Humanities desk
< November 16	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 18 >

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.

November 17

Eleonor of Mendoza

Why is the first wife of James, 4th Duke of Braganza called Eleonor of Mendoza when her father is Juan Alonso de Guzman, 3rd Duke of Medina Sidonia? Shouldn't she be called Eleanor de Guzman?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have some errors. The third Duke of Medina Sidonia was Juan Alfonso Pérez de Guzmán, 3rd Duke of Medina Sidonia. There was Juan Alonso de Guzmán, 1st Duke of Medina Sidonia. According to the Wikipedia article on the 1st Duke, his wife was "Doña Maria de la Cerda y de Sarmiento, daughter of Luis de la Cerda y Mendoza", since his wife was a Mendoza, that would have made his daughter ALSO a Mendoza. Remember that in Spanish naming customs, there are matrinomic names which can be carried through families as well. --Jayron32 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? So she has took the last name of her maternal grandmother instead of her father's or mother's. Wouldn't she have been Eleanor de Mendoza y Velasco since her own mother was a de Velasco.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking for is the english translation of a commonly used name derived from her full, formal Spanish name. Formal names in Spanish can become very complex, often with long lists of personal names AND surnames. In common usage, a person will choose to be refered to by a smaller subset of their names, usually a single personal name and a single surname. Take a look at someone like Francisco Franco. His full name is Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde Salgado Pardo de Andrade. He went by his first personal name (Francisco) and his first surname (Franco). This is probably common, but by no means universal, some people may choose to go by some other combination of names. My guess is that Eleonor of Mendoza had some long string of personal names (of which "Eleonor" is but one) and an equally impressive string of surnames (of which "de Mendoza" is but one). --Jayron32 04:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second-Hand Society

I am writing an economics paper and part of the information deals with the lessening of demand due to the affluent poverty of the new masses in the second-hand society. I know a lot of people who are in this place because the only thing that they buy new is a burger and a beer. This is because that is the only good entertainment that works for them. Anyway, due to the financial position and predicament we are in we live for the newest second hand item we need to show up on the curb or in the thrift store. In the world of new demand for products we are out of the picture and cannot help the economy rebound. I see now that the devaluation of the dollar is to bring new demand from emerging markets cause here at the bottom of my world, my economy, my country: second hand is ok. So how are the second-hand societies across the world doing? In your search there are references to particulars like books, fridges, etc., but as a whole who are they and where are they? And how are they doing? My e mail address is ...... anyone is welcome to create dialogue on this subject. I tried to create an account but this is a public computer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.225.55 (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed email to avoid spam. See freecycle for example. 92.28.250.11 (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My wife used to use [freecycle] to donate and get things. It used to be a sort of "mutual exchange" group, she once gave an old cycle and got a garden table. She left because it has become a begging site, with some ridiculous expectations. One person wrote "Wanted: White leather three peace suite as I am short of money having moved into a larger house. Must be good condition, and donor must deliver!", and another said "Wanted: any unwanted iPhones - I need two one for me and one for my boyfriend". -- Q Chris (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being on a public computer is a reason for creating an account, rather than against it: as long as you remember to log out when you have finished, Wikipedia will be able to distinguish you from other people who use the computer. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freeport Doctrine article

In the Freeport Doctrine article, the second sentence mentions Emily Cunningham. This was clearly stuck in there and not edited out. I will let you take it from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.147.182 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though it has been fixed. Dismas|^(talk) 10:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving Nazi architecture

Are there any buildings, built by the Nazis, that still survive? 92.28.250.11 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In central Berlin there is Hermann Goering's Air Ministry, which suffered some damage and was restored.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, way too many to list them all here. Have a look at our article Nazi architecture and browse the tons of images at commons:category:Nazi architecture and its various subcategories for an overview - not all of the buildings we have photos of still exist, but you can easily spot the ones that still survive by looking for color photographs (as a first indicator, of course - there are some color photographs of buildings that don't exist any more and vice versa, but you get the idea) -- Ferkelparade π 11:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the largest extant nazi building complexes are probably the Berlin Tempelhof Airport and the Nazi party rally grounds at Nuremberg. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This summer I managed to visit the Haus der Kunst, which was the first major piece of "Nazi architecture" constructed, in order to house Nazi-approved art. It is now exclusively used for what Hitler would have considered "degenerate art", which is an irony that is obviously relished. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin's Olympic Stadium is a very prominent building representative of the period. --Xuxl (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were most, all, or some of them built by slave labour? 92.15.28.182 (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some possibly were, though I am not familiar with the details. But most of the pre-war buildings were built by workforce from the Reichsarbeitsdienst. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Speer did use slave labour occasionally (I believe he tried to use that as a defense at Nuremberg - he saved them from being killed), but I don't know if any of those buildings survived the war. I think I recall from Inside the Third Reich that he attempted to use slave labour to build apartment blocks in Berlin. I doubt those would have survived the war. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see from the Speer article that most of the forced labour was used in munitions camps, and that was actually one of the charges against him. Anyway, I don't know if I remember this correctly or not, maybe I'm just speculating, but Hitler probably didn't want to use forced Jewish labour. He just wanted to get rid of them. And would he want to live or work in a building built by Jews? Wouldn't the building itself be tainted somehow? (Although they also used prisoners of war, Poles, Ukrainians, etc as forced labourers, not just Jews.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a difficult task if any society had to destroy all public works constructed under the prior regime, however antithetical its views. Imagine blowing up all bridges,train stations, bus stops, post offices, schools, railroads, dams, college buildings, government buildings, etc., which had been built during some predecessor evil administration. It basically makes no sense. Rename them, repurpose them, but move on. Edison (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting example is Prora, the Nazi beach resort. LANTZY ^TALK 07:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the Nazi stuff hasnt been demolished. In responce to Edison's comments, the Nazis must be unique in being the only "predecessor evil administration" in modern times that built stuff. 92.24.187.23 (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that surprising. I imagine that the last thing that Germans and the occuping forces wanted to deal with at the end of WW2 was knocking down a lot of perfectly usable buildings etc. and then having to find/build replacements. Again, during the Cold War, destroying the infrastructure would not have been a great idea, and certainly major construction work at least in West Berlin would have been impractical at times due to the city's isolation from the rest of West Germany. The autobahn was constructed during the Nazi regime (although planned before it began), and was a major route for people and goods into West Berlin until the blockade; Tempelhof airport, mentioned above, was used to deliver food etc. during the Berlin airlift.

