Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 11

= June 11 =

Minimum copyrightable length of original works
Is there a minimum length that an original work has to be in order to be copyrightable? For example, could a writer write a 3-word "story" and own a copyright on it? Or could an artist that uploads a 1-pixel by 1-pixel image own copyright over it? Or could a company with a 1-letter name have a trademark on its name? --Codell (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The estate of John Cage sued an artist for infringing on 4′33″. I think it all depends on what the courts consider sufficiently original and non-trivial. Shii (tock) 05:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) 1. No, a 3-word story is too short, at least in the US.  See page 3 of this circular from the US copyright office.  2.  No, a 1-pixel-by-1-pixel piece of art of any color is the only way of expressing that particular idea and lacks the amount of originality needed to be copyrightable, at least in the US.  3.  Yes, a 1-letter name is trademarkable; trademark differs from copyright.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not one letter, but the company logo "3M" is trademarked. Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If a 3-word story is too short, how about a 6-word one? Matt Deres (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To reiterate and elaborate a bit and maybe even disagree a bit with Comet Tuttle: The issue of a minimal length of copyrightable material centers around whether there is enough information there to be considered creative expression under the law. There is probably no hard and fast rule on what that might be. If you blew up the 1-pixel by 1-pixel image into a full-sized painting, it would not be very different from a Rothko, for example. However, the idea that you could sue people for infringing on your 1px by 1px image seems rather unlikely to me. But such is a legal question. A very clever lawyer could probably come up with an argument that favored such expression as copyrightable; US copyright law is pretty forgiving in that respect.
 * The question of trademarks is entirely separate and unrelated. You can trademark all sorts of things as long as they are associated with identifying a product, more or less. There is no reason to assume there is a minimum length for that. A quick search of the USPTO trademark database easily finds trademarks on single letters (I tried "X" and got at least one entry). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I endorse everything Mr.98 wrote, though I think he's too generous with the chances of success when trying to argue that such short works are copyrightable. He's correct that there's no hard and fast limit in the law, so if you got a bad judge in the courtroom, the 3-word "work" might get a thumbs-up.  Feist v. Rural is possibly the most relevant US Supreme Court Case, and here is the ruling itself, in which Justice O'Connor wrote that the Constitution "mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection", requiring "independent creation plus a modicum of creativity".  As a practical matter, that US Copyright Office circular I linked above states that "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans" are not copyrightable.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The bar for that "modicum" is very, very low as far as I have seen. I could easily see a judge upholding the copyrightability of a very short poem that was clearly deliberate in its composition. I could also see a judge upholding the copyright on a single color painting—which is, again, not too much of a step up from 1 pixel. (And 1 pixel, the clever lawyer would tell us, can have over 16 million possible colors assigned to it in an RGB colorspace... how can you argue that my client's choice of 3a4b7f wasn't incredibly creative?) But again, this is rather speculative, and should not be misconstrued as anything but speculation over copyright concepts, and not legal advice in the slightest. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. --Codell (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above on the law. Have been thinking over the last few days about common, everyday one-letter "word" trademarks (as opposed to logos like the McDonald's golden arches "M"). The best example I can think of is V (drink). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

urgent requirement to airlfit from india
a; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.110.162 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia Airlines. Where do you need us to fly to? Shii (tock) 06:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

which wars
" In fact, wars have started because of a failure to give proper recognition to the rank of an official of government." http://www.airforcewives.com/index.php/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,910/Itemid,314/ WHioch wars please thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.205.209 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See Causes of the Franco-Prussian War. Arguably, the war started because the French ambassador did not show proper respect toward the king of Prussia. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what C.L. Sulzberger maintains in his book Fall of Eagles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the War of Jenkins' Ear but my memory has failed me; Jenkins was the master of a merchant ship, not a government official. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gavrilo Princip really didn't show proper respect to Franz Ferdinand of Hapsburg, and a war resulted. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Franz Ferdinand was assassinated because he was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and in that sense he was certainly accorded a form of recognition, if not respect (but the question was not asking about respect). Also, FF was not what one would call "an official of government".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   05:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Princip was hired by the Black Hand society to assassinate Franz Ferdinand; he was definitely not a lone assassin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Now don't start on Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeanne
 * Nobody said that the person who failed to give proper recognition had to be a government official himself/herself. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is modern art (visual) simply a gimmick?
