Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 11

Mandela movie "Long Walk to Freedom" - accuracy?

Maybe its a question for the entertainment desk, but I see it more politics and history. I've just seen a screening of the new movie based on Mandela's biography. It was amazing to see the movie on the very day of his memorial in Soweto. In a final scene in the movie, Mandela addresses the nation on television, just after the Boipatong massacre which happened on 17 June 1992. In the movie, he speaks to those on the ANC side who would have wanted revenge, or escalating violence, and tells them they are wrong, that the only way forward is peace. However, I think that what he said on TV post-Boipatong was that the ANC could no longer tolerate the violence and that the ruling regime had to take responsibility for it. He then called off the negotiations process publicly. This was actually an escalation of the political tensions. I tried last night to find the text or an account of his television address, but didn't manage that. It's quite a re-write of history, if when Mandela actually suspended negotiations and blamed the De Klerk regime...rather the movie has it as Mandela recommitting his own followers to 'peace' as the only option. Can anyone point me to an authoritative source on what Mandela actually said publicly on television just after Boipatong? Also, what does it actually say in the book? (I've loaned out so many copies of that book I never got back, and right now I don't have it...). Thanks if you can help me track it down. Meanwhile, I recommend the movie, especially in these days when we are all thinking about Mandela. It deals particularly well with the complexities of Winnie Mandela, I thought, and the actress who plays her does an excellent job. Viva, Nelson Mandela. Hambe Kahle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.222 (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The book Long Walk to Freedom says "Four days after the murders, I addressed a crowd of twenty thousand angry ANC supporters and told them I had instructed the ANC secretary-general Cyril Ramaphosa to suspend direct dealings with the government". On the next page, he says "I was initially sympathetic to this group of hardliners [those saying they should abandon negotiations and return to armed struggle], but gradually realised there was no alternative to the process. ... But it was time to cool things down. Mass action in this case was a middle course between armed struggle and negotiations". I see no mention of a television address. --ColinFine (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

These sources also don't mention a TV address but also goes in to more detail about what Mandela said to the crowd [1] [2] and he did blame De Klerk or the ruling regime and that they would not forget what they did edit: and that they were animals not humans, but there's nothing mentioned there about calling for violence. The second also confirms along with [3] that the talks were suspended after the massacre. However these two sources [4] [5] suggests that the suspension was largely a moot point as the talks were at a stalemate. The massacre mobilised anger against the De Klerk and National Party (both in South Africa and internationally) strengthening the ANC case for simple majority rule while damaging the credibility and will of De Klerk and the National Party to hold out for more checks and balances (precisely what the difference between their demands isn't clear, the eventual South African constitution obviously does have resonanbly strong checks and balances).

So while I can't find any evidence of him making a particular speech saying the way forward is peace (edit: to be clear I mean in response to the massacre), and while he did make a speech which could have sparked violence, it does seem he did at some stage decide (if he didn't hold all the time after the massacare) that further negotiation and peace was the way forward as the memoirs suggest (whether or not he ever made a speech saying that), as the evidence suggests conditions were ripe for an escalation violence.

(Incidentally, the sources suggest there's no real evidence of complicity of the De Klerk regime in that specific massacare, despite an initial finding of the TRC. On the other hand, De Klerk likely didn't help his case by deciding to visit the area and the violence resulting from his visit including that coming from the ruling regime including the police firing on protestors.)

P.S. Found which says at some stage after the massacre both him and De Klerk did pledge that further violence would not interrupt the peace talks. [http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=4193 provides some idea, at least from Mandela's public political POV at the time, of what the NP want.

This source [6], despite the perhaps general questionable nature of the source appears okay here, and suggests the speech is from after Chris Hani's assassination. I recall from media reports and read after Mandela's recent death that he definitely did make a speech like that after Chris Hani's death. If I would take a guess, putting the speech after Chris Hani's asssasination didn't fit in well with the movie so they put it after the massacre instead.

Finally, this source [7] (down but I read a cached version) seems to confirm there were calls for arming the population in response to the massacre which Mandela ignored.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. I opened [8] but was leaving it for the end because it's scans so I wasn't sure how searchable it is (but it seems to have been OCRed fairly well so searches well) and forgot about it until I was cleaning up. Anyway it mentions perhaps one more key point. In response to the calls for violence he did actually say “As we brace ourselves for what lies ahead, we m ust call for discipline among our ranks. Don’t allow yourselves to be provoked into unplanned violence.” Not exactly a calling for peace but clearly urging caution at least. I'm also reminded by that source of something also mentioned in earlier sources which may be relevant. In response to the suggestions of imposing a state of emergency in response to the massacare, Mandela said he would lead a campaign of disobedience or defiance if implemented, i.e. as with the direct response to the massacre not a explicit call for peace but not suggesting violence either.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about the history, but my impression was that the South African government fomented violence between blacks in Operation Marion, in which Zulu forces were trained and ordered to attack the ANC.^[9] (This is a familiar though bloody variation on a theme familiar to Americans from COINTELPRO to the recent prosecutions of hackers working with FBI informant "Sabu". By inducing one group to attack another, they can prosecute the first and attack the second while disclaiming all responsibility) So urging ANC not to counterattack Zulu could be consistent with an understanding that Inkatha was the puppet rather than the master.

