Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< December 8 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 10 >
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.


December 9[edit]

2006 Mississippi Senate Race[edit]

Hello,

I am struggling to find scholarly articles and research for a paper on the 2006 Mississippi midterm election for Senate. I need information on how the campaign was run, and how the democratic or republican parties influenced the race. Articles from newspapers would be best as sources. If anyone could help that would be great.

Sincerely,

Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.242.95 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean the US Senate or the Mississippi Senate ? StuRat 09:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean the US Senate, see Mississippi United States Senate election, 2006, for coverage of the election won by the incumbent, Trent Lott. The other US Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, does not run for reelection until 2008. StuRat 09:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the race was particularly close or otherwise significant, I'd expect very little coverage of this election in US national news media (probably limited to the results of the election). I would guess you are from Mississippi, in which case you should know the names of many newspapers in the state. I'd do a Google search on the names of those newspapers, to find their web sites. Then, from their web sites, see if you can search for articles on the campaign. If you know the names of the candidates, those would be good search terms. StuRat 09:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Rights For women[edit]

Hey everyone! What are some solutions that could improve women's rights within religion and in other areas of of life? Anything that could improve their life, give them more rights, etc. I need responses ASAP! Like right now if at all possible! Thanks so much! -I choose to remain anonymous

You might want to check equal rights, women's suffrage, reproductive rights, gender equality, and some of the results of this google search. Good luck. Anchoress 04:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, anyone??? I'm desperate!!

Well, I'll give you a few hints. These are some of the initiatives that are most relied upon to improve the lots of women and are in effect to varying degrees in different cultures at present:
I hope this helps cuz I'm squoze dry. Anchoress 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Achoress, I agree with all of your points except "affirmative action". That's the same as discrimination. Why would you need to "balance" gender equality? If men and women are both allowed to join an industry according to their skills, the gender ratio would eventually balance out. --Bowlhover 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing; if you look at what I said it's "These are some of the initiatives that are most relied upon to improve the lots of women and are in effect to varying degrees in different cultures at present". I'm not saying whether they are just, necessary, or effective. Let's not get into a debate about this; I worded it the way I did with extreme care to avoid it turning into an argument about just this exact thing. Anchoress 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, becoming part of the power structure of religions is quite critical to achieving these rights. In religions where women can't lead religious services or participate in the policy and decision making process, their other rights are also deprived. This is analogous to how women's rights in society were quite minimal until they gained the right to participate in the political structure, via voting and holding office. As for how to demand access to the power structure of religions, I can think of some strategies that might work:

1) Organize. Form a group, draft a list of demands, and present them to the religion.

2) Call a strike. Women should refuse to attend or contribute time and money to the religion, until their demands are met.

3) Form a parallel religious structure. Much like the Girl Scouts were formed in the model of the Boy Scouts, or the YWCA was formed in the model of the YMCA.

StuRat 09:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the women would be willing to do radical things like that. After all, they believe in the religion as well, and refusing to attend religious ceremonies would be going against God. --Bowlhover 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something which is largely defined by Mullahs, Rabbis, and Christian priests (all men - how amazing) in the 3 major religions. If they are not willing to fight for their rights they will never ever recieve them. No right was ever given without somebody fighting for it. If women are unwilling to fight for their rights let them stay at home, taking care of their kids (I suppose that is also a fullfilling life). Flamarande 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need a response ASAP? Sounds a bit like a homework question to me... Nil Einne 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Marriage[edit]

Hello I would like to know does a person of the Jewish Faith have to marry another Jweish person? Thank you.

Just Wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.129.40 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Try reading the Jewish view of marriage, skim some of the other topics in the Judaism portal, check some of the external links, and that might answer your question (which I'm not sure I understand, but it seems to be about Jewish marriage, so the first link should be a good start). Anchoress 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the stream of Judaism. An Orthodox (as well as a Conservative, I believe) Rabbi will not marry a Jew to a non-Jew, whereas a Reformed Rabbi will. Loomis 13:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat more complicated than that, of course. The Reform Central Conference of American Rabbis is officially against presiding over mixed marriage ceremonies, although individual rabbis are free to do so if they choose. -- Mwalcoff 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

complete details about Girish Karnad, Mr.Rohinton Mistry , MrVijay Tendulkar and Mr.Vikram Seth[edit]

for preparing a project complete details about Mr.Girish Karnad, Mr.Rohinton Mistry , MrVijay Tendulkar and Mr.Vikram Seth is required.Kindly please help and give.