Iam an visual artist myself and it is more like my second job. I design brochures and stuff using softwares. I have been to quite a few art galleries and seen works of famous and not so famous artists. Most have absolutely no form whatsoever and any idiot can paint them. The same with combined media work - for example: I saw a piece of gunny cloth, a cut newspaper and a nail pasted in a frame in a certain pattern. It was labelled as a masterpiece and innocent public were fooled by it. Iam beginning to see that abstract art, with few exceptions, is similar to emperor's new clothes. It is nothing but snake oil. A scam. Any opinions?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.136.3 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The "nothing but snake oil" belief is one you share with the Stuckists and maybe the K Foundation art award. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree that there are certain mixed media artists (Sarah Lucas and Tracey Emin spring to mind) whose work is incredibly banal, vapid and indicative of a complete lack of talent. On the other hand there are intelligent and well respected art critics who will argue the exact opposite with regard to the very same artists.  Of course it is easy to say "I could have done that" but the obvious response to that objection is "yes, but you didn't".  With regard to painting there are documented cases of paintings being done by elephants and stuff which have sold quite nicely at auction.  Personally I couldn't care less if a painting has been done by an elephant as long as it looks nice. Finally it is very easy to say that any idiot could have painted something but it is not always true.  Take Jackson Pollock for example, it might look like just a load of paint splattered on the canvas but it's actually very skilful.  You try and reproduce something similar yourself, I bet whatever you came up with wouldn't look half as good. --Viennese Waltz talk 14:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "well respected art critics" will predictably support it, because they get kudos from the art establishment and they use that to earn a living from writing things for the art press. I did visit Tate Modern in London recently, and yes I could have painted most of the exhibits in ten minutes, sometimes in 30 seconds. Art is where people with "more money than sense" meet the con-artists. People in the art world would lose their jobs if they did not support it. 92.28.255.46 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The line is subjective and constantly debated. In fact, trying to call that line into question has been a preoccupation of much of modern art for the last, err, 60 years or so, at least. (Arguably much longer.) As for what gets "attention and acclaim" in the art world, there are obviously huge amounts of social and economic factors involved—who gets in a gallery, who doesn't, who has the right connections, whose work is perceived to be potentially valuable in the long run, what sort of image about itself the gallery is trying to project, etc.—far beyond the aesthetics of the art itself. I am not inclined to believe that all modern art of this sort is total crap, though I do think that most of it is simply reiterating a point that has been made about a million times already. Some of these abstract painters have real talent—I think Pollock is an example of this—though many are indeed pretty vapid.
 * A documentary which presented a pretty interesting take on this (a deeper one than I had expected—it goes beyond the obvious critique), is My Kid Could Paint That. A recommended watch... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See Rabo Karabekian. In Breakfast of Champions, Kurt Vonnegut opined that rich people and artists had conspired to dupe everyone else.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Between Jasper Johns' two beercans, Aram Saroyan picking up $500 in cash for a poem which consisted solely of the letters "lighght" (for a price of $71.43 a letter, in late-1960s dollars), and Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc" sculpture (which seemed to exist exclusively for the purpose of being as ugly as possible and obnoxiously interfering with people's lives to the maximum degree possible) it's hard to completely exclude the idea that there's a certain element of self-conscious charlatanism in some modern art... AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in looking at some of the work done on Mondrian, whose abstract work is fairly iconic. For example, this study looked at the proportions in the line spacing and compared how aesthetically pleasing people found them. It noted that people found the proportions in Mondrian paintings were found particularly pleasing, although other proportions could also be pleasing. This slightly earlier study found that subtly altering existing Mondrian line paintings led to people finding them less pleasing. The point is, quite apart from coming up with the idea of this particular way to play with composition in the abstract, Mondrian wasn't just throwing stuff together: he was composing pleasing images. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an art connoisseur, but I think the point of modern art is not that it's difficult to do but that it represents some sort of unique, innovative or expressive way of looking at the world. Sure, anyone can reproduce a Mondrain painting, but the point is that Mondrain was the first person to make paintings that look like that, or at least the first person to get famous doing it. To think of it another way, I could easily sit down and retype the works of Shakespeare if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean Shakespeare is worthless as a piece of art. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans-Georg Gadamer - in pursuit of an entirely different philosophical point - had an interesting insight into this: "modern art" is steeped in erlebness - an expression of the experience of momentary (transitory) sense perception - and is thus not quite true art, which is based in erfahrung - a product of accumulated cultural experience. it's a subtle point in German that is all but impossible to express in English, and the book in which he discusses it (Truth and Method) is both dense and flawed.  