Christmas tree

What should I add to the water? I am being told bleach and sugar. No plans to replant; no roots. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Michigan State University says add nothing. "Others have concocted their own “home remedies” with ingredients such as sugar, aspirin, bleach and 7UP. Research in the state of Washington and North Carolina has shown that your best bet is plain tap water. Some of the home remedies such as bleach and aspirin caused heavy needle loss and should be avoided."

WikiHow further notes that "Water softener water has high levels of sodium in it which will actually shorten the life of the cut tree. If possible, find a faucet in the house that is not "downstream" of the water softener. Otherwise, you can use distilled water or bottled water, but bottled water may also contain traces of sodium (but usually lower than water softener water)." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mythbusters tried lots of home remedies. None really did much better than the control; a few of their homebrew ideas had "plausible" results, in the sense that there were technically less needles lost, but there were other bad side effects (the bleach option resulted in lower needle loss, but a droopy, sick tree, for example). In short, nothing really works better than plain old tap water, though plenty of things worked worse. --Jayron32 12:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We used to saw off a slice of the bottom end of the tree to expose fresh wood and theoretically improve the chances of the water being sucked into the tree. Which could also be a myth, for all I know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Baseball's tip is a good one. The end of the tree where it was cut down dries and or decomposes from its exposure to oxygen in the air. Cutting off a fresh slice at the bottom exposes living matter, including xylem, that can transport water to the branches and leaves, keeping them alive for longer. I've had good results using just tap water in the base. Bleach is toxic, and trees are not used to drawing carbohydrates from the ground, so adding sugar is of questionable value. Adding sugar is, however, likely to nourish a bloom of algae and bacteria in the water at the base of the tree, which can become stinky over time. Marco polo (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You might find [10] / [11] entertaining. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In my family, we always used to buy our trees with (part of) the root system still attached, and repotted it in a big pot. Surely that's the better option over all of these supposed remedies? Do people not do that any more? (haven't bothered with Christmas trees for years since living on my own.) Fgf10 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We replanted the tree from the year my younger sister died of an arrhythmia at age 20. I personally prefer the use of small live potted trees or artificial ones. I also drive the annual acorn crop to the local woods and release them to fend for themselves rather than go in the garbage. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a Christmas oak tree? 163.1.225.65 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Took me a few seconds to see where you got that. No, my point was that I don't like unnecessarily killing living things. So I prefer a live spruce (or an artificial one) for Christmas. I don't have acorns in NYC, but my parents rake up about 40lbs of them at their house each year. They would then put them in the trash whence they'd to the dump. Instead, I take them to a nearby undeveloped area and cast them about. I know that most will still get eaten, but that's fine, it's natural compared to being put in a landfill. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I had the same reaction as 163.1.225.65 on the oak tree :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is disgraceful that a gentleman should even have to ask this question, as he should leave it to his man to deal with. That such a question should have to be asked shows how low we have stooped. I shouldn't trust any of the answers given here unless one of them comes from an Australian, on the grounds that they are sufficiently proletarian to give a correct answer. Whilst I am on the subject, be sure to open your Christmas presents, attend church, and address your Christmas dinner wearing a morning coat.

Not only does 'Dave' Cameron OE think it appropriate to lark about at a memorial service, he also does not wear a morning coat at such an event. As an OE, he probably also refers to 'Christmas dinner' as 'Christmas lunch' in a disgusting display of affectation, and disparages the use of the word 'gift', preferring 'present'. Readers should be assured that it is perfectly acceptable to refer to your Christmas dinner as such, at whatever time you choose to have it, and also that 'gift' is an acceptable synonym for 'present'. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Did I hear someone mention a "disgusting display of affectation"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When are the best and worst times of year to start an okcupid profile?

Does the dating pool grow and shrink much? 12.196.0.56 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

According to this, online dating profiles in general spike around Valentine's Day. I didn't see anything specific to OK Cupid but don't know why they would be any different than other sites in the industry. Dismas|^(talk) 23:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 12

measuring Mixed Hispanic ancestry

How does the Pew Hispanic Center, the Census Bureau, and other organizations studying Hispanic or Latinos and the trends, beliefs, and life of this group deal with second generation Hispanics or Latinos who has one biological parent who is of one Spanish speaking country and another biological parent who is of another Spanish speaking country when in the results of a study they say that such and such percentage of Cuban Americans, Mexican Americans, Salvadoran Americans, etc. believe in, identify themselves as, or are such and such? Are such respondents included as two separate nationalities by these organizations as in for example a second generation American respondent might be included as part of such and such percentage of Mexican Americans who believe in, identify themselves as, or are such and such, and as part of the percentage of Cuban Americans who believe in, identify themselves as, or are such and such? Willminator (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC) P.S: I tried to think of ways to make the title as brief as possible, but couldn't. Willminator (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if you really want this question answered, you'd be best to ask the question directly to the organizations themselves. They would be able to answer best their methodologies, certainly much better than anyone here would. I found Mark Hugo Lopez with a few clicks at http://www.pewhispanic.org/ and he has ways to contact him listed. If he can't answer your questions, others certainly can. --Jayron32 02:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your title was way too long, so I shortened it. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have relengthened it. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That implies that it's back to the original length. It's not. It started out using that huge first sentence as the title. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is your point that instead of relengthening it, that I unshortened it? Be specific, please. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"I added one word to your shortened version" would be clearer. Whenever you say "re-", it implies going back to how something was. StuRat (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, kind of like if Queen Elizabeth were regal she'd be back to being a gal? μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You regale us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the original would work if you put it in small enough type? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I emailed Marco Hugo Lopez yesterday night as you suggested, so how long would it normally take him to answer back? Willminator (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I've never met him. I have no idea how prompt he is in answering his email. I just found his name on a website. --Jayron32 04:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Middle name

