Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 8

= April 8 =

sales etiquette
can someone please link to general, international advice for how a salesperson is supposed to behave with customers in an upscale retail setting. I assume the specifics would be slightly different from country to country, but maybe there are some basics that are universal. I don't mean general obvious advice like "don't be a douche. don't lie." and so on. I mean very specific, "etiquette" or "protocol" type advice, as specific as specific table manners advice. I don't seem to be able to find that, if it even exists.

Does no one write these things down, is it just oral history/training or what?

Thank you. 84.153.190.242 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing different in an upscale setting is that you shouldn't mention the price unless asked, although this may vary by nation. Upscale places also may offer freebees, like coffee, so be sure to do that if available at you store. Any salesperson should also know how to gauge the customer's response and react accordingly.  Ask "May I help you ?", and, if they say "no" or "I'm just looking", say "OK, I'll be over there if you need anything", then leave; don't hover or stare at them.  StuRat (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * hey thanks a lot! Maybe you would have more luck than me digging up an even more comprehensive (several pages) link?  Thanks again for your input.  82.113.106.35 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands is an international etiquette book for business people which may be useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As an ocassional customer of "upscale" places I prefer it that the sales assistants let you look at the stuff without approaching you, and only when you catch their eye do they approach and ask you if you need any assistance. I would not like being challenged by an assistant as soon as I walk in the place. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the same way. However, I think most people would feel ignored if nobody asked them if they needed any help. StuRat (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To generalise what 78.144 says, the key (similar to being a butler, waiter, etc.) is to know what's expected when without having to have it vocalised. That is, to recognise the small signs that say "I have a question" or "I'm ready to buy this one" or "I'm just looking". What those signs are will differ from place to place, however, and from person to person. When I worked in a jewellery store that was pretending to be upper class (and really wasn't), they had a lot of mandated customer service policies that replaced the principle and actually ended up annoying customers more than helping them - things like hovering near customers, greeting them and offering help before they've had a chance to look.
 * Ideally, you would be able to see a customer coming and make a good guess as to whether they'd like to be personally attended on and have you nearby, or if they'd rather you were invisible until they were ready to ask a question. It's these judgements that are the most likely to be useful in a truly upper-class establishment. I don't know of any contemporary manuals, but reading some older manuals of how to be a butler or lady's maid might give some clues as to what people might expect (though not all of it should still be the same - use your own judgement there). Steewi (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your answers, very helpful. -op    84.153.199.127 (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly aside from etiquette, knowledge of the goods or services on sale is crucial. The more I pay, the less tolerance for ignorant sales people I am able to generate. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP ought to do what sales assistants do in most places in Britain - they wait at the payment till for people to process the payment. Often they wander around fiddling with or primping the merchandise, and when you ask them are ready and quick to assist in a helpful and pleasant manner. Since they (hopefully) respond to the customer quickly they must be keeping a discrete eye on them, without making it obvious. 78.146.107.183 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycles
In westren countries there are very very heavy motorbikes, like Harley Davidson, that weigh as much as 300 kg, or even more. If the machine falls on its sides, it must be impossible to make it stand it up. How do they stand it upright ? Is there any mechanism to make it stand if fallen ? Jon Ascton   (talk)  14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to lift it clear off the ground. To merely pivot it up using the wheels as fulcrums and the body as a class 2 lever requires much less strength than that.  Perhaps someone else will run the numbers for you. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * you are right, but certainly Harley Davidson also has a mechanism for dead-lifting it back up to the ground if someone rides it clear off the edge of the earth? I assume in that case it would kind of hover slightly below the surface of the earth, but off its edge.  You would have to dead-lift it in that case. 82.113.106.35 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Do you mean the motorcycle is in a ditch ? StuRat (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the "Western" part as a Honda Goldwing is just as big a bike as a Harley Davidson Electra Glide (and the Yamaha Royal Star Venture and the old Suzuki Cavalcade). Our touring motorcycle makes no mention of righting them once fallen but there is no special equipment on the bikes - just brute strength of you and your buddies. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Motorcycles (even heavy ones) are surprisingly easy to right when they've fallen - I've done it a couple of times myself. If they fall in such a way that there is no solid ground under the wheels, you simply drag them along the ground laterally a foot or two until you can leverage them up.  bad for the bike: it floods the carbs on older machines and plays hell with the paint job, but not difficult. If you happen to drive it all the way off the edge of the earth, however, you have to hope that it will fall near one of the feet of the World Turtle, who will (generally speaking) aid you by lifting it up to the surface again. If you miss the feet, the bike will get wedged in against the bowl of the sky and interfere with celestial motion for a time (and you'll need to get a new bike).  -- Ludwigs 2  15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

