Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 4

=March 4=

Percy Henn
I am trying to extend the article Percy Henn and have not found anything more useful that the AusLit website and the Australian Dictionary of Biographies site. Please reply on my talk page.

Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 10:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lent
Reference Desk,

Lent is supposed to be 40 days. With Ash Wednesday on 21 FEB and Easter on 8 APR, we have a 47 day Lent period. What would be the reason?

thank you

Jon


 * Jon, the length of lent was mentioned in canon five of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD as a forty day period. Sundays, which was never a fast day, was excluded from the calculation.  The forty days end on Palm Sunday. You will find more detail here  Clio the Muse 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some smashing articles on the subject: The Duration of Lent The Length of Lent "40 Days" - JoeTalk!Work 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor
On the Medal of Honor article, it says 193 medals were granted in peacetime, and 9 medals were granted for unknown or classified reasons. Can someone explain this to me in depth? Thanks,  Яussiaп F  02:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article specifically says that in the early part of the twentieth century the Navy awarded many medals for peacetime bravery, including those given to seven sailors aboard the USS Iowa when a boiler blew up in January 1904. A number were also awarded retrospectively, though I cannot be certain if they are included in the 'peacetime' category.  There are also singular cases like that of Charles Lindbergh, the aviator, who received his medal as a civilian pilot.  Unknown, I suppose, means that there is no specific record, and classified means that the details of the operation in question have not been disclosed for security reasons, or reasons of national sensitivity.  Clio the Muse 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I must have missed that... :S Thanks!  Яussiaп F  03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-racing?
I just heard of this from a couple of friends a little while ago, and i had actually talked about a game based on the same concept back in august 2006. There seems to be no article about it, and it is not very well known, but due to the fact that it exists, it warrants some sort of recognition. I really thought i made it up, but not the term, and i wanted to know when this came about, and if it deserves some sort of recognition or not.--Technofreak90 04:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_race

It's in the Wikipedia: namespace, so it's not a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, but an internal page. Have fun! --Apoc2400 08:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for when it came about: according to the above wikipage [history], the page was first created on April 9, 2005, at which time the term "wikirace" was already being used. Surely the phenomenon existed before the page or the term, but we have no way of knowing how long before in either case... Jfarber 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell your spouse secret information?
Obviously you can't tell your people about information that is classified, but does this include your spouse? BTW, this isn't a political question, I'm just curious. Oskar 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure, but I think they say you're not supposed to tell your spouse classified information either. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My wife has a US security clearance - far from the highest levels of secrecy, but still - and she isn't supposed to tell me anything that is classified. --Diderot 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both my brother and my father have had clearances in the past. One worked for a gov't contractor and the other was in the Army.  They could not tell each other various things.  I believe it was a "need to know" sort of deal where the other didn't need to know what the first was working on.  Dismas |(talk) 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just having a clearance doesn't grant someone the right to have classified information. They have to have a "need to know".  Corvus cornix 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't tell my wife anything I don't want the neighbors to know :D More seriously, spousal rights work for terrorists, cf Melanie Brown(Australian), a former Australian soldier who, after posing as a Jewish Lesbian, married an Islamic fellow (Willie Brigitte) charged with terrorism. She claimed to regret saying some of the things she did in answer to questions. However, in the US, a US ambassador, whose wife was a CIA employee, has not been required to speakof his spousal knowledge. I suspect the Rosenbergs had a different viewpoint regarding the law. DDB 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait? So why was she posing as a Jewish Lesbian? 194.80.32.12 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

all i can tell you is you probably just endangered your carreer here just by mentioning it.Gov officals have ways of tracking IPs even ifthey dont show beacuse of a user name. they are very sneaky oops that was ummm classified =P Maverick423 17:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Charity Work
OK. I'm not sure if this should go into the Miscellaneous desk, but lets give this a try.

So I am sick and tired of working for The Man. I'm sick and tired of money. I want to drop everything and do some charity work. Ideally, I want to drop everything and just volunteer in some place that really needs it - humanitarian work, and the like. While I'd imagine that there are plenty of organizations that would be happy to take volunteers, not many pay people. I would need only about $8400 for 12 months to hold down my apartment (I have no savings and I don't want to put my stuff into storage). Are there many humanitarian organizations that hire people?

I don't have any medical experience and haven't yet gone to college. I have more than six years of retail management experience, which I'd imagine is completely useless for humanitarian organizations.

