Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 9

= December 9 =

What do MBA's do ?
I am not sure whether this is the correct section to put this question into. I have been hearing a lot about good MBA schools all over the world, how they play an important role in strategic decision making for organizations etc etc. But I always wonder as to what does an MBA programme have and what do MBA courses have in their curriculum. Could anyone knowing about this shed some light on the topic. -Thanks,Nikhil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article on the subject: Master of Business Administration seems full of information, why not start your research there? The External Links section could also help. Lord Foppington (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My advice: get thee to a library! No, seriously. Almost any public or academic library will have a considerable number of print reference books that are updated yearly that talk all about this kind of thing. These reference tools specialize in various aspects of what you're looking into. Some discuss exactly what an MBA degree consists of and what kinds of jobs or professions it's good for. Others discuss which universities offer the degree. Still others actually evaluate the various programs, providing rankings for the best schools to go to. And while you're at it, you can then look up some of the salaries offered in the want ads to see what MBAs can expect to make, and how many jobs are out there! Since I'm not sure what country you live in, I'll leave off from advising specific reference book titles, but if you just pop into your local library and talk to the Reference Librarian, you'll probably end up with armloads of books to look at with useful information before you can shake a stick. Saukkomies 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish and German colonies compared with the Anglo-Irish and French, in North America
Deleted diatribe. Question follows strikeout.

Does it belong here? Bielle (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia dispute the significance of the Scottish and German part in colonization, especially for the reason behind the toponymy related to their homelands and rulers? If so, then how does Wikipedia account for the established practice as pertains the Anglo-Irish and French colonizations? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the book The Cousins' War, by Kevin P. Phillips. It's his contention that the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the American Civil War are one long, extended struggle between the Roundheads and the Puritans, with the Northern United States colonized by Englismen and women from Puritan-dominated regions, and the Southern United States colonized by people from Cavalier-dominated regions. Corvus cornix talk  05:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When a vandal hates my way of asking questions, the response has little relevance. Thanks a lot. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh! It may have been a long and unclear question, but it was on a topic I like! While my Internet link was dead I wrote a reply, only to return and find the question deleted! I guess I'll post it anyway: Here are a few comments, sourced mainly from two books, Names on the Land by George R. Stewart, and The Shaping of America by D.W. Meinig:


 * How come Nova Scotia, named for the Scots, is not counted as a Scottish colony like Darien in Panama?

Nova Scotia was the subject of many business and colonization schemes in the 1630s. A Scottish entrepreneur gave the land the name "Nova Scotia". His plan came to nothing and the French successfully colonized the land, which became known as Acadia. The name "Nova Scotia" fell into disuse until the English seized Acadia in 1710 and renamed it Nova Scotia in 1713. But it was not a Scottish colony in any sense. As late as 1780 the French Acadians still made up a major part of the population, despite the Acadian diaspora of the 1750s. Over half the population was Yankees who had been born in New England and migrated to Nova Scotia following the initial deportation of the French around 1758. The first Scottish Highlanders moved to Nova Scotia shortly affter 1758, but they were few in number until at least 1780. I don't know the history of Nova Scotia after that, so I can't say whether it became a Scottish colony in the 1800s. I can say that its origins and first century or so are as a French colony called Acadia, with few or no Scottish settlers. Something similar can be said about Carolina. While it is true that there was a large migration of so-called "Scotch-Irish" to the backcountry of Carolina, this did not really begin until at least 1720 and did not cause a major demographic change until about 1750. There's quite a bit of history before that, going back to the middle 1600s.


 * Carolina and Nova Scotia could not be said to have had a distinctly English character. Yet, these two examples are ignored all too often, with most focus on the demonym "English", despite obvious differences (compare "Celtic" Appalachia and Maritimes with the "English" Northeast-Midwest region).