online newspaper subscription?
Are there any general coverage newspapers or newsweeklies that I can download online or receive by email? Free is preferable but paid is ok. I do not want a news web site like nytimes.com where I click around between articles and read them while connected to the net. I want to receive the entire day's stories in a single download or email, that I can read offline and save for later reference, like a subscription to a printed paper or magazine. Thanks. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although not the whole thing, just a boiled-down summary, you may be interested in the Guardian's daily email service. You have to register with the Guardian's website to receive the emails. --Richardrj talkemail 16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess that's a start, but I really want the whole shebang, not a boiled down summary. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a daily news email available here http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/email/news  I'm not sure how downloadable it is, but you can apparantly get a weekly digital version of the Guardian Weekly if you also subscribe to the print edition, which can I expect be sent almost anywhere in the world. http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=digitaledition    Not general coverage, but The Economist website says you can subscribe to a digital (weekly) edition. http://www.economist.com/printedition/ 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; unfortunately it looks like the Guardian digital edition is online-only (read in browser with a flash plug-in). I'm looking for an edition that I can download in one go, and then read completely offline.  No more than 5 minutes of internet access per day.  Also I don't want a printed copy, though I guess I could possibly find another taker for it.  I can't really tell what the story is with the Economist, but I'll check into it further.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another option from the Guardian: a downloadable 10-page pdf summary of the day's news.  Can save it to your PC or print it out. --Richardrj talkemail 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks great! I missed this earlier. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you need an RSS reader. Almost all online news sources produce many RSS feeds which can be downloaded all at once and then read on any RSS reader program. An advantage of this system is that you can read many different news sources, blogs, and other web sites in a single feed that you can then read offline. I use Google Reader myself for reading online and on my iPhone. What device do you want to read newspapers on? Desktop, laptop, smartphone, netbook, iPad? You might want to ask on the Computing desk about specific software to use for your situation. —D. Monack talk 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks, that is interesting. I'd be using a laptop.  I had the impression that RSS normally only delivered headlines and short summaries of stories, but I should check into it further.   Looking at nytimes.com's rss page, it's indeed like that, and the NYT has quite a few feeds (probably close to 100 of them), but maybe I could set up something to crawl them and download all the stories.  It looks like it would take some hackery to get the fullsized images from the stories (the RSS includes thumbnail urls).  I was really hoping for a daily one-click zip archive or a large pdf or something of that nature. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

immigrations
i am american citicen that has been used by illegal woman for papers my question is how can i talk to immigrations unless you illegal they will not talk to you i tried everything, just want to be heard it happens alot and no one cares

thank you very much Tony Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.246.99 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This page has contact information (including a toll free phone number and service center physical addresses) for US Citizenship and Immigration Services; or you could contact an immigration lawyer if you need to talk to someone who will be knowledgeable and on your side (since you'll be paying this person for their service and time). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What does mean "being used ... for papers?" Did you marry her and she divorced after she got the papers? It looks like a difficult claim to prove and may even be legal...--88.6.154.49 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the OP was a victim of identity theft? -- Jayron  32  19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this or that, as well. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I, for one, wouldn't help get someone deported even if I knew how. —Tamfang (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're sure you're American? Woogee (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