Anyway... any suggestions? --Someone&#39;s sock 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done several stints in humanitarian organizations, from a year in Americorps to more local volunteering opportunities, and can assure you that there is a real need in almost all such organizations for both "unskilled" workers and for folks with management experience to manage and coordinate the activities of such organizations.  In some cases, BOTH types of workers get some sort of stipend; in many cases, managers and coordinators get paid a perfectly livable and often even competitive salary.


 * It sounds like you don't want to move, so, depending on where you live, I'd contact your local seat of government and ask about humanitarian non-profits with chapters or agents in the area, and how to get in touch with them, as a good place to start.  If you're in the US, you might even try your local chapter of Americorps directly.


 * One warning, however: you may not find this sort of work to be that different from working for the man.  Money matters in such organizations, albeit for different reasons than it does in the private for-profit sector.   As such, the bureacratic infrastructure of all the organizations I've worked is substantial, and in some ways, and for all sorts of reasons (including/especially the fact that government or church funding often underlies such organizations, and government/ church/ bureaucratic oversight can be brutal and nitpicky), can feel more restrictive than what you refer to as working for the man.   Yes, you may feel like your work has some worth and higher purpose, you may indeed wake up each morning knowing that you are doing good and doing well, and this might be enough to compensate, but you may NOT find yourself able to escape many of the traditional experiences of the workplace simply by moving into the non-profit sector.   If you do decide to pursue such work, my advice is to ask around of both management and of coworkers/co-voluteers to make sure you understand what kind of oversight, expectations, rules, and workplace environment you'll be working in before you jump in.   Jfarber 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't necessarily have to be domestic. If I was doing something overseas (lets say Africa) I would just need enough scratch to hold down my apartment while I'm gone (this doesn't include the costs the organization would incur in food and board wherever they put me).  Do such international humanitarian organizations pay?  How do I find them?


 * Americorps is a good option, but if I'm in the U.S. I wouldn't want to leave where I am, and I really am thinking more third world aid, anyway.


 * Also, I would like to hook up with a secular organization. Religions and I do not mix.  --Someone&#39;s sock 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see, then...how to find a paid/semi-paid position in a secular, humanitarian aid organization which serves a non-US, third-world community of need...


 * How about calling the UN?  The International Red Cross?  Doctors without Borders (who surely need transport, on-site management, and other clerical work)?   The Peace Corps?   Habitat for Humanity?   All of these come to mind as fitting your above criteria; surely all of them need some "on site" management which would best fit your skills; surely at least some of them offer stipends for such positions.   If these places can't help, I'd ask them if they can recommend anything for someone in your situation.  Jfarber 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some would say the best way to help the plight of others is through paid-labour, highly paid needn't mean sacrificing your desire to help. You could work in politics as that is the area of life with the potentially to have the most positive impact on suffering. ny156uk 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As a teacher, I'd agree that my current role in society is much more successful way for me to make change in society than any of the humaitarian aid work I did previously.  But the original querent wanted to "chuck it all" and stop working for "The Man" -- and I guess I think of politics as more closely tied to "The Man" than any other career.  Jfarber 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

When was Karl Marx overthrown?
Hi,

I was wondering when Karl Marx actually came into power, and when he was thrown off of power.

This would greatly help me for an English assignment.

Thanks.

(left unsigned by User:74.119.143.157)


