Humanities desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 19

Financial Time's article emailing

The FT recently installed a warning message on its articles: "Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web." Is this type of warning now common in online media? Do governments generally support such policies? Have readers made any major reaction to this practice? --达伟 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some comment on this in the blogosphere (ie [1] and others). It seems to be mainly reminding readers of their obligations under the FT Copyright T&Cs not to bypass their soft-paywall and cough up the cash for viewing articles instead of having them emailed around the world for everyone to read without the FT getting their ad clicks. Since the NY Times are mooting the same sort of soft-paywall, their articles may have the same thing soon. Nanonic (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference on this, but I don't think it's new; this sort of warning was more common on newspaper and magazine websites, if memory serves, a decade ago when the Web was newer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire quotation

As the original will have been in French, and it is the French that I am seeking, I am not sure if this question is for this Ref Desk or for the Language one. I will start here. Where can I find the original of the the quote attributed to Voltaire: "The secret of being a bore is to tell everything"? The name of the book where it is found and a page reference would be wonderful, but even just the name of the book will do, along with the actual form of the quotation in the original. Thanks. Bielle (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le secret d'ennuyer est celui de tout dire., in Sixième discours: sur la nature de l'homme, in Sept Discours en Vers sur l'Homme (1738). Source. Marnanel (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup, Marnanel! Bielle (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Targino-Flensburg

In the article House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg it says With the death of Duke Albert the Augustenburg line became extinct. The sub-branches of Targino-Flensburg became pretenders. What was the Targino-Flensburg sub-branch? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has some information, though it's in Spanish. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Maybe it's Portuguese. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely Portuguese; Spanish doesn't have combinations such as "ção", which appear in this text. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it's just a fork of the Portuguese Wikipedia page on the topic. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will without living beneficiaries

In most US states, what happens if all the beneficiaries of a will die before the testator — does the testator effectively die intestate, or does the estate somehow get divided among the beneficiaries' beneficiaries by operation of law? Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk cannot give legal advice. As a point of information, the answer appears to depend on what it says in the will. This question was asked and discussed with relation to Ohio on an external website here, where it was suggested the testator would be treated as intestate unless they had provided for the possibility that their heirs would predecease them (by naming a charity in their will as the beneficiary of last resort, for example). The answer will depend on the jurisdiction you are in and the exact wording of the will, and a legal professional should be consulted if advice is required. Ka renjc 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very well aware that we don't give legal advice; I'm simply curious what happens. If I'd wanted legal advice, I would have asked about a specific state. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I do appreciate the distinction between a request for information and one for advice, but if I hadn't said it someone would quite probably have removed my attempted answer and slapped a "no legal advice" template on the question. It's an interesting hypothetical question, though, and I wonder how often it happens out there in Realworldland. Ka renjc 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In UK, it wouldnt pass by operation of law to the b's bs unless the will so directed. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a professionally written will would contain instructions for what to do in those circumstances. If the will didn't include such instructions, then the statutes of the country in question will say what to do. What that is will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. --Tango (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will for people not yet born

Along the lines of above, is it possible to leave things to people that haven't been born yet in a will? For example, I want X % to go to my first Great Great Great grandchild? TastyCakes (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, this may be incorrect in some states / territories / jurisdications, but I think the usual way to do this is to will the money to a trust which is administered by some trusted relative or entity (like a law firm), and the trust is set up with rules saying something like: "This money is to be invested in the common stock of the IBM Corporation, or its successor. US$5,000 of this common stock per year shall be sold and given to the law firm running this trust as compensation for running the trust and identifying my descendants. Once my first great-great-great grandchild is born, that individual gets all remaining money". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In UK one would have to specify a bit more in order to avoid the "Rule Against Perpetuities". Namely The trust will terminate in favour of (whomever) on the first (or last) occurence of the following events, namely the passing of eighty years from the date of this deed, the birth of my first great great great grandchild, or twenty one years from the date of my death. Because as a matter of public policy a trust cannot be created which is capable of rolling on for an excessive period. Throughout that time, the trustees will be taxed through the nose. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've an article on that — Rule against perpetuities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about this rule — would this rule prohibit a situation in which a beneficiary can have an inheritance revoked for a specific reason some time after getting the inheritance? I'm thinking of a Bugs Bunny cartoon in which Elmer Fudd inherits a million dollars under the condition that he not harm any animals (especially rabbits!) but eventually loses the money (minus the $999,999.97 inheritance tax) because he loses his patience with Bugs. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the rule doesn't apply if the assets revert to the heirs of the original grantor, it would only apply if they reverted to some other specified party. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden a child that is concieved but not yet born at the time of the testator's death can be a beneficiary to a will.Sjö (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns who