In East Berlin, there was certainly a lot of demolishing and constructing of buildings and other infrastructure over the years, but it was either for practical purposes (like the very distinctive Cold War era blocks of flats), for control (razing the areas along the Berlin wall) or for idealogical purposes of their own (like Karl-Marx-Allee).

I think there may also be an element of remembrance: to destroy everything the Nazis built is trying to erase their acts from the collective memory, and from what I've seen, many German people believe that it should be remembered in order that it not be repeated. --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously it is not like the buildings themselves were evil. They were just buildings. Googlemeister (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the surviving building most closely linked to Hitler is the "Eagle's Nest" or Kehlsteinhaus in the Bavarian Alps, which is now a restaurant. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass architecture of the Reich did not veer too far from budget modernist architecture that preceded the Great Depression. Walk through the streets of Vienna... you'll see hundreds of ordinary-looking apartment blocks that look like a knock-off of Prora linked above. They carry a proud statement: "Built by the City of Vienna in 192***". You'll also see hundreds of similar blocks with letters "Built by the City of Vienna in 195***". And then you'll see more blocks without any letters. Guess when they were built? Why should they demolish ordinary-looking apartment blocks in an already blitzed city? Oh, and some Nazi architecture (flak towers, submarine pens) turned out physically indestructible. East of Borschov 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP 92.34 "...the Nazis must be unique in being the only "predecessor evil administration" in modern times that built stuff.". What do you mean by this? It does not make sense to me. as far as I know you would be hard pressed to name any dictatorial regime that didn't erect buildings or monuments in honour of themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name a modern regime as bad as the Nazis? 92.24.180.245 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Stalinism? Even Khruschev and the other communists tried to get rid of everything he had done as soon as they could, yet Russian constructivist architecture of the era has inspired many of the most modern buildings. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geese and moving on

HOW DO GEESE KNOW WHEN TO FLY TO THE SUN? WHO TELLS THEM THE SEASONS? HOW DO WE, HUMANS KNOW WHEN IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubet (talk • contribs) 12:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title to your question. 90.195.179.106 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~They listen to Neil Young? ("Flyin' mother nature's silver seed / To a new home in the sun";) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's a good question, really. We have an article on Bird migration, which does not say anything about anyone telling them when to fly to a warmer climate. What's also interesting is how they know where to go, and how to get there. If you want to clarify the question, that's fine, but as-is I'm guessing the most helpful answer to the OP would be "they just know." Similarly with humans. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re geese - see Bird migration#Physiology and control. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question on public domain works

Various countries can have different lengths of time before creative works enter the public domain. Say that something is in the public domain in country A, but will not be in public domain in country B for another 10 years. Is it legal to import copies of the book or whatever from country A to country B without paying royalties if the copies were printed in country A? Would a personal copy you owned that did not have royalties paid be subject to confiscation if you were to relocated to country B? Googlemeister (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be better suited to be asked at WP:MCQ instead of here. --Jayron32 16:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Berne Convention mandates the rule of the shorter term, but not all countries honor this or honor it in exactly the same way. Take a look at those articles and see if they help you make sense of it. International copyright law is a complicated thing. It can vary depending on what Country A and Country B you are talking about.--Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court of the United States is going to decide a similar question shortly.[1] The case is Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega and it was argued on November 8, 2010. In that case, the petitioner, Costco, sought to import and sell copies of various books it had purchased abroad at a cheaper price. The wikipedia link above is generally for questions about copyrightable subject matter on wikipedia. An exact answer to your question would involve looking to the specific facts and nature of the copyright, the respective treaties including those which go beyond the Berne Convention between the respective states (e.g. Australia upholds the copyright law of the United States within its own borders by special treaty), and what the importer actually does with the subject matter (e.g. displays, copies, sells, or merely possesses). That would be giving a legal opinion on the matter and such an inquiry should be directed to an attorney. Gx872op (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered this myself; e.g. as a child, I had a book that portrayed the Centre Georges Pompidou, and I've wondered if it would be legal to take it to France. I don't see the original question as a request for legal advice (unlike my statement would be if I were asking you for an answer, which I'm not), since it's so general; it's only asking about what's typically done, not about any specific situation. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Liberty