Thanks Er. Rajeswaran —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.226.19.200 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Did you try Girish Karnad, Rohinton Mistry, Vijay Tendulkar and Vikram Seth? --Richardrj talk email 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Novel[edit]

I remember reading about a novel which started off with a page by the narrator explaining that they found the content of a novel (I believe in a bottle). I remember distinctly that the page either started or ended with "Read this, and I will be forgotten." Any ideas which novel this is? Crisco 1492 09:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your description makes one think of Message in a Bottle, but you say the novel was found in a bottle, so that does not quite fit. -- Seejyb 17:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think quite a few authors found their inspiration in the bottom of a bottle, including Ernest Hemingway. :-) StuRat 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant content of the novel, but the "Read this and I will be forgotten" is the part that I remember best. I think there is the possibility of it being by Earnest Hemingway. Any idea which of his novels include that device? I'm pretty sure that it isn't Message in a Bottle, because the book I'm thinking of is older. However, I am sure that only one / two pages came from the narrator, who just copies the content of the message, which forms the content of the novel. Crisco 1492 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edgar Allen Poe wrote MS. Found in a Bottle which was parodied in the 1960's with the "MS" interpreted in a feminist interpretation. I could not find the cited phrase in it, but it might be paraphrased somewhere in it. Edison 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is from Hemingway. It's not a theme I am familiar with, anyway. Clio the Muse 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not poe, for sure. What a lovely predictament. Stu, do you have any idea which of Hemingway's novels would of included that plot device? Crisco 1492 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think StuRat was being witty. Made me smile anyway. Poor old Hemingway.--Shantavira 09:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to Hemingway's alcoholism. I included the smiley to make it clear I was joking. StuRat 11:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, aku bodoh... possibly one of his contemperaries. Any come to mind? Crisco 1492 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been "A Gift From the Sea" by Anne Morrow Lindbergh? JackofOz 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm under the impression it wasn't a collection of essays. Crisco 1492 03:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Rice Burroughs' adventure book "The Land that Time Forgot" claims to be a bottle manuscript, and the 4th paragraph ends with "In two minutes you will forget me." Is this it? Vultur 12 December 2006.

That would be the one! Terima kasih Vultur. Crisco 1492 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Criticism of Jane Austen[edit]

I have read the criticism section in the Jane Austen article, but I am looking for a book or full essay with negative criticisms of Jane Austen. Google didn't help much. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance! --SolidNatrix 14:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early on, Charlotte Brontë (quoted here) and Elizabeth Barrett Browning did not jump on the bandwagon. But Austen's greatness has been so widely acknowledged since then, that any dissent you find is likely to be very polemical and/or shallow. Wareh 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also D.H. Lawrence. The fullest quotation I could find online is final exam, question #2, here. Wareh 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have this from Mark Twain, no less; Jane Austen? Why I'd go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book at all. More modern critics have included Edward Said, in his essay Culture and Imperialism,[1] and Lionel Trilling, who wrote essays on Emma and Mansfield Park. In Jane Austen: A Collection of Critical Essays, he makes the following observation about Mansfield Park;
No other great novel has so anxiously asserted the need to find security, to establish, in fixity and enclosure, a refuge from the dangers of openess and chance...It scandalises modern assumptions about social relations, about virtue , about religion, sex, and art. Most troubling of all is the preference for rest over motion. To deal with the world by condemning it, by withdrawing from it and shutting it out... to live one's days in a stasis and peace...to us seems not merely impracticable but almost wicked. (pp. 124-40)
On Trilling's crtique specifically you could also look at Paul Pickrel's essay, Lionel Trilling and Mansfield Park. You'll find this in Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 27, no. 4, Ninteenth Century, Autumn, 1987, pp. 609-21. Good luck! Clio the Muse 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bach and Whiter Shade of Pale[edit]