What is Steven D. Cuozzo's[12] middle name? I've looked high and low for it, but have not come up with anything. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I found this, though I don't know how reliable it is. Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

feline sensation plush toys

I saw this cat on YouTube. It is a Turkish Van named Shironeko, who lives in Japan. He's been proclaimed "The World's Relaxed Cat" and "The Zen Cat". When I looked up more information on him, I learned on March 26, 2012, plush toy versions of Shironeko have been made available for purchase. They're only available in Japan at a cost of 13,440¥ (USD$160) each. I think that's too much for a plush toy. Please note I'm not trying to use this site as a crystal ball or anything like that. But I'm interested in buying at least six of the Shironeko plush toys. Will they be available in the USA at a much lower price soon?142.255.103.121 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page, we cannot make predictions. But given that eBay hasn't heard of these yet, I would think it extremely unlikely that they would catch on outside of Japan.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Medieval city density

From the first look the density in European medieval cities must be much lower than in modern ones. On the other hand despite of skyscrapers and multistory buildings modern cities have a lot of empty space which was absent in medieval ones (highways, broad streets, parks, etc.). In a stereotypical medieval city the houses was relatively small, they sat tight to each other, streets was narrow. Even if we imagine a city where a typical house was one-stored and occupied area of 100 sq m (quite a big house even by the modern standards), reserving 20% of the city area for streets, churches, storehouses and other buildings, we'd have 8000 houses per sq km. Bearing in mind that a typical family consisted of 5-6 family members we get 40000-48000 per sq km! It's much bigger than of modern New-York (10000) or Paris (20000). I can't believe that a medieval city was so densely populated and big. Medieval Paris of the 13th century with the area about 6 sq km should have at least 240000! It's unbelievable! But I do not understand if the actual density was lower how a city was built. If we accept quite realistic 1000 people per sq km we get only 200 houses, then each house occupied 5000 sq m. It's also unbelievable! The houses should stood at the distance of 60 m from each other. Even if we multiply the density by 5, we nevertheless get 1000 houses with 1000 sq m per each. It's no less unbelievable. There should be too much empty space. It's more like a big village than a city. Where is the mistake?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Partly you are neglecting the fact that not every building is a house. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

According to medieval censuses, Paris did indeed have over 200 000 people (although in the 14th century, not the 13th - see fr:Démographie de Paris). I assume this means Paris within the wall of Philip Augustus, but maybe the censuses counted people in the suburbs, I'm not sure. However, a typical house was not one-storied. A typical medieval timber-framed house was 2 or 3 stories. The biggest one I've seen is the fr:Maison d'Adam in Angers, which is six stories. Imagine how many people could have lived in that one house. They were like small apartment buildings, and medieval cities were absolutely packed with them. They also put houses anywhere they could conceivably build a house, no matter how dumb or dangerous. Even bridges were filled with houses. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

But Paris has always been being the biggest city or least one of the biggest cities of Europe. But what about many other ordinary cities? Did they have really 50000 per sq km? Or 20000 as modern Paris (the most densely populated city of Europe)? I don't believe that so many people could live then at all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I wanted to say. If we acccept stereotypical medieval tight and dense city planning, we should accept very big numbers for density, bigger than for modern super-megapolises and much bigger for the absolute majority of modern smaller cities and towns. Then any medieval relatively not too big in territory city (1-3 sq km) should have very big population, bigger than modern cities of the same area. So we then must accept that modern cities in spite of urbanization are quite spacious. But if we accept relatively small numbers for density in medieval cities, we should somehow explain how a city was planned.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

They weren't planned, is the first answer ;-)

Remember that while cities had very dense housing (think modern slums and you get the idea) they also would have had a lot of other things in them. Right now, dense urban housing does not usually contain stables, sewage pits, light industry, street markets, graveyards, fortifications, etc etc - but a medieval city would have done, in addition to the housing. This would have taken up a lot of space. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There would also be lots of churches and monasteries. That would take up a lot of room where there might otherwise be houses, but going back to Paris, imagine the area around Notre Dame today. There's a huge square in front and a big park behind it. In medieval Paris, that space would have been filled with stuff - houses, shops, etc. People and animals might live even inside the big churches. Houses were built right up against the defensive walls and even in top of them. There's no public parks, greenspace, anything like that.