But the point is sound: there is experience devoid of context, and experience steeped in context, and only the latter can really produce anything resembling art.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why are you equating "modern art" to ... you know what. A tiny layer of flotsam above the mighty ocean. There are millions and millions artists working the old good way. Wikipedians and glossy mag writers can dedicate miles of text to stuff like 4′33″ but when it comes to their own weddings they hire good old fiddle or rock-n-roll bands. East of Borschov (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the original poster means the sort of stuff that shows up in a Museum of Modern Art or a Museum of Contemporary Art, which generally focuses on the self-proclaimed avant-garde. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

british army ranks
when the insignia for Lt is a pip why is Lt.general denoted with a crown and when the insignia for Maj.is a crown why is Maj.Genaral a pip? cpa
 * See British Army officer rank insignia. It goes in sequence:
 * pips (2nd Lt / Lt / Cpt)
 * crown (Maj)
 * crown + pips (Lt Col / Col / Brig)
 * sword/baton (Brig Gen)
 * sword/baton + pip (Maj Gen)
 * sword/baton + crown (Lt Gen)
 * sword/baton + crown + pip (Gen)
 * crossed-batons + crown (Field Marshal)
 * Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But he's asking why that is so.--178.167.179.162 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the insignia are that way because Maj. Gen. and Lt. Gen. are the opposite way round than Lt. and Maj.. Why the ranks are that way round, I have no idea - obscure historical reasons, most likely. --Tango (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The order of the ranks is because of the following: There were originally 2 ranks: Soldiers and Captains.  Captains were the head of company of soldiers (hence capo, head).  The captain eventually got an assistant, who was the Lieutenant.  When the large unit the captain headed was subdivided into smaller units, they were headed by experienced soldiers who were called Seargants.  The top seargeant in a captain's unit became the Seargent Major, who was given special responsibility.  Thus, we know have three orders of rank: The Captain, the Lieutenant, and the Seargent Major.  Group several companies into "columns" of troops, and the column is headed by a Colonel.  Several columns are grouped into an Army headed by a General.  The Colonel and General ranks were organized the same way that the Captain ranks were, and thus you get:


 * Thus, the rank we call "Major" is really just short for "Seargent Major Colonel" and the rank we call "Major General" is short for "Seargent Major General". The "Seargent" is left out of these ranks in the official title to avoid confusing it with the lower NCO rank.  But there is a symmetry here if you look for it.  -- Jayron  32  19:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jayron, I couldn’t help noticing you trying out 3 different ways to spell a certain rank:
 * Seargant
 * Seargeant
 * Seargent.
 * You seem to have settled on the last version, but the correct spelling is Sergeant. Pip pip.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Serjeant" is also acceptable. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sergeant Major article says basically the same thing but that the position originated with the general, then the field officer and lastly the non-comissioned officer. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That chart and potted history are splendid, Jayron, and I've learnt something. Are they (or their equivalent) in an article? --ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, though I was a bit disappointed not to see another rank which I'd understood to be an Elizabethan term for ensign (as in standard-bearer), as in the "cronicle history of Henry the Fift, with his battel fought at Agin Court in France, togither with Auntient Pistoll..." Granted, that was a year or two before we had a British army. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Irish Copyright Law
AFAIK, Irish copyright expires 70 years after the death of the originator. This recently became applicable to an Irish author, who died in 1939, so her work should now be in the public domain. However, I also know someone (unrelated to the author) who claims that he has been to some Irish government office on the day in question and had the rights to this author's works transferred to him. Is that really possible and, if yes, what is the legal base for it? Thanks, --Cú Faoil (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * According to our article Irish copyright law, protection of books does indeed last for 70 years after the author's death. The website of the Irish Copyright Association says that this is so "in most cases" . I can't find any information on how this might be varied in individual cases, but it seems that the Irish Patents Office has a controller of copyrights who might be able to answer your question.  See this page here.  There's a clickable email link at the bottom right hand corner of that page, so you could try asking them directly.   Ka renjc 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If you can really do this, I'm having the rights to Oscar Wilde's work transferred to myself ;-). --Cú Faoil (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Race you! Ka renjc 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can have James Joyce if you insist. --Cú Faoil (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of KJV in the Republic of Ireland