I've been trying to find an article or website which will tell me the country of ownership of the UK FTSE 100 companies - I'm sure I heard there was one recently but can't find it. Can someone point me in the right direction please? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to clarify what you mean by the country of ownership. All are PLCs with shareholdings owned by multiple entities, most likely in disparate parts of the globe. Some will, for all I know, be Dual-listed companies. Where they are domiciled for tax purposes may also vary, and may head office location. So, as I say, some clarification would help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of the complexities. A little background: this was sparked by the takeover of Cadbury's by Kraft, and the response of one of the BBC's economic reporters to the comment that there are no British-owned companies anymore. He said that most of the FTSE Top 100 companies were, in fact, British. I'm looking for the detail behind this, and have had no luck on the BBCs website. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is Who Owns Whom, I think. Marnanel (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the correct usage of the pronoun whom. "Owner(s)" in this question means major stock holder(s). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to FTSE 100 Index, the largest companies on the FTSE index are: BP, HSBC Holdings, the Vodafone Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and Royal Dutch Shell. If I make no mistake, all of these except Shell are British companies; Shell is split between Britain and the Netherlands. Marnanel (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are British companies in the sense that they are registered in Britain. They aren't necessarily owned by British people/companies. They are all public companies and will likely have thousands of shareholders. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC means "Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation" merged with the Midland Bank earlier this century, and has its head office here. Thanks for the pointer to Who Owns Whom by the way. I agree it's difficult when talking about publicly listed companies to give a country of ownership, but there's still a notion of nationality regarding companies which I'd like to explore. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is ownership, which means the nationality of the shareholders (and shareholders' shareholders, in the case of institutional ownership), which is impossible to trace. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Norfolk's Case

Someone mentioned the article Rule against perpetuities above. That article says, about the Duke of Norfolk's case (on which we have no article):

That case concerned Henry, 22nd Earl of Arundel (later the Duke of Norfolk), who had tried to create a shifting executory limitation so that one of his titles would pass to his eldest son (who was mentally deficient) and then to his second son, and another title would pass to his second son, but then to his fourth son. The estate plan also included provisions for shifting the titles many generations later, if certain conditions should occur.

I was under the impression that the passage of peerage titles was controlled by the terms of the letters patent granting the peerage, rather than by the terms of the will of the person who happened to hold it. Is this not so? Marnanel (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you are right. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The article probably means Title (property), not the titles that come from peerages. --Tango (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FamilyName Firstname

In which countries does the family name come first? China, Korea and ....... Kittybrewster ☎ 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary, for one. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question that after reading Nagy. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty, it's very common for Hungarian names outside Hungary to be reversed to conform to the usual order; so the person the Hungarians refer to as "Nagy Imre" is generally known elsewhere as "Imre Nagy". They talk about "Liszt Ferenc", we say "Franz Liszt", etc. This also happens with Japanese names, but in an inconsistent way, so that it's not always possible to have confidence which is the given name and which the surname. --- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In telephone directories everywhere AFAIK. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I remember rightly, Icelandic telephone books list by first name, because a person's surname is a patronym, not a typical Western family name. Nyttend (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See family name. -- kainaw ™ 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...if you've got a few days to spare. For a more brief summation, see Personal_name#Name_order. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule for name order is that East Asians (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese) will usually have FamilyName FirstName, and everyone else will use FirstName FamilyName. The primary exception is Hungarian. Be aware though that there are many areas where Surnames are not common or not found - Indonesia and Malaysia and Iceland have their own special system. Arabic names are very complex by Western standards, but many are starting to use a Western-style name, so ambiguity has arisen. Russian (and similar) names have patronymics that have special uses, and come before the surname. Steewi (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Thai to the list of East Asian name orders. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cohabiting and marry status

I do notice and somebody told me 80% of black people cohabit w/o marry and only 20% of it actually marry. I don't know about Asians I don't know any Asians cohabit only w/o marry most Asians actually marry though I don't know all the asians who marry/inter/intraraically.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for us to confirm these statistics? Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be true. Cohabitation in the United States says there are 4.85M couples, meaning 9.7 actual individuals. There are 36.6M African Americans, so unless I'm misunderstanding your question it's impossible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is M stand for. let's try not to abbrevaite things, people won't know what it is.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M = Million Dismas|^(talk) 23:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "M" sometimes means "thousand" and sometimes means "million"; but if you had troubled to click the link you were pointed to, Cohabitation in the United States, you would not have had to ask, because you would have seen that the first line says, "Cohabitation in the United States is illegal in five states but a total of 4.85 million couples live together." Anyway, this US Census page has a lot of data on marriage on people in the US, apged 15+, sorted by self-identified race.

