 * Writing? - I think it's safe to say Shakespeare's won this one.
 * Music? - Bach, Beethoven, and Bob Dylan all have two votes. Mozart and Miles Davis have one.
 * Cinema? - Akira Kurosawa leads with two votes. Ingmar Bergman and Charlie Chaplin both have one.
 * Sex? - Casanova and Alfred Kinsey both have two. Freud and User:FlavusBelsarius have one.
 * Architecture? - Frank Lloyd Wright. Not even a competitor.
 * Acting - JuliaRossi's self made category has only her vote, David Gulpili.
 * Philosophy? - Five names, all with only one vote.
 * Religion? - Jesus has three votes, Mohammed has two votes, and Lao Tzu, Buddha, and Abraham have one.
 * Everything? - Leibniz and DaVinci are tied with two. Chuck Norris, Asimov, and possibly Bruce Schnier have one.

I want to change my vote to Alfred Kinsey. 70.179.52.204 (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to blow it now
This question has been removed. The reference desk is not the place to ask for personal advice. 203.122.33.194 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor for anonymously removing questions either! Richard Avery (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored below - we only remove obvious trolling or requests for legal or medical advice and similar things. This question is probably not answerable with a factual answer, but advice/opinion can certainly be given. Exxolon (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. There is a girl I like and I have been talking to her for quite some time and she seems to like me too but how do I make sure I don't blow it now. I usually seem to do most of the chasing right but mess it up at the crunch time. Thanks. 124.30.235.62 (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Best advice - keep it simple and honest - "Would you like to go out with me?" is a good line. Exxolon (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some kind of sack, perhaps? TastyCakes (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cook her dinner, have a couple of bottles on wine on hand. When the moment is right, strike.--Woland (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Honesty is important. Just flat out say, "I'm kind of nervous; I don't quite know how to approach actually asking a girl out." Chances are, since you two have spoken before, she will: 1. Be understanding; and, 2. Have had the same experiences. Maybe not with dating, but with other things. This is one of the main things about adolescence - everyone's having the same fears and yet nobody thinks anyone else does. Then, say, "Well, anyway, I was just wondering, would you like to (go for a burger/go to the game/see a movi/etc.) with me?"Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Liquor helps. But make sure that she drinks at least as much as you do.  Probably more.NByz (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What now for Hillary?
Of course I know that no-one can at this stage say - except perhaps Mrs. Clinton herself - but if she still wants to run for President as a Democrat, she will have to wait either until Mr. Obama demits office in 4 years time without competing for a 2nd term, or she waits until he has completed his 2nd term in 8 years time, at which time she will be around 70 years old - I think. BUT, are there any circumstances that would allow her to compete against the incumbent in 4 years time, even should he want to aim for a 2nd term himself? 92.20.105.141 (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No special circumstances are required. If she wants to, she can compete for the Democratic party nomination in 2012. She would be unlikely to succeed unless Obama's presidency was seen as going very badly. Algebraist 10:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Members of an incumbent president's party have challenged the him in the nomination for a second term -- Eugene McCarthy, for example, ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1968. As Algebraist says, any member of the president's party can seek the nomination that would be the president' second term, but it's a monumental challenge to overcome the benefits of incumbency. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they're always going to face some primary challenge. You think with around 100m people in your party you're going to get away without someone challenging you?  Presumably you're talking about challengers that actually manage to make some serious noise.  To the best of my recollection the last such case was when Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in 1976. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I now understand. I had somehow imagined that an incumbent political party would not want to face the excruciating public embarrassment of sponsoring a competitor against an incumbent president. 92.23.201.248 (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They probably wouldn't suffer the embarrassment; the nomination of the incumbent is overwhelmingly common because the party rarely does sponsor a competitor.  Plasticup  T / C  15:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the incumbent is bad enough for someone else to win the nomination then the incumbent is the embarrassment. --Tango (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but to have 16 glorious years of 2 top-notch democrats, what a dream........anyway, that's how long it would take to repair the damage that has been incurred by Bush. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this isn't the place to be advocating for or against any political party. Factual statements are the way to go.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I bet Hillary will take over the Senate Health Committee from Ted Kennedy when the latter gets too sick to continue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Howard Dean seems a more logical choice to me; he would be less controversial for sure.  Plasticup  T / C  05:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the indent, it seems you're suggesting the Howard Dean would take over the Senate Health Committe. Since he's not a senator, that is highly unlikely.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  21:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes it does. I had the Secretary of Health and Human Services on my brain.  Plasticup  T / C  06:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Flying with an inhaler
