Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2022 May 10

= May 10 =

Caravan
In the Sahara Desert, what is the maximum time a camel caravan can expect to have to travel without any opportunity to refill their water supply? 2601:646:8A81:6070:DD66:FADA:7337:C84 (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In Trans-Saharan trade it says Ibn Battuta crossed the desert from Sijilmasa via the salt mines at Taghaza to the oasis of Oualata. A guide was sent ahead and water was brought on a journey of four days from Oualata to meet the caravan. Consulting Ibn Battuta's account of his journey, they travelled for seven days (from a water source at Tásarahlá) before being met with water. The article says "runners", but I calculate that the caravan took the same four days to travel the final stretch as the guide. (I base this on it being "a journey from Sijilmása of two months to a day", and these two lunar months being 59 days probably, and various timespans mentioned along the way adding up to 55 days at the point where the caravan was met with water.) So I'm going to say "slightly more than seven days, but definitely fewer than eleven". By the way, the text uses phrases like "ten nights' journey" and "four nights' journey", so perhaps I mean 7 to 11 nights. Card Zero  (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Considering this as a mathematical problem and assuming they rely only on permanent water sources and trek from oasis to oasis, this requires determining the pole of inaccessibility, being the centre of the largest circle that does not overlap with an oasis. The radius of the circle is an upper bound, in case the caravan wants to reach that pole, and twice the radius if they want to return or move on. For that we need a map of the oases that dot the Sahara. Taking the map found here (search for "this is the best I could find") – which I assume not to be complete, though – the pole of inaccessibility seems to be the circumcentre of the circumscribed circle of the triangle formed by El Golea (El Menia), Taodenni and Tamanrasset. Using the distances given by Google map "as the crow flies", the circumradius is about 740 km. Of course, "as the crow flies" is not "as the ship of the desert sails (or ambles)". The speed seems to be about human walking speed, 5 km/h, so traversing 1480 km would require some 300 hours. At 10 hours a day, that would be about a month. --Lambiam 21:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if they had to spend a whole month without water then they would all die (both the people AND the camels), so they would avoid such arid areas, especially since those are also completely uninhabited (remember, the whole purpose of a caravan is to deliver supplies to people, so they would go between habitations in the desert, not to uninhabited areas) -- in fact, they would only go into the really arid, waterless areas if they have to, and generally would set their route so as to be reasonably certain of finding a water source within reach. And if they have to go between Taodenni and Tamanrasset -- I expect that they would take the long way around! 2601:646:8A81:6070:E4C1:B321:D6C1:FE54 (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The question was about not refilling a water supply, which assumes that the caravan set out with a water supply. Only when the supply runs out would they find themselves without water, so the question may be interpreted as, a water supply for how many days is guaranteed to be enough?
 * Lambian's mathematical answer above assumes that in the Sahara a caravan could travel any route with equal ease. In practice I suspect that the terrain puts serious constraints on possible routes, so actual possible journeys between two points may have to take a much longer route than the crow would fly if crows flew over the Sahara. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (a) I said it is an upper bound. (b) I acknowledged that "as the crow flies" may not be the appropriate metric. (c) Most transportation in the Sahara between populated places today is by motorized vehicle, not by beast of burden; the latter, if not used for tourist excursions, may be needed for expeditions to uninhabited areas. (d) The question may refer to a scenario in which Indiana Jones mounts an archaelogical expedition to find the lost city of Jazirat-al-Fatina, whose site he believes to be remote from extant accessible places. --Lambiam 16:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I was actually referring to a scenario where a group of Interpol detectives travel with a caravan through the Sahara Desert in pursuit of an international terrorist who had fled there, their route being from Tangier to Tunis via either Adrar and/or Hassi Messaoud. 2601:646:8A81:6070:B56B:12FC:AB50:DBBC (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any legal systems (in the world), that grant inheritance rights to the co-parent (who is not the spouse/concubine nor a genetic relative) of the intestate deceased?
Whether the shared descendants are still alive or had died (without property) before the deceased passed away.

Please notice that the question becomes irrelevant in case the shared children died only after the deceased passed away, because in this case they have already inherited the property and bequeathed it to both of their parents (i.e. including the co-parent).

By one's co-parent I mean, one's biological offspring's other biological parent. Here is a concrete example: A boy's biological parents, have never been spouses, nor anything similar to that, nor do they have any genetic relationship. The boy, who was not raised by them, died some years ago. Some years later, his father died as well, but has written no will and has no (known) living genetic relatives. My question is about whether there's any legal system, granting the father's property - or at least some of it - to the living mother (or vice versa if the father is still alive but she has just died intestate), as a kind of "natural" inheritance or something like that. HOTmag (talk)
 * At this point, you're toeing the line with regard to the prohibition on asking for, and receiving, legal advice, per the header "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice." If you have concerns about the inheritance rights of yourself or anyone in your family, you should seek the advice of a lawyer.  -- Jayron 32 18:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No legal advice at all, and please assume good faith. It's actually my academic research (in comparative jurisprudence), about inheritance rights (in any legal system in the world), granted to co-parents and/or to their offsprings. Persoanlly, I have no connection with co-parents. HOTmag (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I never once said you weren't acting in good faith. You can still do the wrong thing while acting in good faith.  Bad faith means you intend to do the wrong thing.  Someone can be acting in good faith, and still be wrong.  -- Jayron 32 12:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If anybody "can be acting in good faith and still be wrong", then the only wrong thing I have done is my asking you to assume good faith. Just as the only wrong thing you have done is your assuming I was toeing the line with regard to any prohibition. HOTmag (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You would take the word of random users, rather than doing proper research? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't master all legal systems in the world, but I do assume that any random user who answers me about any legal system I'm not aware of (e.g. the Icelandic one or the Tibetan one or whatever), has much better knowledge than I may have in that legal system they tell me about. Wasn't that obvious since the very beginning? Anyway, once I get any initial information about any legal system, I will check it out by myself as well, in order to get more details. HOTmag (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau, pre-Handover (and later?) acknowledged the legal rights of concubines. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Concubine and co-parent are two different things: There are concubines who have never become parents (nor co-parents), and there are parents (and co-parents) who have never been spouses nor concubines. HOTmag (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