Personally I think very few American colonies had a distinctly English character. You mention Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania as having had an "Anglo-Irish core". But to my mind Virginia and Maryland very quickly became culturally biracial, with very large populations of African slaves. That doesn't sound like England. Pennsylvania was from the very start home to a diversity of settlers such as Germans and Welsh. Plus Pennsylvania was built upon the older colony of New Netherland and New Sweden, with a pre-existing population of Dutch, Swedes, Finns, and others. While these people were soon overwhelmed population-wise, they were pioneering what became Pennsylvania for generations before Philadelphia was laid out, and made numerous important contributions to the culture that emerged not only in Pennsylvania but south down the Appalachian backcountry clear to Georgia. Quite different from England.

Finally, I'm a bit confused by your listing of colonies with English dynasties. As I understand it, the Tudor era was about 1485-1603. Doesn't this predate the founding of any of the colonies we're talking about? The Stuart era I understand to be about 1603-1714 (going back to the 1300s in Scotland, and with a break for the English Commonwealth). This period would include the founding of all the colonies mentioned except Georgia (and maybe New Brunswick, which I don't know much about). So... you lost me in that section. I also have trouble following your point in connecting the names of colonies to the names of kings. Is it that the more northern colonies tend not to be named for kings while the more southern ones are?

The history of placenames can be weird. They mainly have to do with quirks of history and the personalities of explorers and kings. I wrote a bit about how the names of Virginia, Carolina, New England, Pennsylvania, and so on, came to be, but it is probably too much text. In short none of the colony names have much if anything to do with the people who eventually settled them. They were mostly named long before anyone attempted to establish a settlement. Virginia was named Wingina by Sir Walter Raleigh, but Queen Elizabeth changed it to Virginia. Quite a few place names come from the mind of Charles I (including New England (he affirmed John Smith's name), Carolina (for himself), Maryland (for his wife). He also honored his mother and sister with capes in New England (Cape Anne and Cape Elizabeth), and himself again with the Charles River. He also put the name "Plymouth" on the map of New England before any Pilgrim set foot there. The tale of the naming of Pennsylvania is the most fun, but it would take too many words to tell. Suffice it to say that Penn's first suggestio was "New Wales".