Cú Faoil's copyright question, above, set me to thinking: is the King James Bible copyrighted in the Republic? King James Bible seems to lump the Republic in with the "rest of the world", but is this really so? The special copyright status of the KJV pertained in the UK when what is now the Republic was part of it. Typically successor states inherit the rights and privileges, liabilities and responsibilities, of their predecessor, excepting the terms of the treaties of scission. And I can't find anything relevant in the pertinent treaties (Anglo-Irish Treaty or Statute of Westminster 1931) nor in the Constitution nor its Amendments. So I guess either the Government (the President?) does theoretically own the copyright (but doesn't bother enforcing it) or I'm mistaken in thinking that the Republic inherited this provision (rather that measures like the Constitution of the Irish Free State wiped the slate clean)? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Copyright depends on age. I doubt there is an enforsable copyright outstanding, here.  If there is, it would be the Crown.  Often it takes an incident to occur and be challenged, to know where copyright stands.MacOfJesus (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly doubt that government copyright in the Republic of Ireland is called "crown copyright"... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of The King James Bible copyright. (International Law would apply).  I am amazed how often this Bible is used in Irish Courts and Solicitors Offices.  The majority of the Irish people cannot use it in Court or Solicitors Office situation as it is not a Catholic Bible as Books and parts of Books are missing. However, The King James Bible is written in a standard Shakespere English that can be more precise in its meaning.  So Copyright here would be important to sort out.   MacOfJesus (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian nationality law
Pls i want to get more insight on the citizenship by birth of India, paterning to the article written on this website. thanks Karenjc for the small insight, pls can you quote the following citizenship acts for me? i would really appreciate it; citizenship act 1955, citizenship(amendment) act 1986, citizenship(amendment) act 1992, citizenship(amendment) act 2003, citizenship(amendment) ordinance 2005. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.80.183 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a look at this page. Here is the text of the 1955 act. I have not been able to find the 1987 text, but according to this source, it's main effect was to add a requirement that a person born in India between 1 July 1987 and 3 December 2004 would be eligible for citizenship by birth only if that person had at least one parent who was an Indian citizen. I have also not been able to find the texts of the subsequent acts, but this document outlines their provisions and their impact on Indian immigration law. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

esquire
in America, whom should you address as Esquire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.50.245 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you check Esquire? It has a rather detailed outlining of its usage in the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad article. My personal note is that all the lawyers I know who are also nice people think the "Esq." title is dated or pompous or stupid.  Americans are not great fans of titles. PhGustaf (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Why do so many American tourists flock to England to see Buckingham Palace if they're not great fans of titles?! I'd say many Americans are fascinated by the conccept of royalty, titles, etc. based on the number of US tourists who visit castles in Europe, and search for nobles ancestors in their family tree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things that people think are quaintly picturesque, but which have little immediate relevance to the way they live (or want to live) their ordinary everyday lives... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OR warning: The lawyer that handled my house purchase used "Esq." after his name. He also uses his middle initial.  Ever since, whenever my wife and I talk about him, we use his full name plus esquire (e.g. John Q. Public Esquire) with a mocking tone.   Dismas |(talk) 03:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being an American lawyer I can comment: using the title Esquire in polite correspondence is... odd. Maybe my experience is different than others, and in some formal settings it is relevant. However, as a general title, it's not commonly used by Americans. There are exceptions, particularly when the author wants to convey they are a lawyer, which is sometimes useful. I have no idea or opinion how others might use this, but in my personal experience, it's rare. I'm very curious what others think though. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you say, when they want to convey they are a lawyer: can't they put "JD" after their name, like MD's do (medical doctors)? Or is that not a practice... 92.230.234.180 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you need a JD to be a lawyer i.e. practice law in the US? Our Practice of law and Admission to the bar in the United States seems to suggest it's common but not always necessary. Also unless I'm mistaken you can have a JD but not be lawyer (of course it's also possible to have an MD without being legally allowed to practice medicine). Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody. As the article notes, the term can be used by people who practice law, but I don't think anyone would use it as a form of address except in a mocking way. Similarly, people who have a bachelor's or master's degree can have the relevant initials put after their name, but nobody would ever include the initials when addressing the person. Matt Deres (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To return to the original question, you don't need to call anyone esquire. Emilypost.com suggests that in formal correspondence, you use either Chauncey Flapdoodle, Esquire or Mr. Chauncey Flapdoodle.  Attorneys who insist on "Esq." tend toward the formal or traditional.  And tend to provoke amusement among people not currently engaged in legal matters.