 * 74 - may I call you 74? - Karl Marx never held a state office of any sort. The closest he ever came was sitting on the General Council of the First International.  The parties built around his ideas never took any significant office during his lifetime.  He never ruled a state, and never even held unique power over a party. --Diderot 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * More than that, because of his involvement in the revolutionary movement of 1848 and 1849 he was forced to leave his native Prussia, spending most of his life as a political exile in London, where he made a precarious living by journalism and by sponging off Friedrich Engels, his friend and collaborator. Marx was a theorist and a writer, never a politician in any practical sense.  Clio the Muse 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx never held an office in any government. 202.168.50.40 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither did this Karl Marx, afaik. JackofOz 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How fascinating! Do you know anything more about this man, Jack?  I can find nothing of any substance.  I am assuming he was Jewish (perhaps not?) and must therefore have escaped from Germany when Hitler assumed power?  Clio the Muse 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I put pretty much everything I've read about him into the article.  I've been trying to track down recordings of his work for years, without success.  My interest in him stems partly from his somewhat noticeable name, and the fact that he and I share the same birthday.  JackofOz 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently spent the war lecturing at an exclusively Hitler Youth conservatory in Graz. &mdash;eric 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, well. Seems he wasn't Jewish, then.  This has proven to be a very fruitful tangent to the question asked - but a tangent nonetheless.  Rather than discussing him here (which was never my intention), how about you update his article with any information you may have about him, and we can continue discussing him on his talk page.  Thanks, eric.  JackofOz 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend the German Wikipedia's article on him, de:Karl Marx (Komponist), and if you don't understand German, make a request at Translation/*/Lang/de − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see it has been translated here − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In meta terms, it may be said that Karl Marx was overthrown when it became apparent his theories were not substantiated in practise. If that has happened, then Marx's work must be falsifiable. I put it to you that the holistic nature of Marx's theory is such that they are not falsifiable, but that popular opinion might hold that they have been falsified. DDB 09:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going to take the discussion there, I think falsifiablity is a manifestly inadequate means of measuring scientific theories, and even less so bodies of social praxis like Marxism. Rather, ideas must offer insights to support actions and are replaced by alternative ideas engendering alternative praxis through largely social phenomena, even within the hard sciences.  Aerodynamics is an accepted body of scientific thought because it offers the insights necessary to construct safe, efficient aircraft, which in turn respond to a real social need.  No other statement of manifest truth or falseness can really be made for or against it, but since most people like cheap, fast, safe air travel, there is no need for more powerful analytical criteria for evaluating it.  Which is for the best, as it is not clear analytical approaches to philosophy can offer any more powerful criteria.


 * By this standard, the evaluation of Marx' work is ambiguous at best. We can lay social democratic practice at his feet as much as the practices of the former Soviet Union and its allies.  As a source of meaningful categories in the social sciences, categories that offer real insight and support for effective practices, Marx remains a giant, towering figure. The categories he and his followers pioneered remain useful and in widespread use, both on the left and the right.  We live, in a meaningful sense, in a very Marxist world already.  But perhaps not in the sense that Marx intended. However, it remains at least intellectually viable to lay the damage done by many reputedly class revolutions on him as well, as the class revolution was also a category he pioneered.  So, you can have it either way, depending on what you want to see.  --Diderot 13:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm...quite frankly I would rather we did not take the discussion down this road, far too far from the intended destination. But as I myself was responsible for some degree of sidetracking, I do not suppose I am really in a position to complain.  However, I must take issue with the contention that Marxism continues to be a meaningful form of social  and intellectual 'praxis.'  I think of Marxism, and the debates it engendered, as a little like a large, dusty Victorian mansion, standing empty on the outskirts of town, a protected curio, but not a place that anyone particularly wants to go anymore, other than a few antique professors and the occasional wide-eyed enthusiast.  Far from living in a 'Marxist world', it seems to me that every single one of the categories he developed, whether in economics, sociology, politics or philosophy has been long superseded, both in theory and practice- praxis, if you prefer-, by far more meaningful modes of analysis.  What economist now calls on the shallow metaphysics of 'surplus value', what sociologist sees class struggle as a motor for social change, what political theorist draws on notions of the mass party, what philosopher on the development of consciousness as a precondition for historical transformation?  As a thinker who provided a meaningful and cogent insight into developments in the modern world Friedrich Nietzsche, at least in my estimation, was a far more towering figure than Marx, that frightful parody of the nineteenth century paterfamilias.  The Maxists have attempted to change the world in various-and terrible-ways; the point is to interpret it.  Clio the Muse 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why muslims get upset so easily?
Can someone explain this to me.

This is an extract from Dr. Gronier, a French MP, who embraced Islam. Revealing the reason of embracing Islam he said, I read all of the Ayat (Quranic verses), which have a relation to medical, health, and natural sciences that I studied before and have a wide knowledge of. I found that these verses are totally compatible with and give a picture of our modern sciences. Thus, I embraced Islam as it was obvious that Muhammad revealed the Absolute Truth more than a thousand years ago. Had every specialist, artist or scientist compared those Quranic verses to his own specialization, beyond the shadow of doubt he would embrace Islam, especially if he has a sound mentality and goodwill to search for the truth and not a mentally defective person with the intentions of malevolent aims.
 * Reference(s):
 * Denier, Ateen and Sulaiman Bin Ibrahim,
 * Muhammad Allah's Messenger.
 * Mahmoud, Abdul-Haleem, (Dr.),
 * Europe and Islam.