Anyway, I think that the names of colonies in America have more to do with quirks of history and the personalities of a couple kings and a few explorers and proprietors, rather than the ethnicities of the people who eventually settled the land. Pfly (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking into it a little more this morning, I'm not so sure about the early history of Nova Scotia and Scottish connections. The basic idea that it was a French colony first holds, but the details may not be quite as I described above. The Nova Scotia pages says there was a short-lived Scottish colony on Nova Scotia in the 1620s, but that contradicts the books I have. Perhaps if I have time and energy I'll look into it more. Other wikipedia pages on places mentioned above seem to have possible mistakes regarding place name origins. A chance for toponymy research! Just a followup comment.. Pfly (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page, because I don't think most people here really understand the issue. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious felony
What is Rape 3? I know that's the lowest classification, but what sorts of things does it entail? I can't find a listing of this sort of thing anywhere. My assumption has been statutory rape or something similar, but I'd like to have a better idea. Any clues? --Masamage ♫ 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In what jurisdiction is the category used? Bielle (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean? The person in question was convicted in the state of Oregon. --Masamage ♫ 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what Bielle meant. The Oregon criminal code is online and the part that defines offenses against the person is section 163: see the page at www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html (someone turn that into a link please) .  Specifically, subsection 163.355(1) specifies that "A person commits the crime of rape in the third degree if the person has sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age." -- as you guessed.  That's the basic meaning but if you read nearby subsections you will find other relevant stuff that affects it.  For further questions you should consult a lawyer; the reference desk is not permitted to give legal advice. (Also, the online law is unofficial, and could conceivably be out of date or something, not that there's any particular reason to expect this.) --Anonymous, 08:00 UTC, December 9, 2007.
 * ...humm "...sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age." Recalling President Clinton's affair with Jessica Lewinsky, although she was physically older than 16, does this age specification mean physical age or include mental (as tested or certified) and as for "sexual intercourse" does this include orgasm by proxy, such as from oral sex or masturbation by another person or require insertion of the penis into the vagina resulting in orgasm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! I didn't realize it varied from state to state. Okay, that's exactly what I needed to know. Thanks very much! --Masamage ♫ 10:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jessica Lewinsky? is she Monica's sister? How come we didn't hear about her at the time. Richard Avery (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, its her PS (Protective Services) name wich I used by mistake. Lots of things are still hidden by means of alternate label most people will never know about, including stuff like her girl friend's and her own Mafia clientèle (the blue ties) and how she came to be an intern in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, according to the document cited above, sexual intercourse is defined as genital-to-genital contact (orgasm is not a requirement, considering how unreliable it is). Anal or oral sex with a minor (or with someone unconsenting) is s different crime, namely sodomy. At least in Oregon. --Masamage ♫ 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Louis XIV
Would it be true to say that the early experiences of Louis XIV, especially in the Fronde, had an important bearing on his later conduct of French affairs? Stockmann (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There were two things crucial in the formation of Louis as a king: his early experience of the disorders induced by the Fronde, as you have indicated, Stockmann, and the education in statecraft he received form his observations of Cardinal Mazarin, himself a pupil and protégée of Cardinal Richelieu. From the Fronde he took the lesson that it was necessary to limit- and severly limit-the power and independence of the French nobility; following the example set by the Cardinals, he further refined and magnified the agencies of the state.  The two things, it might be said, came together in his own person and his own court.  At Versailles he created a great political theatre, a universe, with himself, in the role of Apollo, the Sun God, at the very centre.  The nobility was tied to, and often ruined by, attendance of the king; the bureaucracy, the standing army and the treasury radiated from his person.  L'Etat c'est a moi-I am the state.  It really does not matter if he ever used those words; they express an essential-and fatal-truth.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kant, Schopenhauer and the Will
Hi, I was reading somewhere that Schopenhauer's idea of the will was prefigured by Kant in some way. I looked up the term will in the index to Critique of Pure Reason, but the main mention of it seemed to relate to freedom of the will, meaning the belief that our actions are not determined solely by natural forces. The importance of the will in Schopenhauer is as a means of understanding and embracing an external reality, where the will is our life force, and the source of our motivation, which connects us through our ability to sense the same life force in other beings (humans, animals and maybe plants). To what extent did Kant conjecture the same idea? 203.161.95.46 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And Hi to you, 203.161! You must remember that for Arthur Schopenhauer, as he says himself, the philosophy of Kant is the point of departure, but one of critical departure.  That is to say, he accepts as given Kant's critique of the limits of knowlege-of the limits of perception itself-but proceeds to address the fundamental weakness in his system-the exact relationship between the world of perceived phenomena and the supposed existence of the Ding-an-sich, the 'thing-in-itself' or noumena.  Schopenhauer's refinement is to bridge the gap between perception-the Idea-and the underlying nature of experience, the process which, if you like, gives unity to perception, the Will.  For Schopenhauer our willing is 'the the one opportunity we have of understanding simultaneously from within any event which exibits itself outwardly, consequently the one thing which is known to us immediately, and not, like all the rest, merely given in idea.'  In other words, experience is carried beyond mere perception.