US Government budget
Where can I find the budget for a specific US government agency (in this case the Storm Prediction Center). All I can find at this point is NOAA's budget, and it doesn't say which agencies get what portion for what purpose, etc. It seems to be called a "blue book", and it details "initiatives" or something like that, along with some description as to what NOAA/the National Weather Service are and do. I need the specific numbers for the Storm Prediction Center (if this can be found), as it has come up in the good article nomination that the article contains very little on the budget, etc side of the agency. Thanks in advance, --Ks1stm (talk) [alternate account of Ks0stm] 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/ appears to be a good place to start.  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  00:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religious texts
I understand that there are people such as Abraham who are common to both the Bible and the Qur'an. So what decided that some of the writings about them were included in the bible, and other writings about them were in the Qur'an? Why wasnt there just one pool of texts? Thanks 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Jewish "bible," which is called the Torah, or the Christian "bible," which is called the New Testament? Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean the bible. I think that article is stretching it to say that there's a Judaism bible, when it's not even called a bible, and I've never heard of that usage before. Thanks. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 78.144.248.81 — the so-called New Testament is considered "the Bible" by Christians but not considered "the Bible" by Jews. At the very least there is nuance involved in using the word Bible with respect to both Judaism and Christianity. And in purely practical terms the theological differences are considerable. The New Testament of Christianity is supposed to supplant the so-called Old Testament of Judaism. Clearly we are talking about differentiation. Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost every bible I've ever seen included the Old Testament as well. Is the word "bible" a Hebrew word even? 78.144.248.81 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 78.144.248.81 — even the term "Old Testament" is a Christian term. And "Bible" need not be a Hebrew term if used by English-speaking Jews. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Bible" is a greek word meaning "a collection of books" (as in "bibliography"). FiggyBee (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the article Canon is just a dab page to some concepts; the article Biblical canon applies specifically to Judaism and Christianity; but the principle is applicable accross all religious faiths, as varied as Islam and Hinduism. The process of deciding which writings are "in" the Canon and which are "out" is a long historical process.  Sometimes, scholars specifically set down and decide which writings to include.  See Synod of Hippo and Luther's canon for some specific articles on how the modern Canon was established for Christianity.  See Development of the Jewish Bible canon and Masoretic Text for the same in Judaism.  -- Jayron  32  21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the full range of all the texts was available to choose from? Texts could have been unavailable and unknown at the time the 'canon' was chosen for various reasons. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever grievance B.s. is hinting at, I suggest that this is not the place. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Greivance? No, I can assure you that you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Disagreement maybe, not grievance. Allow me to clarify. The "bible" is not only the Christian bible as the OP argues above. Again: an English-speaking Jewish person need not use only words in Hebrew. Christianity too is written and spoken in a variety of languages. No one expects a Christian to confine his language use to only one language. Why wouldn't Jews employ an English word such as "bible" too, to refer to their Torah, or their Tanach? Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (against the OP) that the Jewish scriptures can properly be called "the Bible". But my comment is on your first comment here; the text concerning Abraham (in Genesis) is part of the Hebrew Bible and part of the Christian Bible, so by asking "which bible" you raised a non-issue. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP only mentioned Abraham as an example (in his original post). The so-called "bible" preceded the Qur'an chronologically. The three sentences of the OP's original question aren't presented super-clearly, no offense to the OP intended. The OP's last sentence inquires as to why there wasn't "just one pool of texts." That is tantamount to asking why there isn't just one religion. My response was only trying to introduce some uncontroversial elements. The discussion did get a little bit hairy in subsequent exchanges, I will admit. I am not unaware that in the majority of instances, in American English at least, "the bible" is intended to refer to a Christian text. The argument got slightly heated because I wanted to make the point that Judaism has as much claim on an ordinary and nonspecific English word as "bible" as does Christianity, even if in practice this is a fairly rare usage. And you seem to agree about that. So, I'm happy with that outcome. It is my hope that the conversation was only productive. It certainly was not my intention to raise the heat any more than was unavoidable in order to interject a point that I had in mind. Bus stop (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a somewhat parallel discussion going on in one of the other ref desks, possibly the Language desk. "Bible" does