Under your website is an article on a "medal of liberty' presented by President Regan to several famous recipients. The description of this medal is eerily similar to the medal produced for the Statue of Liberty Club in 2005. See www.statueoflibertyclub.com

Where can I find a picture of the medal presented by the president?98.217.102.194 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a {{reqphoto}} tag to Talk:Medal of Liberty. Some day, perhaps in the year 2016, a future editor will notice this, and upload a photo under a free license, and include it in the article. A google image search on medal of liberty yields a lot of unrelated photos, which I guess is not surprising, since our article Medal of Liberty says this was a one-time event, only a few were made in 1986, and no more were produced. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working hours of US president

This http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/nov/09/george-bush-michael-white said that George W Bush read 95 books in a year, although I'm not clear if that was while he was a president. If it was he must have had a lot of free time. How many hours a week does the US president usually work? 92.28.249.235 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the president has anything like defined working hours. Depending on how you look at it, his working hours are 24/7 - he can never take a day off or keep his weekend free for a shopping trip, if anything comes up, he just has to be there (and be awake and reasonably sober). On the other hand, from what I remember reading about various presidents, his regular work time is probably only a couple hours a day spent in staff meetings, the rest of the day he's usually just on standby unless there's something really big going on. He certainly still has tons of memos and reports to read, but there should be enough time to spend a couple hours a day reading (as long as he doesn't mind being constantly interrupted). Plus, a fair bit of the president's time is spent on flights - considering all that, 95 books a year is not that much, if one enjoys reading. -- Ferkelparade π 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the effective hours depend a lot on the individual president. I have the impression that Gerald Ford worked like a dog. I base that mainly on how much he aged in two years. He looked younger ten years later than he did the day he left office; I think a second term would have killed him. Reagan, on the other hand, "knew how to delegate". --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get some idea looking at presidential schedules, which are often later published along with annotations for how true they were to reality. (The official White House schedule that is published on the website every day is more a cue for media representatives than an accurate accounting.) I've seen one of Truman's at his presidential library — it's pretty crazy. Basically every 15 minutes or so was booked from 8am through 8pm or something like that. He took a few hours off in the middle of the afternoon for a nap but otherwise didn't have many breaks.

I think for most presidents it is a lot of work. Now some of this is made a little easier when they go on vacation, but their staff goes along with them and they still do a lot of working. It no doubt varies by president, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who worked with George Bush said that he was an extremely hard-working president; one of the big differences between him and Obama is that Bush was much more willing to step back and allow other people to do the PR for many things. Bush did a tremendous amount of work behind the scenes, whereas Obama likes to be at the forefront of everything. For instance, think about how often we heard about the members of Bush's cabinet versus Obama's; it's a huge difference. Not that one is better or worse, just that they have two very different styles. With Bush's, you just don't see it in front of you, which leads more cynical people to believe that it therefore must not be happening. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that a proportion of those 95 books were read for work-related background research rather than personal pleasure. If I held a similar position I would want to gain some grounding in particular topics, countries or important individuals with which or whom I was dealing: the briefing documentation I would require from my staff would likely include judiciously chosen books on the subjects concerned. A list of titles and authors would be illuminating. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bush's thing was reading history books. Certainly some of them might have been relevant to his job, but I don't know if that was the main reason he was reading them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one of the 95. :) --Soman (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that there are many definitions of "reading". We assume it means "I read every line cover to cover." In my experience, people have all sorts of reading styles. A lot of the books I read might be better said to have been "mined" or "extracted" — I can "extract" the information I'm interested in from a book, and get a general feel of its style, arguments, and veracity, in about an hour or two. That's not the same thing as reading it cover to cover, obviously, but I'd probably count said book as one that I had read. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the US President (or Queen Elizabeth, the Pope, the UK Prime Minister, or any other head of state/government for that matter) ever have the time or interest to edit Wikipedia. It's not that unbelievable, given the Queen is now twittering away for all her worth, apparently. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Her Majesty edit her own bio? If so, will we block her for COI? --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but we do have a picture of her climbing a national monument over a content dispute. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe meeting heads of state, having formal dinners, and travelling abroad counts as work, although for most of us it wouldnt. Another leader didnt work very hard according to what I've read: Berghof (residence). 92.24.187.23 (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]