There might be a bit of planning, especially if the city had been founded as a Roman colony. But even then, there would likely be only one north-south road and one east-west road, and the rest of the city would grow rather anarchically. In a place like Paris this isn't really visible anymore. The city where I lived in France, Nantes, still has a very visible anarchic medieval street pattern, so you can tell exactly where the medieval boundaries were. And there were people packed in everywhere, which is why medieval cities were notoriously unclean and prone to fires and outbreaks of disease. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In many medieval cities, even bridges had housing on it. Consider the original Pont Notre-Dame, which was lined with 5 storey houses, or the original London Bridge which was similarly built upon. From the look of the 1616 engraving in our article, it's difficult to see where people would even walk across the bridge given the density of housing. It appears people walked through tunnels under the house on the bridge it was so densely packed with houses. --Jayron32 13:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief there was actually a lot of green spaces in most medieval cities, even in places like Paris or London. These consisted mainly of garden patches, but some times even fields or pastures could be found, as there was a lot of livestock inside medieval cities as well (link, link). It should should also be taken into account that the average medieval household consisted of a lot more persons that the average modern household. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change in England C.1200 to 1580 by Christopher Dyer (p. 189) says that in 1400, within the walls of Winchester, a middle-sized English city, population density varied between 29 and 81 persons per acre. I'll leave you to do the metrication. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly medieval European cities were much denser (though also much smaller in area) than modern European cities. The buildings were packed together, streets were narrow, transportation infrastructure occupied much less space, and people lived several to a room in small rooms. While few buildings had more than 4 to 5 storeys, the same is actually true of a majority of buildings in modern European cities. High-rise residential buildings are outliers in modern Europe and are more than compensated by the areas of parks, parking structures, multi-lane roads, airports, seaports, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, if there are 247 acres in 1 sq km, then the density was between roughly 7000 and 20000.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In one of his books (probably The City in History I would guess), Lewis Mumford emphasizes that many medieval cities, when their walls were first built, included open spaces of various kinds between the walls, and it was only later (if their populations increased, but their walls were not expanded to match) that they would have become overall dense... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I found the good estimates with many examples. Looks like our cities are really empty by the medieval standards. Even Moscow of the 16-17th centuries had the same density as the modern city! --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're currently living, but if you have a chance to visit somewhere like Prague or York, the old city centres still retain a lot of the dense late-medieval building patterns. (The buildings themselves are often post-medieval, but the street pattens and sizes are older). It's very striking the difference to more modern, open, areas. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Axis partition of Asia

According to our article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_power_negotiations_on_the_division_of_Asia_during_World_War_II the Wehrmacht proposed the following border for the division of Asia among Axis powers:
"along the eastern border of Iran, the northern border of Afghanistan, the western border of China up to Tannu Tuva, and then northwards along the Yenisei river to the Arctic Ocean."
Germany & Italy were to get Europe, Africa and Asia west of it while Japan would get Oceania and Asia east of it. I wanted to make a calculation of the areas of the two spheres of influence (Germany+Italy and Japan), excluding North and South America (Germany gets Iceland but not Greenland and Japan gets Hawaii but not Alaska). My main problem is about the partition of Russia along the Yenisei river. Is there a way to quantify the area or Russia or of the Krasnoyarsk Krai east and west of it? --151.41.165.155 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You could do so with mapping software. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 13

President Obama’s children's racial identity

President Obama is considered to be by many as multiracial because his mother is white and his father is black. Michelle Obama is pretty much considered to be a full-blooded African American even though she may have a white ancestor in her lineage. So, is President Obama’s children classified as multiracial like their father or is their white ancestry too insignificant for them to be considered to be multiracial since they only have one grandparent who is white, President Obama’s mother? Willminator (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

In so far as the question has any objective meaning, and we accept the notions of white and black as held in America, they are three quarters black, and one quarter white. You are quite aware of this, having asked the question. How multiracial is defined depends on the definition you want to use. We can't tell you what sense of that word is PLATONIC TRUTH. You have to provide the definition you want to use, and do the math yourself, rather than invite us to offer our opinions. Be aware also that WP:BLP applies to this question. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The long and short answer is you'd have to ask them. The operative term in racial identity is identity, so we'd have to know how Obama's daughters identify themselves. --Jayron32 04:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So, would that mean that in the case of Barack Obama, it is an objective truth that he is multiracial since he is 50 – 50? In other words, that fact is indisputable, not even by him. But in the case of his children, would that mean that it is subjective truth that they are multiracial, meaning that they can be considered multiracial or not based on their answers they would give, and both answers can be right since they are 75% black and 25% white? Willminator (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

How sure are you about those percentages? Almost every modern "black" person in the US probably has some European ancestry due to the behaviour of slave owners towards female slaves. Many "pure bred" whites have different "colours" in their ancestry too, whether they know it, or acknowledge it, or not. It's just too easy to destroy arguments about "pure" racial issues. Most of the world (not just the USA) regards Obama as the first black President of the USA. That's certainly going to be a major aspect written about him historically. Your attempts to seek certainty down the multi-racial path are dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything dangerous here whatever that means. I just want to understand what the minimum percentage in terms of background is to be officially considered or recognized as multiracial, as is evident on Wikipedia's list of multiracial Americans on its article about multiracial Americans, and where Obama's children would fall in this as examples. This is simply motivated by curiosity and wanting to attain more knowledge. Also, I'm just giving out the percentages based on how most people would perceive them as. Of course, they are just estimations in reality, not exact percentages. Willminator (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are writing as if race is a definite thing. You need to look at our article Race (human classification), and some of the other sources linked to from there, to begin to understand the problems with that view. Personally, I think Multiracial American is a very bad article, again seemingly based on the kinds of certainty about what race is that you are exhibiting. And your use of the expression "most people" suggests to me that you need to meet more people. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Words like multiracial are concepts invented by men to classify the world--not inherent truths. The OP is repeating the request that we identify something as a truth of nature that is a question based on human-invented concepts. The answer is, the children will be multiracial depending on your definition of multiracial.

