Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 26

= February 26 =

Navamsa chart
If in Navamsa chart for Tula asendent Venus is in House 1 and Sun and Jupiter placed in House 7 what is the significance and implication and consequences.The Ascendent is in House 2.This is according to Vedic Astrology in East Indian style.117.194.254.82 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You would do better to post this sort of question in a Vedic astrology forum; there are plenty out there.--Shantavira|feed me 10:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

pleasesomeone bother to give a proper answer and also discuss the effect Sun and Venus placed in 5th house in Navamsa chart.117.194.239.28 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Does our Hindu astrology article answer the Q ? StuRat (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The question is not clearly answered or dervable from the Hindu Astrology page article.117.194.235.115 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

duplicate moved here from misc desk
If in Navamsa chart for Tula asendent Venus is in House 1 and Sun and Jupiter placed in House 7 what is the significance and implication and consequences.The Ascendent is in House 2.This is according to Vedic Astrology in East Indian style. the effect Sun and Venus placed in 5th house in Navamsa chart.117.194.234.244 (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The only implication that Wikipedia can suggest is that you have mistaken this encyclopaedia reference desk for a forum on astrology. It isn't. We don't answer questions which require speculation or opinions. Find somewhere else to ask them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to an astrology forum, where you may get a more satisfying answer to your question. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Help me to answer this question or find the flaw in this analogy
Atheism is not a religion. If atheism is not a religion why anarchy is a style of government?

I am almost sure, there is problably a problem with my analogy but I cant find it by myself. Help me.201.78.133.247 (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Atheism is not a religion for the same reason that 'not collecting postage stamps' is not a hobby. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Is anarchy a 'style of government', as opposed to a 'lack of government'? You seem to be assuming so, but I'm not sure it is true. It comes down at least partly to what you mean by 'government' - is it a formal institution ('the state'), imposing rule, or can it include voluntary self-government, as espoused by many anarchists? There are many schools of thought within anarchism - and they may have fundamental differences regarding such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not assuming so, places assume so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.133.247 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Anarchy is not a "style" of government, it is the absence of government. True anarchy tends not to last very long, as there are always others willing and eager to jump in and fill the power void. As regards atheism, it's the absence of a belief in one or more supreme beings, but some religions don't have gods, and atheism has aspects of religion to it. So the comparison between atheism and anarchy is weak. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which kind of atheism? -- Jayron  32  15:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The ironically-named "positive" atheism asserts with absolute certainty that there is no supreme being - despite the fact it is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. That's what's called "faith", and is how that style of atheism takes on the character of a religion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The gist of positive atheism is "there is no evidence god exists, therefore god does not exist." I wouldn't conflate it with faith at all. That said, I do find the term "positive atheism" amusing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's being sure of God's non-existence, despite a lack of evidence for it. Same thing, just inverted. "...therefore, I don't know" is the non-faith stance. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is of the form: "If sheep eat grass, then how come snakes can't fly?". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  16:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree actually that Atheism isn't a religion. It's taught, has leaders (like Dawkins), and is a set of beliefs. It is also taught as a belief in a negative (there is no God), which you pretty much have to take on faith, since everything could be exactly the same if there were. I would call "nonreligious" a description that isn't a form of religion, but atheism certainly is. The United States, for example, is 'secular' in the French sense of separating God and State - but it certainly isn't an Atheist form of Government! So your basic premise is wrong: atheism very much *is* a 'religion'. 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.61.236 (talk)