Why if it okay for muslims to ask non-muslim (in a polite manner) to embrace Islam but when an atheist ask muslims to (in a polite manner) embrace atheism, muslims get very angry indeed. Is there somekind of double standard? The thing I do not understand is that it is okay for muslims to tell non-muslims about THE TRUTH but muslims get very upset when non-muslims tell muslims about (non-muslim's version of) THE TRUTH. Sounds to me like "my truth is okay but your truth is garbage!". 202.168.50.40 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because they were taught they can and should do so. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Religion is inherently POV. 惑乱 分からん 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As an atheist, I just want to point out that I haven't observed the anger 202.168.50.40 seems to have encountered when discussing huge topics such as belief, atheism, agnosticism and the lot with muslims. On the contrary, I find these discussions (and sometimes debates) to be just as interesting and potentially fruitful as those held with believers of other faiths. (But then I never believed in proselytizing atheism.) ---Sluzzelin talk  23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This would seem to be an example what I think of as the "experience = knowledge" mindset. The idea being that you can only advise people how to deal with something if you yourself have (or may potentially) have to do it. A little like how whenever a politician mentions government-funded school budgets being cut/adjusted negatively they are considered by many to "not have to worry about it since they can afford to send their kids to private school". I expect that the muslims to which you refer (though it is not unique to muslims) do not like to be told how to embrace their religion by someone who is not of that religion. I know my thoughts on parenting are often lambasted as "you don't have kids so you wouldn't know" mindset is particularly strong. Of course if I had children these same people would perhaps be more receptive to my ideas/policies. ny156uk 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they get upset when they hear people like Ann Coulter advocating enforced conversion to Christianity. (As if one can ever be forced to believe in something they don't believe in.)  And which sect would they choose? - the Plymouth Brethren, the Jehovas Witnesses, the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church .... the list is endless, yet they all claim they are the only true Christian church.  JackofOz 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm wrong, but I rarely if ever experience the "you're not a true Christian because you don't belong to my denomination" kind of attitude JackofOz describes. I'm a Baptist, my fiancee is Catholic, and I have Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox friends as well. We all get along quite well, and we all respect each other as fellow Christians with slightly different beliefs/tastes. In my experience, the clergy of these churches feel the same. GreatManTheory 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The differences are far from slight, otherwise there would only be one Christian Church. Transubstantiation will be a monumental block to Anglicans ever reuniting with Catholics.  The authority of the Pope has been a monumental sticking point that has kept the Orthodox churches and the Catholic church apart for a thousand years; but that is far from being the only issue they have.  It's fine that individual Christians respect those of other denominations, and I hope that continues.  But at an organisational level, there is a lot of dogma between the faiths.  The Christian Church is a hydra with many mutually antagonistic heads.  It's no wonder Muslims and Jews regard many "Christians" with suspicion, particularly when it is suggested that they convert.  Convert to what?  (Not that there aren't different sects within Jewry and Islam, too.  The West tends to think of Islam as being one unified faith; the truth is that it is just as fractured as Christianity.)  JackofOz 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you've never heard anyone say the Mormons aren't true Christians? The Jade Knight 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The premise is an uncomfortable one. It is not true to say Muslims get upset easily. Cardinal Pell has had some interesting things to say on related, better stated, issues. It is clear that Islamic leaders have evaded questions that other religious leaders would be expected to address. Religious leaders set the tone for their followers. However, Islamic religious leaders do not usually have the benefit of education available in US or English colleges/Universities. DDB 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The muslim told me about his religion and invites me to embrace it. He say he is doing this for my own good. So I though that I might return the favor. I told him about (my version of) THE TRUTH saying "God does not exists and Muhammad had mental problems which caused him to believe that an Angel of God is talking to him" and that he should save himself (from the grip of religion) and embraces Atheism instead. At this point he got really upset and accuses me of trying to destroy him when clearly I was trying to save him. 202.168.50.40 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What a surprise! It is never a good idea to challenge absolutes with absolutes.  Your own 'religion' would appear to be just as fundamental as that of your-alleged-Muslim interlocutor.  Clio the Muse 09:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely never, Clio? :)  JackofOz 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)