The OP hasn't defined his terms, so we can't answer his question. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Obama's father's line is not known very far up the tree, but it was Kenyan, with no known European ancestry. However, his mother's line includes a black slave a couple centuries back or more. So, based on what's known, Obama is slightly more than 50 percent black. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is an elaborate patrilineal genealogy of Luo lineages, to which Obama's father can be slotted in... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Willminator -- according to the traditional U.S. one-drop rule, Obama and his wife and children are all black. If you're looking for an "objective" or "scientific" definition of who is black, then you won't really find it in currently-accepted mainstream science. However, Obama filled out his 2010 census form as black, not multiracial. AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The one-drop rule, as with the rumors about Warren G. Harding. Oddly enough, certain commentators who would have gladly invoked the one-drop rule in the old days, tried to have it both ways when they referred to Obama as "Half-rican" American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Obama's white mother also had African ancestry many generations back, per African-American heritage of United States presidents. Genetic analysis shows that most African -Americans have some European ancestry, and few are more than 80% African. The cited article also discusses the common 19th century view that Lincoln's mother was part African. Lincoln claimed that some anonymous wealthy planter had impregnated his grandmother. Genetic testing sites often find a small African ancestry, such as 0.5%, in American whites who had many lines of their ancestry in the southern US a couple of hundred years ago, due to intermarriage with mixed race part-African people who were "passing" as being part Native American or Southern European. Edison (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So, are some of you saying that in reality, there is no such thing as multiracial, that one is either of one race or ethnicity, or the other? Willminator (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is saying that. I think most people are saying that there is no workable objective definition of any of the terms ("black", "white", "multi-racial" etc) and the only reasonably satisfactory way to apply them are in terms of what each person defines themself as. --ColinFine (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of us (at least me) take the view that seeing a single human race is a healthy thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Willminator, it's like you're being willfully obtuse here. There are definitions of "multiracial" and "black" and "white" and any of a number of other identifiers. Those are real classifications with real meanings. No one has said that there aren't. The problem is, that you want the definitions to be different than they are. You want a person to be either black or white or multiracial or Hispanic or whatever in the same way that you can say that an object is either a tree or a table or a ham sandwich, and that every person would universally agree, at a simple glance, that something is either a tree or a table or a ham sandwich. Race and ethnicity doesn't work that way. It doesn't mean that someone isn't a particular race or ethnicity, however, you don't get to define for anyone else what their race or ethnicity is, and race and ethnicity are also does not have simple Boolean truth values. People have a variety of cultural groups they can and may identify with to varying degrees at varying levels, at varying times in their lives, for varying reasons. Cultural identity (race and ethnicity) is real, but it is not simple, and you keep trying to make it simple; that you can call a person "black and thus not white" in the same way you can say "that's a ham sandwich and thus not a table". It just doesn't work that way, and you can't simple place people into a closed box and keep them there. We keep trying to explain these nuances to you and you keep ignoring these explanations. When you ask "Is XXXX Black or White or Multiracial" or "Is YYYY Hispanic or not" based on some tiny set of arbitrary characteristics, or some arbitrary number of ancestors, your question is unanswerable because the premise of the question itself (that race or ethnicity can be deduced merely by counting ancestors) is completely and utterly wrong. That's not how it works. --Jayron32 04:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, and I've said the same thing on the desks before. However, I'd like to pick it apart a little further. Take a statement like "Obama is black". No-one could reasonably argue against the truth of that statement. But what does it really mean? If self-identification is the only reasonable taxonomy, then what the statement is really saying is "Obama self-identifies as black." But does he? Has he made any such overt statement of self-identification? Does he need to, and if not then how else is self-identification communicated? --Viennese Waltz 08:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See the video of him filling out his 2010 census form or Dreams from my Father... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think AnonMoos has answered that specifically for Obama. A more overt (and perhaps better) example is songwriter Johnny Otis as far as racial identity goes. But again, it is nuanced and complex. Cultural identity is not something that we can pigeonhole people into ourselves just to satisfy our desire to categorize our world in simple terms. Cultural identity is an important part of a person's life, and we cannot ignore it; we should honor it. But to do so doesn't mean we get to decide for a person how they identify with one culture or another. That's my main point. If Barack Obama feels one way or another about his own cultural identity (and indeed, that doesn't mean he feels ONLY unidimensional, but that also doesn't mean that he doesn't strongly identify with one particular culture or not) the point is that we should not oversimplify what is a complex and nuanced issue. --Jayron32 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Michelle Obama and Helle Thorning-Schmidt