Is it permitted - and where - to fly with an inhaler?Mr.K. (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In most cases as long as you have the box and the prescription it should be ok, but call ahead to be sure. The TSA allow all prescription and over-the-counter medications but they will probably screen them first. SN0WKITT3N (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never had trouble. The "no liquids" rule is absurd, and most airport screeners only pay it lip service. That is to say they will take your water bottle, but won't harass you over anything you actually need.  Plasticup  T / C  15:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily true. It all depends on how much the person screening you fears losing their job over not enforcing an arbitrary rule. Medicines, in general, are exempt in small sizes. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or the person screening you can be a real jerk or is having a bad day and decides to take it out on you by enforcing the rules to a ridiculous level. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The rule on liquids is not arbitrary. It has a seemingly arbitrary effect on the 99.99% of travellers who have water to drink, baby milk for babies and shampoo for washing their hair.  However, there are civil aviation security professionals (not the ones you see on TV, but the ones who have two passports) who believe there was a strong case for the measure when it was introduced.  Personally, I also fail to see why anyone with the power to bring in such a cumbersome and unpopular rule would introduce it if were completely arbitrary.86.139.236.224 (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of experts who think it is a pointless rule—more about the appearance of security than about security itself. It's arbitrary in the sense that the blanket ruling of "all liquids"—no matter their origin or container or whatever. The problem is partially that the people who are in charge of screening such thing have no clue what a dangerous chemical looks like. So instead of trusting them to screen out the bad chemicals, they just trust them to screen out liquids in general. Of course, once the blanket rule gets made, anyone who wanted to try a dubious plot involving chemical explosives or whatever would just take another route. In the meantime we all have to bend over backwards to accommodate a rule whose very existence ends up negating its security purpose. There are other, better ways to do security. --140.247.242.66 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also functionally useless. If I can bring on a 3 oz container of liquid without question then 10 of my friends can bring in 30 oz and the rule is completely circumvented without even a modicum of trickery.  Plasticup  T / C  06:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True that and then some. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ways to Reduce Youth Violence
I deleted this nightmare of a thread. Revert if you disagree, but I think it epitomized what the Reference Desk is not supposed to be about. -- BenRG (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, man --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction - those 28 kids stabbed to death this calendar year in London by mainly VIOLENT YOUTHS just went up to 29. The perpetrators are currently being "understood"by social workers.92.20.38.93 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously dude, let it go.--Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact-checking in Wikipedia
Hi - I'm wondering how long on average it takes for errors within the wiki content to be detected by Wikipedia users. I've looked through Wikipedia and the Reference desk but couldn't find that information (if it exists). I had "heard" at a meeting that it takes less than 5 minutes for a major error in popular content to be discovered in Wikipedia, can this be confirmed/denied? thank-you 207.148.171.2 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there are definitive statistics about how long it takes on average, but it really depends on the popularity of the article and the obscurity of the fact. A clearly-wrong fact on a frequently watched article (e.g. "Barack Obama has three arms") is almost certain to get caught within a minute by the people watchlisting the article or the people patrolling Special:RecentChanges. A fact on a more obscure article may hang around until someone who has the page watchlisted happens to notice. An obscure fact on an unwatched article could theoretically persist indefinitely until someone who knows better happens to read it. ~  mazca  t 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Vandalism studies which has done, IIRC, this exact study. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote, out of context, from the study referred to by Jayron, "In addition, 97% of the vandalism observed is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. Roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that is skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes." -- SGBailey (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you click on "Recent changes" at the left, you see, as it implies, the latest changes to articles. New IP (anonymous editors) do lots of vandalism. You then have the option to click at the top on changes made by new editors, who do a huge amount of the vandalism. Then it is possible to  check the nature of each edit by a new author. Any which are clearly wrong or malicious can be reverted and the vandal warned, or "good faith" inappropriate edits can simply be undone. In these cases, the error will be gone a minute after it is added. Articles about subjects one is very familiar with can be watchlisted and periodically viewed, with erroneous information removed or corrected. There are a great many administrators and other vandal fighters watching new articles and changes to existing articles, although many articles are on no one's watchlist. Changes to obscure subjects no one really cares about might linger a while, because there are few sources to verfyy information in. This is an argument for only having articles on subjects with numerous reliable and independent references, so that information can be verified. Edison (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - indeed. If you pick your articles by hitting "Random article" - the odds are heavily skewed in favor of getting something obscure - and that pushes the average way up.  