The writers of the pop song Whiter Shade of Pale claim the inspiration came from Bach's air on a G string cigar advertisement. Which piece of Bach music did it really directly come from please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.184.199.224 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Our article on Whiter Shade of Pale says: "The Hammond organ line of "A Whiter Shade of Pale" was inspired by the Johann Sebastian Bach's "Sleepers Awake" and "Air on a G String", but contrary to some belief, the song is not a direct copy or paraphrase of these or any other Bach piece." Gandalf61 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and it gives the following reference: "What Bach Piece is A Whiter Shade of Pale?".  --LambiamTalk 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is Annie's version of Whiter Shade the best of all? Vanatos 22:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milk and poultry[edit]

I understand that eating meat with meat is forbidden under Kosher rules, due to the fact that it is stated in the scriptures that it is wrong to cook a kid in its mother's milk. However, this would imply that non-mammalian animals, sucha as fish or chickens, which do not produce milk, can be eaten together with dairy. So, are dishes such as chowder (fish and cream) or chicken pizza (chicken and cheese) allowed in Judaism? Laïka 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not chickens, because they are mammals, even if they aren't red meat. -Fsotrain09 17:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens, along with all other birds, are not mammals. And even if they were, they don't produce milk. Unfortunately, I don't have a great understanding of Kosher rules, so I have nothing more to add. GreatManTheory 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find all such rules just plain silly. Imagine you were going to be eaten by a cannibal, would you be relieved to learn that, after killing you and before you were cooked, eaten, and defecated back out your body would be "treated with respect", by the cannibal. That wouldn't make a bit of difference to me and I sure can't imagine why an animal would care about that, either. StuRat 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On "treating with respect" in general, transpose it to human terms: after you kill your enemy on the battlefield, does it matter what you do with his body (say, drag it through the streets)? It seems that in many practically indifferent matters, people believe that callousing their sensibilities—even ones that could be criticized as empty and hypocritical—makes them worse people (say, more disposed to transgressions that are not practically indifferent). Now, how much kashrut really has to do with "treating with respect," as opposed to ritual law plain and simple, I couldn't say. Wareh 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Kosher foods#Seafood: 11:9-12 for fish and dairy, and Kosher foods#No mixing of meat and dairy for a comment on poultry and dairy. Certain groups of Jews who keep kosher will eat these combinations and certain groups will not. -THB 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One should understand that Jewish laws are not all directly described in the Torah, nor even in the (Babylonian) Talmud. I believe that the chicken / milk law is one of these "fence laws", interpretations or extensions made to protect the believer from inadvertently confusing chicken meat with lamb or veal. Once these laws were decided on, they had the same strength as the original writings. So by my understanding the law describing chicken and milk would originate after about 500 CE, and it does not have to be literally written up in the Torah to be a law. -- Seejyb 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seejyb is correct. Poultry is not meat, but is treated as if it were, by convention and tradition. B00P 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chowder isn't Kosher because it's made of clams, which are not kosher. It's unrelated to the meat/dairy thing.
And Stu, are you not at all concerned with how your body is dealt with after you die? Most people, I would think, would like to be buried, while a good deal of others, for their own reasons, are attracted to the idea of cremation. Should I take it, though, that in the unfortunate event that while walking with you down the street, you collapse and die of a heart attack, you wouldn't mind if I simply threw you in the nearest dumpster? Certainly you'd prefer your remains to be disposed of in a more dignified manner. Am I wrong? Loomis 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I care to some extent, but so much less than I care about being killed in the first place that it's insignificant by comparison. If I had the choice of being allowed to live, but having my body disrespected in the worst possible manner when I eventually did die of natural causes, versus being killed now and having my body "honored", I'd take the first option every time. And, when we extend this discussion to what animals "think", it even becomes more absurd to imagine they are concerned about having their body "respected" but don't mind actually being killed. StuRat 11:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. What if we'll give you just one more week/day of life in exchange for our agreement not to subject your corpse to vile dishonors? Etc. Wareh 02:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take the extra day. StuRat 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The questioner specified fish chowder, not clam. -THB 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic bomb[edit]

