Humanities desk
< January 31	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 2 >

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.

February 1[edit]

Naming a philosophy department after a donor[edit]

Of course I know of endowed professorships named after their endowers, similarly with stuff like buildings, and I've heard of schools within universires like Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government named after famous graduates and the like. Apparently Johns Hopkins University's philosophy department just got a big gift from a Wall Street investor[1] and the whole department is going to be renamed after him ([2] "Our talented faculty and the students who will study in the William H. Miller Department of Philosophy for generations to come will always be grateful, as I am, for Bill's confidence in Johns Hopkins," Wendland said.)

Is that usual, to rename a department after a donor? Is it a new trend? I was taken aback when I saw it. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not common in general since especially institutes dedicated to education usually aim to imply high intellectual or cultural values with their names. This is different for private institutions of course since they usually aim to honor their founder or main donor. So this may become a new trend in countries with a policy to privatize education and science institutes, which is exactly the political aim of the current government of the united states i believe. --Kharon (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't new NOR uncommon for an educational institutions to name things (buildings, departments, institutes, the entire school itself) after a wealthy benefactor. It has happened for hundreds of years, and will happen for hundreds more. It is not a sign of the decay of the moral fabric of educational institutions, and educational institutions are not forsaking their pure educational mission by doing so. I can list thousands of such examples; including such well-regarded schools such as Duke University (formerly Trinity College, renamed after wealthy benefactor James Buchanan Duke), Shaw University (named after benefactor Elijah Shaw), Harvard University (named after John Harvard, who donated materials to found the school's library), Johns Hopkins University (cited above), named after Johns Hopkins, who paid a lot of money to get his name on that school. For subdepartments of schools named in honor of benefactors; they're just as numerous. You've got the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, named after Joseph Wharton who paid for the honor, the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, a department of Carnegie Mellon University (also named after people who paid for that honor), named for the mother of the person who gave the money, etc. etc. I could go on and on. We shouldn't be so precious about this; it happens all the time. --Jayron 32 15:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of colleges and universities named after people, though nothing on the level of departments. But it definitely also happens at the department level. Some sources about the practice in general: (2008), (2013).70.67.222.124 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, yes, of course I know about buildings and meeting rooms and I guess whole institutions or sub-institutions named after donors, but I was asking specifically about departments. I don't remember ever seeing that before. 70.67.22.222.124's NYT article does mention it though. I also didn't realize it was common to rename an existing building after a donor, as opposed to naming it after the person whose donation financed the building's construction (my school had a few of the latter).

I wonder if it's possible to get a course named after one's self, like renaming the English department's "American Novels II" into "173.228.123.121 American Novels II" or whatever. (Fwiw I was amused to learn that it's possible to sponsor an "endowed chair" at the San Francisco Mechanics' Institute for as little as $500.[3] It's much more affordable than endowing one at Johns Hopkins, I'm sure ;-)). Thanks everyone.173.228.123.121 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're an eminent scholar in a field (or in literature, a great writer), yes: entire courses will bear your name. And nothing else will be studied in those courses. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Milley[edit]

Why does Mark A. Milley have a French Parachutist Badge? Did he serve in the French military? Or does the French military give out badges to foreign military personnel as well? Mũeller (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Brevet Parachutiste (land forces) which is awarded to graduates of the École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr (no evidence that he is an alumni). According to his DoD bio: "He is authorized to wear [...] the French Military Parachutist Badge". Perhaps "authorized to wear" indicates an honorary award -- but that's just my guess. —107.15.152.93 (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unusual for an officer to reach senior rank without an exchange tour with an allied army. Being already a parachutist (he held a post in 101st Airborne Division), one could put two and two together. A fairly thorough Google search failed to find any evidence of this however. Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Countries without diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany[edit]

Were there any countries that either severed diplomatic relations with Germany after Hitler came to power or did not have them at all until the war ended? I'm more interested in pre-WWII period and in cases where such countries weren't invaded themselves during the war. Thanks. 77.254.12.184 (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer depends on the interpretation of diplomatic relations. Like the logic of Wazlawick's laws of communication (you cannot not communicate) states can not have no diplomatic relations, since in our worlds international diplomacy every state is always aware of every other state. So it can also be interpreted as a diplomatic relation to "officially have non" or formally reject any! The actual result was often a formal neutrality. For that see Neutral powers during World War II. --Kharon (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do know that "diplomatic relations" has a formal definition greater than "is aware of the existance of". It generally encompasses a recognition of the legitimacy of the foreign government with regards to its right to enter into formal discussions with other governments by an exchange of embassies. Foreign relations of Nazi Germany, by the way, is the place for the OP to begin to research his question. --Jayron 32 12:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the OP is looking for a list of embassies in Berlin around 1934, and a list of German embassies abroad at the same time. Basically this: List of diplomatic missions in Germany and this: List of diplomatic missions of Germany, but 1934 version. --Lgriot (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking diplomatic relations is a formal diplomatic process. It normally accompanies a declaration of war, so one would think all of the allied countries who declared war on Germany broke off diplomatic relations as well. It can also be a stand-alone act; for example, Canada broke off diplomatic relations with Vichy France in November 1942. [4] The article that should cover this, Foreign relations of Nazi Germany, is little more than a stub, however. --Xuxl (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as simple as that. Venezuela has expelled numerous ambassadors in the last month or so. Constituent Assembly head Delcy Rodriguez announced on 23 December:

Diplomatic relations with Brazil will not be restored until the government reinstates the constitutional order it has effectively broken.

Relations presumably continue at the consular level. Again, the British and American embassies in Tehran (Persia) were closed for years, but there was no state of war between the countries. The Swiss are now looking after American interests there. 86.176.18.217 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was the same expectation back then that governments break off relations to show disapproval.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Republic of China and Germany mutually broke off diplomatic relations following the Hitler's recognition of the Japanese puppet-state of Manchukuo in February 1938. Our Sino-German cooperation 1926–1941 article mentions the withdrawal of German military and industrial advisers at that time and Japanese–German Relations, 1895–1945 on p. 11 says: "Germany (like all other countries) had to choose between China and Japan. When the Wehrmacht had finally been brought in line and a thorough revirement of the diplomatic executive had established Joachim von Ribbentrop as foreign minister, the military advisers along with Germany’s ambassador, Oskar Trautmann, were withdrawn in 1938, thus ending diplomatic relations between Germany and China". Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to User:Wehwalt's point above, the US Ambassador, Hugh R. Wilson, was recalled to Washington in November 1938 as a protest against the Kristallnacht pogrom, and the German ambassador was withdrawn in retaliation. However, permanently withdrawing diplomatic facilities from a country leaves your own citizens and business interests there vulnerable and removes any leverage or influence you might have. There's not much to be gained by it and plenty to lose. Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]