I've heard (and think I saw) that there are images of Michelle Obama talking friendly with Helle Thorning-Schmidt just minutos before (or maybe after) those more famous ones were taken and thus disproving she was actualy jelous but I can't find them. Could you? Would that be a suitable article for Wikinews if they were found?--85.52.83.144 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The fourth picture in this Guardian article? I'll let other more experienced editors comment on the Wikinews question, but personally I don't think it's relevant news at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a minor brouhaha for a day or two on shows like Entertainment Tonight. The much bigger story is how did that bogus sign-language interpreter got past everyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Slightly relevant article here, if you're interested, OP. Dismas|^(talk) 11:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no reputable source that claims Michelle was jealous. The photographer claimed that Michelle's stern look was purely a coincidence--seconds after the selfie, she started joking around with the others too. Also, only the ignorant believe that the selfie was somehow inappropriate for the situation. You can see a recording of the memorial service here. Notice how the mood was extremely jovial--people were dancing, laughing, singing (including many of the speakers), jumping up and down, and waving flags everywhere. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue so we should be careful. There are multiple pictures posted by the Daily Mail with an annoyed look on MO's face. But making judgments on still photos is notoriously problematic. As for reliable sources, I am not sure what they would be. But comments are all over the written and broadcast media, so it is not like the professional comentators have remained silent. In any case, the issue is hugely unimportant, as is the "translator". This is tabloid, not encyclopedic material, for now. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anything I said comes close to violating BLP. For a reference on the photographer's account of the event, see [13]. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't come close to violating BLP, because absolutely nothing meaningful has been said, by anybody. I'm not American. I've been away on holidays (that' a vacation to Americans) away from big cities and the like for the past week and a bit. I knew Mandela's death and funeral occured (couldn't miss that news), but what on earth did Mesdames Obama and Thorning-Schmidt do that was earth shattering? My guess is, nothing really. My measure of whether something is significant enough to be in an article is whether anyone will care in ten years time. I say no more. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when I said "we should be careful", I really meant to say I had read your minds Bowlhover and HiLo, and could see the stain on your souls. WtF? A caution is just a caution. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The tabloids constantly look for ways to make something out of nothing. Doing a selfie at a funeral was perhaps in poor taste, but that's about it. The fake interpreter is rather more important, not so much because of the comical nature of his "signing", but because it reveals a serious lack of due diligence on the part of the South African government. We're just lucky that the guy was able to keep himself under control enough to avoid bringing physical harm to anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cambridge applications

I recently had an interview to study History at BA Level at Hughes Hall college, and I was wondering this: the university says that there are 200 places available for their history course and 3 applicants for each place, making 600 applicants on average each year. If they were to make 350 provisional offers and 300 applicants met the requirements of their offer, would all 300 enrol or is this impossible because of the limited number of places? If they don't make enough provisional offers they run the risk that the course wont have the required intake. Do they create new places, offer alternatives or do they have a way of trimming down to only the very ablest students. I find the Cambridge and Oxford systems very unusual as admissions are decided by college tutors and not necessarily members of individual departments, which seems quite decentralised and haphazard way of coordinating their admissions. Any thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrewnohome (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Places" at Oxbridge are really rather vague concepts, particularly in subjects like History. If they have only 200 places but get 300 successful applicants, then yes all 300 will enrol. It just means you might end up in (for example) a series of tutorials with four students in them instead of three, and in a lecture hall that has more seats crammed in than it's generally designed for. (Or else they will just swap the lecture hall they already booked for a larger one...)

Yes it's all very haphazard. My college accepted six students per year in my subject in "good years", and only two in "bad" years, but of course had the same teaching capacity (number of tutors) all along.

Haphazard but quite effective! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting because in the case of Cambridge, it's not the "university" that makes you an offer, it's the "college". Generally, Cambridge will make about two or three offers for every one place, unlike other universities (besides Oxford) who tend to offer far more places than are actually available. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

December 14

Who initially owns newly printed US money?

When new US money is printed, who is the initial owner of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.90.213 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The initial owner of the actual pieces of paper is the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. These are then transported to the various branches of the Federal Reserve Bank from where they're issued to the public. Tevildo (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to Tevildo's accurate response above, money that is newly printed normally just replaces old notes that are withdrawn from circulation and destroyed, plus a small amount to replace notes that have been accidentally destroyed or are being retained and are not likely to go back into circulation (note collections, one-time foreign travellers etc). Where the amount of "new money" exceeds this, the OP might be interested in our article Quantitative easing#Printing money. Dbfirs 12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(After EC) The question is not about who owns the money as pieces of paper, but money as tokens with value. Say if a $100 bill is printed, who initially owns the $100 value and gets to spend it? When an ordinary bank lends out money deposited by its depositors, the money is still that of the depositors' in the sense that the banks owes them the amount. In the case of the Federal Reserve Bank, who, if any, is the equivalent of the depositors? --108.36.90.213 (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Would the equivalent of the "depositor" be the Treasury Dept.? Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Federal Reserve System is our main article on how money works in the USA. See, in particular, Federal Reserve System#Central bank. Tevildo (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right. Wouldn't that mean the US government can increase its "net worth", at everybody else's expense (by diluting the value of the dollar), just by printing more money? --108.36.90.213 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it does mean that - see fiat currency, money creation and Nixon Shock. Whether it's "right" or not is a political question that has no correct answer. ;) Tevildo (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Various foreign governments have done exactly that, and later discovered that all they really succeeded in doing was pouring millions of gallons/litres of petrol/gasoline onto the rampaging wildfire of inflation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you give me an old 100 bill and I give you a new one and then destroy the old one, then nothing has been spent (other than the cost of printing it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about replacing old, worn-out bills; I'm talking about creating new money that didn't exist before. --108.36.90.213 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the points above, I'm not totally sure you understand fractional reserve banking or the money multiplier either. I'm not an economist but I think this simplified explaination isn't that inaccurate. The money that is lent out isn't really the money that is deposited. It's effectively new money. In the case of a demand deposit, the depositor can at any stage take their money back. The bank can't tell them 'oops sorry I lent it out'. The amount of money that is in the system is therefore actually increased since there's the money that is lent out and the demand deposits that can be due at any time. This sorta works most of the time, the problem is when there's a bank run and there isn't actually enough reserves to pay back all those trying to withdraw their deposit. (But a bank run also illustrates the point about there being more money in the system than actually exists i.e. the money owned to the people wanting to withdraw their deposits and the money that was lent out. The people withdrawing their money want their money back from the bank who legally owe them. The people who borrowed the money have that money, perhaps spent including paid to the people who deposited their money and now want it back. And the borrowers only have to pay back their loans in accordance with the terms they agreed to which doesn't include paying it back right now because the depositors want their money back.) Edit: Notice Aspro said something similar below. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What I think the OP is referring to is: if a bank has a hundred million on deposit, it can request five times that amount in Dollar Bills from the reserve, on the assumption that their depositors will not all demand their many back at one. It is the old banking adage... Borrow long, lend short. In other words, long term investors provide the collateral that the bank can lend short term, in the hope that they will be able to make enough profit to pay off the initial investors and all the dollars they created out of thin air. This is why the US came off of the Gold Standard. It allowed the creation of money. So the US dollar to day is worth a fraction of its original value, when compared to its value under the original Dollar gold price.--Aspro (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Travel Accounts to Tahiti or Society Islands in the 1880s or 1890s