 * So, in short, scour the Critique as hard as you like, you will not find Will used and interpreted in Schopenhauer's sense. You will find, as I have said, the Ding-an-sich, which Schopenhauer reshapes and refines, turning it into Will.  Do you have a copy of The World as Will and Representation?  I would refer you in particular to the appendix to volume one (page 415 onwards in my 1969 Dover edition), entitled Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy, which covers these points in greater detail.  Anyway, I hope this is not too horribly complex.  If it is I will try to break it down still further, though some things, quite frankly, are difficult to reduce!  At the very least I can suggest some good introductory texts to the thinking of the great Schopenhauer.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Clio. I'll get around to getting a proper username (I do internet stuff on the fly, and take a while to get around to things like that). Then I'll post a message on your talk page asking for more on S. Yes I do have WWR, vols I and II, recently purchased, but same edition, curiously. 203.221.126.9 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglo Catholic?
I see on her user page that Clio the Muse says she is an Anglo Catholic. What is an Anglo Catholic? Kaiser Will (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should ask Clio the Muse? --71.117.47.87 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Our article Anglo-Catholicism may be of use to the Kaiser. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian Liberation Front
I wonder if anyone has a full list of the organizations that worked together in the Liberation Front of the Slovenian People during WWII? I added the one at the Slovenian Wikipedia, but I am sure it is incomplete if nothing else. --Cptukbo (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Relationships with Jesus
What are the different relationships a Jewish person can have with Jesus Christ? By that I mean some Jews absolutely hate Jesus Christ more than any other Jew or person dead or alive while others Jews relate to and accept the message from God that Jesus brought and as a result have fully converted to Christianity. Basically are there more relationships than these two that a Jewish person can have with Jesus, and if so, what are they named and how are they described? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never encountered a Jew who hates Jesus 'more than any person dead or alive'. Who are you thinking of here? Algebraist 12:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally I too have never encountered a Jewish person that expresses any particular animosity toward 'Jesus' or the concept of 'Jesus'. Jesus does not feature in any Jewish lore, he isn't mentioned by the Rabii - and of course this is all anecdotally. There may be Jewish people out there that know the exact context of Jesus in the religion, but like I say, it seems to be a non-issue. Rfwoolf (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many private examples which I can not of course reveal out of respect for the right of privacy and the anticipated consequences in the real world for the parties of which I speak. Public examples are also rare since by the time such persons go public they no longer claim to be Jews. Here is an explaination from a jewish person who is not filled with hate: "My belief is the Jesus got himself killed by trying too hard to be Jewish. In that era Jews went with the flow, re: didn't rock the boat or draw attention to themselves because they were in the minority and open to persecution and here comes JC on a crusade to get Jews to act like Jews and it did not go over well at all. Those who did see a reason to follow JC did so at the risk of pissing off every Jew who was fearful of the State and in history this is how revolutions get started. Remember the Jews were supposed to be 'self correcting' during that era and the Sanhedrin ran their courts in a fashion to suck up to their non Jewish governor. JC was simply rocking the boat for the Sanhedrin and putting them and all Jews at risk of stiffer taxation and or death at the hands of their non Jewish keepers."

See Judaism's view of Jesus. Since Jews do not believe in Jesus as a Messiah or demigod, the only Jesus Jews would think about is the historical Jesus, and as such Jews don't view Jesus any more positively or negatively than they would view any other historical figure, if, as is the predominant opinion among historians today, Jesus actually existed. Asking what Jews think of Jesus is like asking what Christians think of Buddha. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you ask Christians what they think of Buddha you will get different answers, ranging from "interesting guy" style to "Satan inspired nonsense" style. I imagine the same is with Jews and Jesus, although there is a degree of connection due to the Judaic origin of Christianity. The mainstream view appears to be neutral - he was a Jew who ended up starting a new religion (more or less) and we don't think he has a special relationship with G-d. See also Messianic Judaism. Steewi (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, forgive me for this comparison but after reading most of Judaism's view of Jesus I am reminded of persons who still own a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model I (or perhaps the original electronic calculator offered by Spiegel) and say the reason they do not need an upgrade is that whatever got the job done for their mom or dad, still gets the job done for them. Does anyone perhaps at least see Jesus as an representing an upgrade to Judaism, like the Radio Shack TRS-80 Model II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a matter of forgiveness here: this "TRS-80" comparison by 71.100.1.214 reveals either a profound ignorance or utter disregard of the development of Judaism in the intervening millenia (= nearly 2,000 years) since Christianity split off and went its own way. It's too specious to deserve consideration, and I would go so far as to call it derogatory. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your "upgrade" concept would be likely among any adherents to a "latter revelation" religion, such as either Islam or Mormon, whose prophets arrived after the establishment of Christianity. Please note the enormous population of Muslims in the world today, and perhaps consider a dialogue with them to deepen your understanding on this matter. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)''