In New Zealand, de facto partners of a relationship which is at least three years old or who have a child together have similar rights to marriage. See Relationship property laws and how they can affect wills as a possible starting point for your research.- gadfium 04:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the words "three years", yet not the crucial word "child" by which parenthood (and co-parenthood) is defined. HOTmag (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think what gadfium is describing is a good example of what you seem to be asking about. The NZ defacto partner laws generally apply to cohabitating couples and is more like the common law marriage and the couple are close to spouses. It sounds like you're interested in the situation where two people have only agreed to co-parent and do not otherwise have a personal relationship other than that which arises from co-parenting and perhaps from whatever got them there (as probably the most common way this happens is when the co-parents were in a romantic relationship but no longer). In some situations they may be cohabitating but wouldn't generally be called a couple. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. Actually, by one's co-parent I mean, one's biological offspring's other biological parent. HOTmag (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the term Coparenting is a neologism that is certainly not more than a few decades old as a word; I have only every heard it since the start of the 21st century, and it's new enough that none of the free online dictionaries I can find has a dated etymology for it, such as etymonline or Merriam Webster. I don't have access to the full OED, so they may have an entry for it with a more definitive date-of-earliest-use, I doubt it is much before the year 2000.  As a neologism, it doesn't have a firm formal and official definition in any legal system; though there is a chance that the some of the concepts covered by what coparenting may mean could be covered by some legal systems somewhere.  It is certainly not a term that everyone would recognize like "mother" or "aunt" or something like that; at best most people recognize it because the "co-" prefix is productive, which is to say that you can created just about any novel word at any time using the co- prefix, and native English speakers will understand it just fine; so if you describe your relationship with another person as a "Co-parent", most people will know roughly what you mean, but there is not a long history of the term, and it's not a well-used term in the way that say, "mother", is.  The U.S. situation is summed up here, note that the term "co-parent" or equivalent is non-existent in the legal code; this is generally referred to as Joint custody; not all states recognize joint custody, some require that the legal custodian of a child of non-married or non-cohabitating parents must be a single person; such states often allow negotiated visitation rights which may be the functional equivalent of joint custody except in a legal sense.  For better or worse, child custody and parenting laws in the US at least have a presumption of children being born to married nuclear families, the law is pretty much silent on custody and parenting rights unless and until there is a situation that deviates from that, such as divorce, legal separation, or pregnancy out of wedlock.  The rights of a "coparent" will vary depending on whether or not the parent is the biological parent of the child in question, and/or whether or not the parent has married the biological parent if they aren't, and whether or not the non-biological parent has legally adopted the child in question.  If we're talking about a non-biological parent, who is not married to the biological parent, and who has also not been designated as the adoptive parent or legal guardian of the child in question, then there is usually no legal relationship between the child and that adult, regardless of whatever informal parenting arrangement may exist.  It would really help if the OP would explain the exact situation they are asking about, since Co-parent as a word is a nebulous, not well-defined concept beyond "people who parent together but aren't married to each other".  -- Jayron 32 16:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed response. Actually, the reason my original question had added a link to our article co-parent, was just that: to make sure the readers understood what I was asking about. Anyway, I'm referring to biological parents, whether the case involves joint custody, or doesn't. I have just added this clarification to my original question. HOTmag (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're asking about joint custody, that's the standard legal term in many English speaking countries. I would use that terminology, rather than the neologism "coparent", as your search term, and you are likely to find better results.  Are you asking for the parent's inheritance from a deceased child, or a child's inheritance from a deceased parent?  -- Jayron 32 17:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the case involves joint custody, is irrelevant to my question - being only about inheritance rights granted to the co-parent of the deceased. As I have explained in my original question, by one's co-parent I mean, one's biological offspring's other biological parent. Here is a concrete example:
 * A boy's biological parents, have never been spouses, nor anything similar to that, nor do they have any genetic relationship. The boy, who was not raised by them, died some years ago. Some years later, his father died as well, but has written no will and has no (known) living genetic relatives. My question is about whether there's any legal system, granting the father's property - or at least some of it - to the living mother (or vice versa if the father is still alive but she has just died intestate), as a kind of "natural" inheritance or something like that. HOTmag (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it highly unlikely. Inheritance laws almost always involve either genetics or marriage.  If two people have a child, and the child is dead, then one of the parents dies, if they are not married, the surviving parent has no claim to the inheritance of the deceased, unless they were so designated by a last will and testament.  I have no reason to believe that any legal system in the world would recognize such an inheritance claim, under the extraordinary claims doctrine, there's no need to "prove a negative" here.  The claim that such a situation did exist seems so unusual on the face that I don't think we need to hunt for them.  -- Jayron 32 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. However, user:gadfium, who has responded in this thread, seems to disagree with you - as far as the the NZ defacto partner laws are concerned. Indeed I'm not claiming user:gadfium is correct (I doubt if they are), but unless we prove they are wrong - there's still a need to "prove a negative" here. HOTmag (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, they seem to be referring to common law marriage-type situations, where cohabitating partners can establish the same legal protections as formally married partners. That seems different than your scenario; I took your scenario to mean two people who have a child together, but live separately.  -- Jayron 32 14:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)