Are there any travel accounts/public domain books written about travels to Tahiti or the Society Islands in the 1880s or 1890s? I need a primary source to relate to the events of the "Leewards War," a period of native resistance to French annexation in the Leeward Islands of the Society Islands. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Noa Noa by Paul Gauguin chronicles his experiences on Tahiti in the early 1890s. I have no idea whether he mentions anything about those events though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tahiti, the Garden of the Pacific, etc. (1891) - 30mb PDF. Haven't checked the text, but it may be of use. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

December 15

Ford, DuPont, Apple, Microsoft, PayPal, Amazon, Facebook.....

Earlier companies are generally called after their founder's names.

More recent companies are much more likely named differently.

I wonder if anyone has discussed this issue. -- Toytoy (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder too, because I'd like to know if your claim is true. The oldest company I can think of, the East India Company, probably wasn't named after Mr East India. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Here I'd thought you were trying to be ironic. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally named after founders... such as General Electric, General Motors, General Dynamics, General Foods, General Mills... Names of companies and brand names are always about marketing strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably more relevant than date-of-creation is the earliest form of the company. Companies founded by a person or a family have often carried that name, e.g. Kroger and Wal-Mart in retailing, or Carnegie Steel in heavy industry. When you start out as a corporation with multiple shareholders, it can be inconvenient to go with everyone's names; J&L Steel started out as the American Iron Company and changed its name only after Mr Laughlin bought out Mr Jones' original partner, by which time the company was already prominent. You also need to consider the company's business model: when you're doing business online or remotely, like Apple, Microsoft, PayPal, Amazon, and Facebook, your own name won't help and might be confusing (hearing it for the first time, you'd understand "Facebook" better than you would "Zuckerberg"), but when you're doing business face-to-face or otherwise much closer to the customer, it doesn't matter as much: you go to Mr Ford and pay him to build you a car, or a factory owner uses his company's library to learn that Mr DuPont is the guy who owns that chemical company and thus the guy he'll need to contact on that chemical purchase. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it pretty well. The name of a given company is going to be whatever its owners think is the right name at any given time. I was just reading about John D. Rockefeller, which is quite enlightening in many ways. One aspect was the company name - his name and his partners' names were on various early versions of their companies, but when they began to expand both his operation and his ambitions and goals, he changed the name to Standard Oil - a self-defining name if there ever was one, as it spoke to those ambitions. Both Wal-Mart and Sam's Club retain their founder's name. Other department stores do too. Sears, Macy's, etc. are obvious. K-Mart was originally under the name some guy named Kresge. Most if not all car companies started out as the names of their founders. It just happens that Ford was never acquired by someone. General Motors was a combination of several companies that were named for their founders, but the individual product lines retained their founders' names. Likewise with Chrysler, except there actually was a guy named Chrysler. And so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether you use your own name is probably dependent on the uniqueness of the name, too. If your company goes by "Gates", people are more likely to imagine that you're a construction company, not a company selling a disk operating system. A less-common name, like Kroger, may work like a made-up name such as Kodak: people might never have heard of Barney Kroger, but once they're familiar with his company, it has instant brand recognition — "Kroger" instantly means a grocery store to them, but "Gates" may mean plenty of things unrelated to software. Consider also the issue of using first names versus last names. How many businesses go by someone's first name? Most of them are small restaurants whose owners serve local clientele, many of whom know the guy whose name it is; and even when you see a big firm with a first name, it can be a small restaurant that became big, e.g. Wendy's. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ray Kroc kept the name "McDonald's" as the name of his franchise after he acquired it from the McDonald brothers; as he said, "What are you going to do with a name like Kroc?" Dave Thomas, who got his start by helping save the fledgling KFC corporation, incorporated an altered version of his daughter's name to give an identity to his new burger company. Burger King, meanwhile, has no particular identity, but it seems to have done OK. As noted below, companies always have some kind of strategy in their naming. It's just a bit more obvious sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Verizon" paid a good deal of money to have consultants create that portmanteau from veritas/horizon. (The significance of using the red, white and black of the Third Reich instead of the pacific blue and green of Bell Atlantic is less clear.) The use of v and z was supposed to be futuristic. This was discussed quite a lot in the press, as was the fact that the word as the company would have you pronounce it violates normal pronunciation rules. See http://verizon.com/about/name.html and for criticism and some background facts http://www.identityworks.com/reviews/2000/verizon.htm. See also rebranding, which mentions the firm that created "verizon". μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Place names play a fairly common part in company names. The world's largest mining company, BHP Billiton, still retains an abbreviated form of the name of the place where it all began. British Petroleum has obvious geographic roots. British Airways is a bit of a give-away. I believe Kodak was chosen as a name that would be pronounced fairly similarly in most languages. Shell really was originally a company selling sea-shells. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See "List of company name etymologies".