What is "The porheron statement"?
In the film "The big Lebowski" the dude mentions being one of the original authors of "The porheron statement". I was wondering if anyone knows what this book/journal is about and when it was written.

cheers all193.62.251.32 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He was referring to the Port Huron Statement. Algebraist 12:08, 9 December 007 (UTC)


 * Basically, saying that he was one of the original authors of the Port Huron Statement, Lebowski was saying that he was at least at one time a bonafide radical. Saukkomies 02:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mary Tudor and Edward the Sixth
Why was Princess Mary so popular during the reign of her brother Edward the sixth? 81.129.85.203 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Becuse she represented stability and continuity in a period of transition and uncertainty.  Protestantism was still a new and untried doctrine for the people of England.  Always remember that the English Reformation came from above.  It was from beginning to end a state-directed process, which carried most of the community, conservative and wedded to tradition, slowly and uncertainly.  With the old rituals threatened there was no sure point of identity.  Under Henry VIII, a schismatic rather than a heretic, people could adhere to a large degree to older Catholic practices.  Under Edward VI, his son and successor, the whole thrust of Reformation took a far more Protestant direction.  In November 1547 Edward's first Parliament attacked many of the remaining traditional rituals.  Henry's Act of the Six Articles was revoked, and the first steps taken towards the preparation of a new Book of Common Prayer, to replace the Catholic-inspired King's Book of 1539.  As the traditional mass came under attack Mary increased the number of times that it was celebrated in her own household.  Already popular as the heir-apparent, she became the focus for traditionalists and conservatives of all sorts.  The more she was disapproved of at court, the more her standing increased with the people, who openly applauded her on her rides through London.  There is little doubt that, on the death of Edward in 1553, Mary was carried to the throne on a great wave of popular and aristocratic approval, sweeping aside the machinations of Northumberland and the Protestant faction.  Ironically, it was Mary's actions as Queen that was to give a new life to an unpopular cause. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Darfur conflict
I've been reading through your pages on the Darfur business, which are very useful, though I'm still not quite sure of all of the causes of the conflict. Can one of you experts please give me some clues into the deep background to the problem? H W Waidson (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in the Sudan... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Second World War in America
This is a slightly odd question, and I'm not sure quite how it can be answered, but I'm sure people will find a way! Just how big was the Second World War to the average American?

Was it a bigger deal at the time than the Vietnam War was when it was going, or than the Iraq war is now? To ask the question about Britain would clearly be nonsensical, what with the conscription and the rationing and the bombing and the evacuation etc, but America didn't have any of that (as far as I know). So how much of an impact did the war actually have on a typical American? Skittle (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The US had a nontrivial amount of rationing and an aggressive campaign to restrict waste - rationed goods were mainly imports (sugar, coffee) but also materials in short supply or in heavy demand by the war effort (red meat, footwear). Oil was rationed, though this was in some ways a device to save rubber (which was also rationed).
 * The population was involved to a far greater degree - even though the coasts saw virtually no enemy action, they were prepared for it, with aircraft spotters trained and lurking around in all sorts of places. Blackouts were instituted along the Eastern seaboard, to aid shipping. (And the west coast, of course, had internment) Even without these overt measures, or in places not affected by them, the war was a much bigger presence in people's daily lives - it was the daily news, gardening programs produced a sizable fraction of the nation's vegetables, fundraising drives were a regular feature, and conscription was much more ubiquitous. Psychologically, there very definitely Was A War On.
 * I guess the simple answer is "WW2 impacted the population compared to Vietnam in the same way that Vietnam impacted the population compare to Iraq" - it was the next leap up. Shimgray | talk | 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Shimgray's said everything I was going to except 'see United States home front during World War II'. Algebraist 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Thanks. It only really occurred to me as I was watching The Talk of the Town (film), a 1942 film that appeared to be set in the time it was made. There didn't seem to be a shortage of healthy men around, nor did anyone seem particularly concerned about shortages in other areas. Skittle (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was, to be fair, a light comedy, and quite possibly one scripted before Pearl Harbor! If my vague memory serves, wartime films were either explicitly using the existence of the war (usually with that impacting the plot in some way) or implicitly set in a pre-war context, the latter serving very well as escapism. Shimgray | talk | 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was, of course, a comedy, although it felt like it was trying to lecture on 'issues'. I'm fairly sure it referred to events in Europe in a throw-away line, without which I'd have assumed it was set before 1942, so I was just puzzled as to how much it reflected the actual situation. If you don't ask, you don't know! :) Skittle (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what was the throw-away line? Could the movie have been set in 1939-41 with the line referring to countries that were then at war? --Anonymous, 07:30 UTC, December 10, 2007.
 * It is indeed possible. I'm afraid I don't remember exactly what the line said, but I think the thought crossed my mind at the time that it could have been referring to the war without America being in it. Did the war impinge much before the US entered? Skittle (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