If you were to measure the average number of readers who saw a vandalised article - the numbers would look a heck of a lot better because the vast percentage of readers are reading the articles that most responsible editors are patrolling.  There is no doubt that obscure articles don't get fixed immediately...but then they also get vandalised a lot less.  Check out articles like Computer or Automobile and you'll get a much better feel for how vandal fighting works out in practice.  Computer was protected against IP edits on October 17th last year.  In the 24 hours before it was locked down, it was vandalized 24 times - and from just a casual glance through the history, most of those were fixed in minutes - although one or two stayed there for as long as 40 minutes - none of them lasted an hour.  100% of that vandalism was by anonymous editors and 0% of the useful edits that day were by anon's.  In the entire YEAR since the article has been protected so that only users with accounts can edit it, it hasn't been vandalised even once.  The message is clear.  Wikipedia's core policy of allowing ANYONE to edit is a good one - but letting them do it anonymously is killing us!  SteveBaker (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To add to the above comments, someone could also add a bogus citation, or one that is just as obscure as the article itself. And I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas, but if you find a relatively unobscure topic that has a poor article, add a made-up fact and attribute it to a source that you haven't read, people are more likely to leave it there because they haven't read the source either, and don't know enough about it to remove it or call bullsh!t on it. But the same question arises at any academic review or fact checking with a reliable source. It's what go the New York Times in so much trouble a few years ago. --Moni3 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unregistered editing might be hugely junk, but without it, recruiting would be vastly more difficult. I'd bet money that a solid majority of currently active Wikipedians would never have even joined if they didn't get to edit this way first...though this is tangential to the original question :) --WikiSlasher (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be true - but the amount of time that so many editors spend fighting anon-vandalism would be recouped - I think that increased productivity would more than make up for some small amount of reduction. When you consider how many perfectly vibrant sites manage just fine without anon access - I think the modern Internet user is familiar with that need.  But more than anything else, the complaint about vandalism is the number one reason why people discount Wikipedia as a respectable encyclopedia.  The thought that for almost no effort - we could get rid of 98% of vandals with essentially zero loss of decent edits...that's a powerful thing.   I also believe that if we got rid of the anon vandals then the non-anon kind would stick out so much that we'd be able to agressively go after those vandals, block them and deal with sockpuppeteering efficiently.  That would drive away most of the remaining 2% of vandals in short order.  SteveBaker (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People seem very enamored of "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" but are not aware of how many hours it takes to revert all the idiotic vandalism by IPs and brand new accounts which are created to do a few vandal edits then abandoned when they get to the final warning or get blocked. This time by dedicated and experienced Wikipedians could be better spent creating and improving articles than removing claims that "So and so is gay" from articles. Edison (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't get rid of the vandalism problem by disallowing the method vandals currently prefer. After all registering is not that difficult and it's not like there are no registered vandals already.  130.188.8.10 (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst a reasonable assumption in theory - the actual practical fact is that they DON'T register to vandalize. The Computer article is proof of that.  24 vandalism incidents PER DAY before protection - not one single incident in over a year since it was protected from IP editors...not ONE.  QED. SteveBaker (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, There's a hole in your premise. The fact that registering isn't needed to do edits mena that vandals don't baother to register. If they had to register to do any edits, some would register and still vandalise. Since Computer is protected, at present they can just move on to articles that are editable. At least the way it is at present, anons stand out easily. -- SGBailey (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong place to discuss this and it has been discussed out the wazoo before. See Editors should be logged in users and Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement and Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles and Perennial proposals. -- BenRG (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian federal government revenues
I'm trying to find recent information about how much the Canadian federal government raises from the individual provinces to compare to how much it spends on each province. While where the federal government spends its money is fairly easy to find on the finance website here, where the money comes from seems to be far harder to find, as in I haven't been able to. Can anyone help? TastyCakes (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This source seems to provide the information that you seek. Marco polo (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks a lot. Hopefully there's some more recent data hiding on the stats can site somewhere too :)  TastyCakes (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)