 * ' ' The ironically-named "positive" atheism asserts with absolute certainty that there is no supreme being - despite the fact it is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. That's what's called "faith", and is how that style of atheism takes on the character of a religion. ' ' is probably the best-written paragraph I've read in a very long time. 41.254.1.28 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 212, I'm afraid most of your assertions are flatly wrong. Being taught is not an aspect of religion, or else I'm afraid the alphabet is a religion. Dawkins is hardly a leader: he's an outspoken proponent, but he's certainly no pope or even a priest. Finally, it's not belief in a negative: atheism is the stance that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that there is no such proof for the existence of a god. Atheism is not a religion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear 201.78.133.247. Is it possible that the analogy you are looking for is mainly linguistic? Both words start with prefixes they are NOT something else. So therefore one can interpret A-theism to be NOT the belief that there is a god, and An-archy to be NOT a form of government. However, if one reads carefully the definitions of the terms Atheism and Anarchy in this wonderful encyclopedia one sees quickly that neither word has any simple consensus on what they really mean. Sadly, because of this, any analogy will be only possible either among a very limited audience who agree on one compatible set of definitions of each word. The wide spectrum of perceived meanings of each of these two word is very broad, and this has sadly led to very many confused debates in the past. We are not supposed to do debates in this Reference Desk. If you still want to ask about the analogy, you would need to narrow down the definitions very carefully and then carefully rephrase the question to avoid a debate that might seem irrelevant to you. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Oh, and you may be confusing Anarchy with Anarchism? Star Lord  -  星王 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the "reference" desk, I thought the questions asked should be ones where we can help by finding references, but we just might be reaching a litle deeper here...Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Some here are seeing atheism as a negative state. I've often wondered what the result would be of a completely unethical experiment. Take a group of very young children. Isolate them completely from the rest of society. Give them the benefit of all modern education but exclude all mention of religion. Would they grow up inventing gods? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly relevant MChesterMC (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There isn't a strict definition of "religion" so, by some stretch of the imagination, atheism is a religion. But the opposite conclusion can be reached as well, and I think more commonly one encounters the opposite conclusion—that atheism is not a religion. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Atheism isn't really a religion, but it has some aspects of religion. For example, the premise "there is no evidence that God exists" is in itself a matter of faith. To believers, there IS evidence. Just not the kind that atheists are willing to accept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are there so many Catholics in the Western mediterranean countries?
Why are there so many Catholics in the Western mediterranean countries (Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy)? And why is France perceived to be more sexually liberal than the other countries (i.e. nudes on postcard stamps, the "French nose")? Why are the Northern European countries predominantely Lutheran, and Eastern European countries predominantly Orthodox, and England stand by itself as Anglican, and Scotland stand by itself as Presbyterian? And how come there are so many denominations that split from the Anglican church (Wesleyan, Methodist, Quaker, Puritans, etc.)? 140.254.227.124 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The articles East–West Schism and Western Schism are good starting points. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) History. Christianity was spread by the Roman Empire, and institutional Christianity can be seen as a continuation of the Roman Empire in many ways. The western part of the empire - basically, the western mediterranean - mainly spoke Latin, and the eastern part of the empire mainly spoke Greek. The East-West Schism, in which Christianity split into Catholocism and Orthodoxy, had various political and theological reasons behind it, but basically followed that old Latin-Greek language split. Protestantism in its various forms split off from Catholicism, so it's found primarily in the west, but mostly in those parts of the west that weren't as thoroughly Romanised. Luther's reformation started in Germany. Anglicanism was a particularly English political development and was far more a declaration of political independence from Rome than a theological split. I don't know much about the history of the other English denominations or Scottish Presbyterianism, but I imagine there are historical reasons for those too. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (another ec) Mostly politics of various kinds. The split between Orthodox and and Roman Catholic churches reflects the split into Eastern and Western Roman empires and the later struggle for priority between the bishop of Rome and the other major bishops in Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. The Protestant Reformation had religious roots, but quickly became a political organizing force - see e.g. the 30 years war. The Anglican Church emerged because Henry VIII wanted to fuck more women than the Pope approved of, as a result of which he royally fucked the Pope over. Anglicanism basically is a state-established Catholic branch with just enough protestant influence to keep the country together. And as a result of that very Catholic Protestant Anglican Church, many more radical churches split off it. France probably is more liberal than other Catholic nations because the French Revolution occurred during the height of the Enlightenment, and secularized the whole country. The church only came back slowly after that, and the French state has been quite aggressively secular for most of the time since then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that Presbyterianism isn't really as "alone" as Anglicanism is in England. Anglicanism really is peculiar to England and places under English influence, because of the way in which the church came about, and the way in which the theology and organization straddles the line between Catholicism and Protestantism.  Presbyterianism is aligned with other churches from the Calvinist strains of Christianity, and their theology would be very familiar to other Calvinist faiths, such as the Dutch Reformed Church, the Reformed Church of France (aka the Huguenots), the United Church of Christ and other congregationalist churches of American origin.  -- Jayron  32  17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect one reason why those nations near Rome didn't become Protestant was their proximity of the Pope's armies. At that time, the Pope could still raise armies (either directly or by proxy) of sufficient size to subdue those nearby nations, but taking on all the German states, etc., was another matter. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather than try to address the entirety of the history of the West over the last 2,000 years, from why Scots are Presbyterian to why the French have big noses, I will simply point out that God favors the Catholics, and that's why they have all the best vacation spots. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Your holiness, we have good news and bad news. The good news is that God really exists. The bad news is that she is on the phone from Salt Lake City..." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do Muslims even proselytize in the West?
Do Muslims even proselytize in the West? Or is missionary activity in Western countries completely dominated by Christianity that it's hard to find a Muslim proselytizing in public? Or perhaps, Muslims don't proselytize the same way Christians do? Do Christians ever proselytize Muslims, or vice versa? 140.254.227.237 (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See Islamic_missionary_activity. HenryFlower 19:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Muslims proselytize in the west. Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, a great number of African-Americans were converted to Islam by the Nation of Islam (Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) Shaquille O'Neal was raised a Muslim in the west by his father, who converted to Islam during this period. Likewise, there are many Christians who are proselytizing in predominantly Muslim areas. You can see where the organization known as the International Mission Board has people working in predominantly Muslim areas here where it discusses all the people they are working with. -- Jayron  32  19:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um... The article suggests that Nation of Islam is a hate group by the SPLC. Plus, that's mostly African American. What about people of European descent who convert to Islam? 140.254.227.171 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and many hate groups proselytize. Are you asking specifically for groups that are not hateful?  What do you define "hateful" to be?  You can't ask a question like "do Muslims even proselytize?" and complain that people weren't aware of your unstated requirements, which apparently require the Muslims to not be hateful and to preach to Europeans.  --128.112.25.104 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between hate and conversion to a religion by one's own free will. Some people want to convert to Judaism on their own accord, and Jewish rabbis do proselytize upon the aspiring convert's request. Conversion to a faith has nothing to do with hate. 140.254.227.171 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood 128s comment. Whether a group is a hate group or not has nothing to do with whether or not they proselytize. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, it should be noted, that many people introduced to Islam via the Nation of Islam have later rejected the racial overtones of the organization and adopted a more main-line, non-racial theology. All of the men I noted above were introduced to Islam by NOI leader Elijah Muhammad, but ultimately rejected the separatist message and "black supremacist" teachings, and became a more mainstream Sunni Muslim.  So, they converted to Islam explicitly because of the Nation of Islam, but later rejected all of the stuff that was related to racial conflict in America, and became mainstream Muslims.  -- Jayron  32  00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Being labeled a "hate group" by the SPLC doesn't prove much. —Tamfang (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but since the Nation of Islam believe that white people were created by an evil scientist named Yakub and are innately evil, I think it qualifies. By the way, most members NOI who were converted in the '60s (including Muhammad Ali) followed the example of W.D. Muhammad and became Sunni Muslims in the '70s. See American Society of Muslims. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For Christian proselytization, see 10/40 Window... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I live in an area in the UK that has a large Muslim population. In my experience Muslims do not systematically attempt to covert, in the same way that some Christian denominations do (knocking on doors, handing out leaflets etc), but they often try to do so through personal connections. Many people I know have been asked by Muslim friends to read the Quran, or been given booklets on Islam. Sometimes there are more public efforts. When I was in Manchester last month there was a large poster in the main station advertising meetings on Islam and a booklet on scientific miracles in the Quran. Paul B (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Roughly speaking, Islam in Spain can be divided in recent immigrants from Muslims countries (not so recent in Ceuta and Melilla) and recent converts from Christianity or leftism. There is a group of ethnically Spaniards converted to Sufism from some leftist grouplets, with some influence from some Swedish Sufis that I don't remember. The issue is that the Spaniards have better access to government recognition and media, while the immigrants are divided along ethnic lines (Maghrebis, Black Africans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, I guess) and some receive funding from Gulf oil fundamentalists. --Error (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