World War II was America's last "total war," a war that fundamentally altered the daily lives of every American. Just about all of my grandparents' male friends served in the military; by comparison, only a few of my parents' male friends served in Vietnam. To this day, when an American refers to "prewar" or "postwar," it's WWII they're talking about. The U.S. lost 416,800 service members during the war, which is more than in all other international wars the country has fought combined. For an example of just how central the war was to American consciousness at the time, take a look at some of the Academy Award-winning movies of 1943: Casablanca, Watch on the Rhine, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The More the Merrier and The Human Comedy -- three war movies and two movies about life on the home front. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious linguistic point: "prewar" may refer to World War II, but if you translate it into Latin and say "antebellum", then suddenly it refers to the Civil War. --Anon, 07:28 UTC, December 10, 2007.


 * And let's not remember that over 100,000 Japanese Americans were put into camps during the war. I'm assuming you are counting them in your definition of "Americans". --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was aware of the films, but I suppose I was trying to work out how much of that was propaganda trying to convince people that they should be doing things for the war and what it was actually like for an average American. After all, Casablanca is not set in America and is quite biting about America's slowness to get involved. And whether it was 'total war' for America was pretty much what I was trying to work out. I don't think anyone would argue that WW2 wasn't a total war for Britain, and for France, and for Germany, but it's hard to judge from here what it was like in America :) I mean, in Britain just about everybody was enlisted in some shape or form. So, WW2 big in America, touched lives of everyone? On people's minds daily? Rationing and blackouts? Excellent. Skittle (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There was rationing of many goods, and the unavailability of many consumer goods and many types of food. Lawns into vegetable gardens, at least for the first couple of years. (In Britain, would they have said "The garden was turned into a garden?") There was full employment which brought the end of the Great Depression: war production factories generally ran 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Women worked like "Rosie the Riveter" making weapons. Girls who had worked only as clerks or cashiers or waitresses were making artillery shells and welding Liberty ships. There was the draft and enlistment, with many young men dieing overseas. There were Bond sale drives and constant war news. Popeye cartoons showed him fighting up nasty exemplars of racially stereotyped Japanese. Disney cartoons ridiculed Hitler with Donald Duck's nightmare of living in the Third Reich  (YouTube) Edison (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [http://www.daytonhistorybooks.citymax.com/page/page/1652443.htm Dayton During World War II

Lights Out] makes interesting reading. Note that Dayton is not on either coast but well in the interior of the U.S. and still the fears of air raids. Rmhermen (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * United States home front during World War II may be a good start but it doesn't really discuss the extent of the effects. It also is lacking in many particulars: no mention of Victory Gardens till I just added it, no mention of the collection drives, no mention of the merchant marine, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another impact of the war on everyone was daylight saving time. In the peacetime USA the use of DST, and the start and end dates in places that used it, had been a matter for state or local regulation. A summer shift to DST had imposed nationally when the US entered WW1, and repealed afterwards. But during WW2 the US used DST all year, which was commonly called War Time. (After the war the old system of state or local option was resumed, until people got sufficiently tired of it that the Uniform Time Act of 1966 was passed.) --Anonymous, 2:41 am EST and 07:41 UTC, December 10, 2007.