What is the siginficance and did it change anything in our lives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.168.189 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

A big part of that answer involves defining "us"; our lives in Hiroshima were changed quite a lot. Our lives in western Greenland, not so much --Mnemeson 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... appart from that time in 1968 when a B-52 crashed near Thule "scattering three hydrogen bombs on land and dropping one into the sea." list of military nuclear accidents. Keria 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest effect was likely preventing the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact nations from conquering Europe. StuRat 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic weapons made human-caused destruction of the planet Earth a likely event. -THB 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did change a lot of things. Nuclear power plants are a pretty useful spin-off. (but a bit controversial) I also think it ruled out the possibility of the Soviet Union and the USA going into a direct war with each other. And as soon as a nation has nuclear weapons, it can get away with a lot more things.Evilbu 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like the six shooter was called the "equalizer" in the old western U.S. because it made a small weak man the equal of any big strong one, the nuke in the 21st century gives a small and weak nation or group the power to inflict huge harm on a powerful nation, to a degree that in the early 20th century would have required a huge navy and army and brilliant generals and leaders. Now all that is needed is a suitcase sized bomb and a way to smuggle it. Edison 00:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Suitcase sized bombs have not played a substantial role in actual world diplomacy or military interactions, and it requires substantial nuclear knowledge and resources to make a suitcase sized bombs (they are harder to make than a bomb the size of Volkswagen). So unless you are talking about stealing or buying a suitcase bomb from the USA or Russia, they don't really "equalize" anything — the only countries that have them are already big, strong countries. --24.147.86.187 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It changed history for one, and it will continue to change it in ways we can't imagine (for better or worse). | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is a bit vague. You could answer with links to articles ranging from the massive category of Cold War to the small categories of nuclear weapons in popular culture. It also matters what time period you are discussing. As an example of lines along with you could delineate an answer are:
  • Military: The creation of the atomic bomb made it so that direct confrontation between the superpowers could never occur without the risk of all-out nuclear warfare. As a consequence you get the many different approaches and phases of the Cold War. For non-nuclear powers it meant that the world could be polarized along the lines of the superpowers, though this polarization need not be as rigid as it is sometimes depicted (the non-aligned states, for example, were able to shrewdly play the two against each other for their own benefit in many cases).
  • Social: Depends on the culture you are talking about, but generally speaking the atomic bomb led, by the mid-1950s anyway, to the idea that the world was bound together in a common fate and a common state of risk. At some times this led to a high degree of anxiety, at some times a high degree of apathy. Wars could no longer be truly local and even neutral states would suffer in the fallout from a nuclear war. Fear of the bomb was used in many different ways by governments and non-governmental groups to attempt to affect policies. Fear of the bomb spilled out into many different areas of social activity. But in any case all of these assertions are highly based in specific locations and specific time periods, and changed quite a bit from 1945 to the present.
  • Scientific: After 1945 almost all governments in the world realized that nations who lagged behind in scientific development would lag behind in military and economic development as well. Funding of science by the superpowers increased exponentially in the postwar period and respect for scientists generally grew. There were many different effects of this in different places.
You could imagine parsing out any of the above categories into many different categories, or adding additional categories. My point is that there isn't one way to gauge "significance" here and depending on how you want to do it, it can be a monumental enterprise. If this is an essay topic you really need to delineate along which lines you plan to discuss it, or at least spend a lot of time talking about the ways in which it is hard to succinctly talk about influence with something as influential as this. That being said, you could also argue that a lot of these changes were occurring anyway — it is hard to disentangle many co-influencing factors — and that some of these changes might be over-exaggerated (it is common for columnists to say things like the "atomic bomb has totally changed our lives!" though if you look at the bare-bones of what "our lives" means it is not clear that such changes are related directly to the atomic bomb). --24.147.86.187 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said 24.147... | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_December_9&oldid=1138599153"