Married: "White" 54.7%, "Black" 32.8%, "Asian" 62.4%
Widowed: "White" 6.1%, "Black" 6.0%, "Asian" 4.6%
Divorced: "White" 9.8%, "Black" 10.6%, "Asian" 4.2%
Separated: "White" 1.9%, "Black" 4.6%, "Asian" 1.5%
Never married: "White" 27.4%, "Black" 46%, "Asian" 27.3%

But note that these numbers are not very meaningful alone because of the differing ages of the population. For example, there are proportionally more young "Black" people than young "Asian" people in the US — it appears that 21.8% of the "black" 15+ population is 15-24, whereas only 16.6% of "Asians" are 15-24, and since about 87% of people 15-24 remain unmarried, you'd expect the "black" population to have a higher "never married" percentage, as they do; so to make the numbers meaningful you would have to normalize them. Anyway, it's also unreliable because respondents can respond to the "race" question with multiple choice answers; and I think I'm done looking up these sorts of numbers on this sort of question — check out the Census pages I linked if you're interested. Oh, and to answer your first question, your 80%/20% numbers are nonsense if you do a little math comparing that 4.85MM (all races) number with the 28.9MM "Blacks" aged 15+ mentioned in these Census pages. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

average marriage age

What is the average marriage age in USA in the 2000s. I've hear the marriage age have been delay use to be in the 20s, no is pushing likely early 30s.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The estimated median age at first marriage (MAFM) in the United States for 2000-2003 was 27 and 25 years old for men and women respectively. [2] Marnanel (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Is the median useful by itself without knowing the mean?) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. This is a classic case where the median is the right average to use. The other well known case is income distribution. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather know the median than the mean, so all those 87-year-old Texans marrying 25-year-old supermodels don't throw it off. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to know the mean/median age of marriages in general, not just first marriage. That one is the one that's likely to be into the 30s. Steewi (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zineb Jammeh

Is Zineb Jammeh born in Gambia or Morocco. Her skin color seems to be brown but her husband's skin color is black. Is people in Morocco consider to be black or morocco people seem to delcine by other race.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the second question, there is no way to answer, because the whole idea of a "black" or "brown" person differs a lot depending on where you live. Our Race (classification of human beings) discusses this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently she was born in Morocco to a Guinean father and a Moroccan mother (http://www.statehouse.gm/firstlady.html). As to the second question, Moroccans are of Arab, Berber, or mixed Arab-Berber stock, and are usually not considered "black" in the sense of "Sub-Saharan Black African". What they consider themselves to be, and if others consider them "white" or "brown" is hard to tell.Rimush (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is bizarre to learn about multiracial peoples in Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Ajma Valentin

Wow... Ali Ben Bongo's wife - does anybody have her birthday? She seem to be age in her 40s. So is she born in the 1960s.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Ali Bongo Ondimba indeed says her name is "Sylvia Ajma Valentin". I typed this into Google and the first link claims, "Sylvia Bongo Ondimba, Gabon's new First Lady was born in 1963 in Paris, France and spent most of her childhood growing up in Africa." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dents in the border between New South Wales and Queensland

Is the western portion of the border between New South Wales and Queensland entirely straight? A number of online maps I've looked at (eg Google and Bing) show three protrusions of Queensland into New South Wales, all in Sturt National Park (ie, right in the far west, near the point where the border intersects with that of South Australia). Each appears to be one square mile in size. Firstly: do these "dents" in the otherwise straight border really exist? I've noticed errors with borders on some of these maps before, including times when political borders are incorrectly matched to the boundaries of parks. Secondly: if they do exist, why, when, and how were they created? They weren't mentioned in the original proclamation that created Queensland, as far as I can see. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this site, I'd say - no. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on everything: Queensland and New South Wales boundary encroachments. They are apparently 20 acres blocks of land, and due to "survey errors". Pfly (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet there wouldn't be 1 person in 100,000 in Australia who knows about this (and I wasn't one of them). The things you read on Wikipedia. Amazing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now there are more! I'll have to ask my cartographically inclined friend about it. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]