 * Hmm, still getting a rather mixed image. On the one hand, the US had rationing of some goods, some areas had blackouts, people were being employed for the war effort, lost about 0.3% of the population as military casualties, locked up nearly 0.1% of the population, and it had a large psychological effect. There was a pretty large amount of propaganda, and the American equivalent of Dig for Victory and recycling. On the other hand, reading the article on Dayton suggests that the general population were pretty relaxed about these things. While those in charge were concerned with setting up a decent warning system, the population were obstructing them and disabling the alarms for being too noisy. (Oh, and while the War Time thing is interesting, I'm not sure how much of an actual impact switching timezones has on the general population). Hmm, going to poke around articles a bit more I think... Thanks guys. Skittle (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like there were always War Bond drives, and people going around collecting cooking grease to contribute to the war effort, butter and sugar and eggs were rationed, as were gasoline and rubber. "Lights out" efforts kept street lamps off and window drapes pulled so that the lights didn't show in the street, which must have made the cities pretty dark. Corvus cornix talk  19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He ( Author's)
Dear wikepidiea my name is moneybank27 and i am doing a project on zheng he. i was looking at his page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He but i couldnt no find the author or author's of the page plz could you tell me the author ASAP! its for a bibiloiography. thanks regards moneybank27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.156.89 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has many authors; see its history tab. See here for info about how to cite the article. Sandstein (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

British state opening of parliament
When her majesty missed two state openings of parliament because of her pregnancies, who replaced her to outline the governments policies --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article on State Opening of Parliament says it was the respective Lord Chancellors for 1959 (the Earl of Kilmuir) and 1963 (Viscount Dilhorne). 81.77.184.52 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the monarch is not personally present, then Parliament is opened by commission. Typically five Lords are deputed by the commission to represent the Monarch; the five sit in a row on the steps of the Throne with the Lord Chancellor in the centre, who actually reads the speech. Elements such as the Monarch's arrival in the Palace and the procession from the Robing Room into the Lords Chamber do not take place. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A strange Irish custom?
I heard that on the night before marriage, either the bride must visit the pub's toilet to look what the other males have in their pants and/or that the husband-to-be must let the females he meets on his pub tour see how he is endowed. Please note: This is a story I heard at a party, so it isn't neccessairly true. Also, yes, I am serious. So if anyone knows if either of the versions is true, any comment would be appreciated :) -- 88.66.124.146 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the words of the Jedi Master: "Your leg, being pulled, it is." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

American citizens and Puerto Rico
Are mainland US citizens from the 50 states also citizens of Puerto Rico? Do US citizens immigrate to Puerto Rico or are they already legally allowed to reside in PR? --Gosplan (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first question has it backwards: it's PR residents who are citizens of the US. Someone living in the 50 states can move to PR; it's not illegal or a case of immigration, though you will lose your right to vote in a presidential election, and the legal/tax/etc. system is somewhat different.  The necessary arrangements are the same as any state-to-state move (change vehicle titles & registration, get a new driver license, etc.).  Any PR resident can likewise move to the 50 states without any special requirements.  The following pages offering practical advice about moving to PR may be useful:    escape.topuertorico.com/resource/move.shtml (can't be linked: Wikipedia spam filter)  Wareh (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If a U.S. citizen can move from a U.S. state to Israel and continue to vote in U.S. elections as an absentee voter from his home state, then why wouldn't he be able to do the same while living for an extended period in Puerto Rico? Edison (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When a US citizen is living abroad, even for extended periods of time, they do not stop being residents of their particular state. They are still responsible for taxes (with exceptions that we don't need to get into here) and still hold the voting rights any other resident of that state has. When a resident of Florida (or any of the 49 other states) moves to PR (or any other state/dependency) they are required to (again, exceptions such as how long the person will be living in the new state) change their legal residence from the state of origin to PR and thus the changes in voting. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)