why do brits know the nato (phonetic) alphabet so much better than Americans?
As an American I'm used to just grasping for names or random words A as in Adam, B as in...Bob, Y as in Yellow, Zee as in...Zack. Of course I know there's a standard NATO phonetic alphabet, but nobody uses it. But the Brits! They all know it. (From my exp with random callers in a call center). How come? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Americans have this program called English as a Second Language (ESL or ESOL) in schools. Basically, it teaches foreigners all the phonemes of the English language. A can be pronounced with a short a sound or long a sound. 140.254.227.171 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What 212 is calling the phonetic alphabet has nothing to do with actual phonemes, of which English has about 40. No evidence has been offered to show the familiarity of anyone with military call letters. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Call centres (and strong regional accents) probably help; someone from Folkstone calling their bank and having to try and spell something for someone in Falkirk is going to involve a lot of "sorry, was that...". People are quite used to a phonetic-alphabet approach to this problem.
 * However, it's rarely the NATO phonetic alphabet per se. I used to have to spell something ending in "SR" a lot; it was almost always something like "silver red", never "sierra romeo". I would class this as "comfortable with the concept of phonetic respelling" rather than assuming people know the NATO alphabet. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Most people who work in call centres in the UK learn it as part of the job (speaking on the phone, 'm' and 'n' are hard to distinguish, etc.), so it's not surprising you'll hear it a lot. If you use it with the average person in the st
 * Who Delta Echo Lima Echo Tango Echo Delta part of my post?!!? Put it back.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You did :( --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sounds odd, as the US has more of a tradition of military service than Britain. British postal codes have letters: perhaps people learn the codes for their postcode, or to spell their own name on the phone, or to play trivia quizzes! Sorry I can't offer more than guesswork.
 * By the way, sometimes Brits substitute words from the older codes such as those in NATO_phonetic_alphabet.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I question your premise about the military. In any case, we only use the phonetic alphabet when necessary - such as talking to a help desk line manned by a non-native-English speaker. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For any Brits of my generation, this would may well be down to the TV programme Finders Keepers, which used the phonetic alphabet. Unfortunately, it only used the first seven letters, and I have noticed my peers struggle after Foxtrot. Personally, I think I learned the rest from watching police and military dramas. --Dweller (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some folks still remember some of the pre-NATO (US only?) military designations: Able, Baker, Charlie, David... uhmmm... ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC) ...
 * That particular phonetic alphabet, or at least an unreasonable facsimile of the first nine letters of it, is preserved in the baseball rules book, in the discussion about batting out of order. The names used therein are Abel, Baker, Charles, Daniel, Edward, Frank, George, Hooker and Irwin. Possibly easier to remember than the NATO alphabet because they are actual names instead of randomly selected words. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the question is intentionally contentious. I've never had any problem using Adam, Barbara, Charles, David, Edward, Frank, George, Henry, Idaho, John, King, Larry, Mary, Nancy, Ohio, Peter, Queen, Robert, Susan, Thomas, Utah, Victor, William, Xray, Yellow, Zebra--and that was limited solely to the names of British monarchs, obviously. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, King Utah I, Dec. 31, 1402- Jan. 1, 1403. Such a short reign meant he is one of our lesser known kings.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  03:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He wasn't worth his salt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * From LAPD phonetic alphabet: people in the US are likely to be exposed to a phonetic alphabet through police dramas, which tend to be produced by Hollywood-based studios, which, for obvious reasons, tend to use the same phonetic alphabet as the Los Angeles Police Department (which isn't the NATO alphabet because LAPD radio comms predate NATO). --Carnildo (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I also suspect that popular UK cop shows is the reason, particularly ones which focus on uniform officers and their radio chatter, rather than detectives. I know the NATO phonetic alphabet from British police procedurals like The Bill and Juliet Bravo: "248 to Sierra Oscar, index check please, number is Hotel Foxtrot Mike Four Seven Two Victor". --Canley (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to spell out part of my postcode on the phone (includes an S) and I use the NATO phonetic alphabet because it's the correct thing to use and the call centre worker is sure to recognise it. I agree with Canley and Alan that cop shows are where we first learn of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a Brit, but I was first exposed to it in the Boy Scouts, and then the school cadets, but I don't think it was called the "NATO phonetic alphabet". --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other end of things, I've tried using the NATO alphabet to spell things out in the U.S. on many an occasion, and it never seems to work. Seriously, you end up giving up after the second repetition and just say the letters!  They're more used to going through with "Is that an S F    or an F S    two or three times, then entering a random value.  (Advances in telecommunications technology have rendered these two letters perfectly identical)   You don't have any worse odds trying to get them to find the data later, since they are just as likely to have the wrong one then. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well we certainly learnt it in Guides, and my brothers learnt it in Scouts. Something like a third of the native-born population goes through those programmes at some point, allegedly, so it would certainly make people aware. 86.162.71.82 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Kreishauptmann und Beamtentum
Is this a Language Desk issue or a Humanities Desk issue? I don't know.