—Wavelength (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a list of wikipedia editor user names? μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:ListUsers. Deor (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I meant giving their (self-reported) etymologies, in response to Wavelength's post. Most people seem to think my name means Mad Black Woman. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I googled [Medeis] and the first thing that came up was your user page with some sort of rebuke on it. That kind of thing is why I use the "NOINDEX" feature. It would be interesting if users put an explanation for their user ID's when they're not their actual names and are not necessarily obvious. Jack of Oz would be someone named Jack who lives in Australia. HiLo48 is also an Aussie, but the username is not at all obvious (not to me, anyway). And while "Medeis" sounds the name of a character from Greek mythology, it appears not to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's an alternative form to the name Odysseus gives to Polyphemus in the Odyssey, so it could be considered to have a tenuous quasi-mythological connection. The feminine singular form would technically be μηδεμια. Mine is obviously "Anonymous" modified towards "Moose", with the additional constraint that my ISP only allowed usernames 8 letters long... AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone either link to or give the noindex markup? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do a quick "edit" on my user page and you'll see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ownerless land under common law

Imagine that a declining nonprofit organisation owns a piece of unused land but its members forget about it. Eventually the members decide to dissolve the organisation, and they donate specific possessions to various entities but never mention the forgotten piece of land. Under traditional English-and-Welsh common law, what would happen to the still-unused land? I can imagine someone gaining title through adverse possession, but not to unused land; is this a likely candidate for escheatment? The situation arises from the post-demise history of the American Colonization Society, which apparently forgot about an empty lot in Liberia after they dissolved and gave their documents to a US institution. I'm asking about English-and-Welsh law because it's the most recent kind of law that's probably applicable and yet well known: I don't expect any of you to know about Liberian property law, which presumably was founded on a combination of US states' property laws (but which ones is probably unknown to anyone except specialists in Liberian history), which were generally founded on English-and-Welsh property law. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have answered your own question with adverse possession and escheatment. The question of land that's unclaimed by any private or public entity is technically moot, since there is no claim. (The moment anyone notices that will likely change.) The usual caveat that local law will apply applies. Is there some specific jurisdiction you are looking for? Or a third option beyond squatters and seizure? μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

But I'm asking whether escheatment would be likely, since land possession is only mentioned in the escheatment article in a feudal context, wherein the previous tenant lost it by misbehaving: the article addresses escheatment of forgotten personal property but doesn't mention whether the same process could be applied to real property. My question addresses two jurisdictions (England-and-Wales centuries ago, as a remote way of understanding recent Liberia), and I was also curious if a third option might arise. I'm guessing that the Liberian situation got resolved by seizure for unpaid property taxes (see the article section that I mention), but that presumably wouldn't have been possible before 1910 in England and Wales. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Adverse possession is the most on point concept towards your central point. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who knew about English or American law on this board, let alone some despotic nation that's had four versions of government recently (i'm sure that wont' stop some of our more loquacious contributors from making guesses though). Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Under actual English law in England, such property devolves to the Crown as bona vacantia. I don't know what the position is in Liberia. Tevildo (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Tevildo; good thing that we had someone who knew about English law on this board, especially since Liberia's a non-despotic nation with three forms of government in 1-2/3 centuries. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-despotic is debatable. It's non-monarchical. Let's just leave it at that. --Jayron32 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dangerous Goods Emergency Kit on aircraft

I just flew in the back row of a Turkish Airlines 737 and noticed the last overhead bin said "crew use only" and that it said it contained a "Dangerous Goods Emergency Kit" (or very similar wording - I should have taken a photo). I think I have a basic understanding of things that should not be loaded on a plane (acids, explosives, and so on) but I wonder a) what do they think they have to worry about in the cabin and b) what might the kit contain? Hayttom 17:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

One potential danger is portable oxygen tanks, since, if they leak, they can pose a fire hazard, because things become far more flammable in 100% oxygen. Recently portable oxygen generators have eliminated the need for oxygen tanks, which allows people with reduced lung function to travel more safely. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is such a kit, as sold in Australia - other kits tailored to specific national requirements are probably available. They contain things such as safety glasses, safety gloves, face masks, etc. The main risk in the passenger cabin of an aircraft will be lithium-ion laptop batteries and suchlike. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It also contains stuff to deal with spillages or leaking packages, some instructions for use at [14] MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

wunderbar Hayttom 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

December 16

Healthcare - Socialized or Privatized?

I've yet to form an opinion on whether healthcare should be socialized or privatized. I'm looking for two books, each advocating for one of the positions. Any recommendations? 74.15.137.253 (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)