 * I say "tend because there are obvious exceptions as I saw in this discussion on an American Bar Association site. (One lawyer said that he dislikes "esquire" but his staff insists on adding it to his correspondence.  Another uses it in her auto-signature when dealing with other lawyers.  It's her way of saying, "Look, I know what 'probable cause' means, too, so let's get on with this.")  That discussion illustrates highly specific formal titles ("Attorney and Counselor at Law and Solicitor and Counselor in Chancery") and high variability in usage.
 * That discussion touches on the juris doctor and makes clear it's not a requirement for an attorney. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The other important thing to remember with "Esq." is that its use by lawyers is specific to the US. In modern Britain, it just means exactly the same as "Mr." (except, obviously, it goes at the end of the name, not the beginning). It's a little old fashioned, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, many people, particularly in an academic setting, will put J.D. after their name. I don't know every state's rules, and it wasn't always this way, but I assume that every state requires a law degree to be admitted to the bar. Obviously in earlier times that wasn't required (Abraham Lincoln). But not all J.D.'s choose to take a bar, and esquire, I believe, is reserved for members of the bar.


 * When I said correspondence above I probably should clarify that I meant personal letters or emails, etc. On form letters, letterhead, or in reference to a title the term is sometimes used and wouldn't be considered odd. Shadowjams (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Anyone have any info on what, if anything, the Germans thought about the supreme commander of the Allies being of German heritage? Info, not speculation, thanks. --Thedoorhinge (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask this question on the German-language reference desk. Most of the people there speak English, so you should get some answers. --Cú Faoil (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being that many Americans, especially midwestern immigrants, were genetically German, I don't think this was a unique issue to Eisenhower. However, I'm curious the answer to this too. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't seem to have anything about it on the article, but Admiral Nimitz's family's original name was supposedly "von Nimitz"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * German heritage wasn't too much of a problem from the British viewpoint, considering the ancestry of our own dear Royal Family (God bless 'em). A bit of surname changing in 1917 kept everybody happy. I don't know what the Germans thought about that either. Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a problem with the Russians in World War I that the Tsarina Alix of Hesse, was German. Actually by then the Romanovs were only remotely Russian in ancestry being mainly German and Danish. I believe their only Russian line went back to Anna, daughter of Peter the Great and Catherine I, and she married a Dane.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Alansplodge: I think the Kaiser commented that he was going to see the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in the evening. --Cú Faoil (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * German by birth, socialized as English - she grew up as a member of Queen Victoria's household and for quite a while was considered a British agent in Holstein-Hottorp bedroom. No one really cared about the German connection until 1914. East of Borschov (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well Alix converted to Orthodoxy and considered herself Russian after her marriage to Nicholas. Many people in Russia resented her German birth during the war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One WW2 newsman commented that the Americans pronounced his name "eizenhower" while the BBC pronounced it in purely Germanic way "eissenhower." Edison (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, "izenhower" is roughly the (English spelling of the) German pronunciation of Eisenhauer, the earlier form of Eisenhower's name. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the original question, it has been asked and answered on the German Wiki RefDesk. I spent some time on research in an effort to answer this question and came to roughly the same conclusion as the person who answered it on the German RefDesk: Eisenhower's German ancestry just didn't matter much to the Germans.  Anyway, I couldn't find any evidence that it mattered. They were aware of it, but they knew many Americans were of German ancestry, and they simply accepted him as American. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the ancestry issue regarding Americans is more important to Americans than to non-Americans. Non-Americans tend to view American citizens as Americans, while apparently it is not a rare thing for many Americans to state that they are "Irish", "German" etc if they had ancestors from those countries several generations back. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Europeans call them American unless a nation wants to claim one of the them as "their own" such as Ireland did with John F. Kennedy and the Italians do with Sylvester Stallone and Robert De Niro. In my youth, I had a French friend who excitedly informed her dad that I wasn't a "real" American on account that I had a French great-grandmother!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think the Germans wouldn't have been very fond of the Allied commander no matter what his name was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)