What is a de:Beamtentum, and what is a de:Kreishauptmann? Both have no wikidata links. Babelfish cannot translate either of them. 149.160.173.71 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Das Beamtentum is a collective noun referring to civil servants as a distinct class. Beamten in German-speaking countries are (broadly speaking) considered a separate group from other employees and, as I understand it, the law governing the employment of civil servants (and the duties of civil servants to their employers and vice-versa) is distinct from that relating to other employees. It's impossible to make an exact equivalence between different countries and languages, but the British usage of "civil servant" is probably a closer match to the German Beamte than the somewhat broader use of the term in the USA (at least as I've heard it used). The English-language article Civil service interlinks to de:Öffentlicher Dienst which is probably a better interwiki than de:Beamtentum.
 * Ein Kreishauptmann was the historical title of a leading official in the government at a Kreis level in certain German states. It is no longer used. As a specifically German term for a particular role in certain areas which no longer exists and has no precise international equivalent, there would be no interwiki unless someone writes an English-language article on the specific title. Valiantis (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Good questions all. "Beamtentum" is the body of civil servants, either as a group of people, or as the abstract concept. A "Beamter" is someone "officed", or "endowed with an office". There is a certain cultural expectation. "Beamte" in Germany (and, AFAIK, Austria) are typically employed for life, with certain privileges (can't be fired, reliable income, comparatively good pension), but in return are expected to show special loyalty to the state. A "Kreishauptmann" is (or rather was) the appointed head of the administration for a "Landkreis", a region somewhat comparable to a county. I don't think either term has a perfect English equivalent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As Valiantis says, cf. Amt and cf. Hauptmann (captain). 211.30.157.65 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)