come from the Greek words for "book(s)", originally meaning "papyrus", originating from an ancient Phoenician city named Byblos, which was an exporter of papyrus. "Bible" in English has come to mean the sacred or authoritative writings about a topic. Hence "Holy Bible" for what Christians call the Old and New Testaments combined; "Bible" is also an English term used by Jews to refer to their version of what Christians call the Old Testament; and the term is also used for any other (possibly self-styled) authoritative source, e.g. The Sporting News used to call itself "The Bible of Baseball". Complicating matters is liber, the Latin word for "book", from which we get "library", which is arguably equivalent to what the generic version of "bible" is. In fact, in Spanish, for example, librería is not a library, it's a bookstore; whereas biblioteca means "library". The English equivalent for "a collection of books" is "bibliotheca", but that's not a commonly-used term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (Not an expert in Islam, so feel free to correct me.) The Bible is a compilation of several different texts written by different people at different times spanning several centuries. The Qur'an was basically composed by one person (the Prophet Mohammad) at more or less one point in history (across the span of his life). Other writings about Abraham, etc. aren't "included" in the Qur'an because it's not a compilation of disparate sources. It doesn't "include" anything but the Prophet's writings. Staecker (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How did the Prophet Mohammad and the writers of the Old Testament both know about Abraham? What was the common source? 78.144.248.81 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jewish and Christian canons were both well known and largely fixed in their modern forms when Islam was founded. The core texts of Judaism, the Pentateuch were fixed in their modern forms thousands of years before Islam (other parts of the "Old Testament/Hebrew Bible" weren't fixed until much later, say 8th-10th century AD).  The core texts of Christianity, the four Gospels, were fixed and largely accepted several hundred years before the foundation of Islam.  By the 7th century AD, when Islam was founded, Christianity was the state religion, or at least the dominant one, over a wide area of Eurasia and Africa, including Ethiopia, most of Europe that was currently, or had formerly been, part of the Roman Empire or its successor states, many Mongol states, etc. etc.  The Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia (the Arabian homeland) was almost completely surrounded by lands where some form of Judaism or Christianity was the dominant faith; plus Mesopotamia was the homeland of Abraham himself (Ur of the Chaldeans), and stories and traditions related to Abraham and his descendants survived in the area even among non-Judeochristian groups.  There was ample opportunity for Mohammad and his people to be well versed in the Judeochristian traditions, even if they themselves were not part of it. -- Jayron  32  04:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the word of God, not of Muhammad who is merely a messenger. Only messages received from Muhammad are in the Qur'an as earlier scriptures are considered suspect and corrupted by mankind. —D. Monack talk 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks- that's what I meant. I shoul've said Muhammad "wrote it down", not that he composed it. Staecker (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted to Reference desk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Islam as a faith generally recognizes the texts and traditions of Judaism and Christianity as imperfect or apostate revelations of God's truth; that is they were The Truth when God revealed them, but because of misinterpretations and historical changes to that Word, either accidental or on-purpose, those revelations were corrupted, and so the texts, while divinely inspired are not valid to base one's faith on. In other words, there are elements of Gods truth in the Jewish and Christian texts and traditions, but they are not the full truth.  The only full truth, and thus the only valid text on which to base one's faith, is the Qu'ran.  They do not deny the historical truth of those texts (i.e. Abraham, Moses, Jesus were all real people) nor do they deny the importance or even devoutness of those key figures (they were devout believers in God; considered to be important Prophets which revealed aspects or elements of Gods truth), but they do not need to follow the earlier, imperfect prophets because they now have access to the perfect text, the Qu'ran.  So, it is possible for them to both recognize the importance of pre-Qu'ranic texts and religious leaders, and also believe that, since Mohammed and the Qu'ran, there is no need to follow those texts and leaders, because the real deal now exists.  -- Jayron  32  04:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have to disagree about it being cross posted, since they are different questions, although they are both about religious texts. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should have been "cross posted" without consulting with the person originally posting this question here. Bus stop (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with what Monack and Jayron have said above, but I have a few quibbles. The Jewish and Christian Bibles share an account of Abraham (and of other figures mentioned in the Jewish or Hebrew Bible, which—with the books placed in a different order—Christians call the Old Testament).  This account was first written down between about 700 and 500 BCE, in Hebrew.  This written account drew on earlier oral and possibly earlier written texts.  Scholars differ on the details of the sources of the Hebrew Bible, including how old the original oral texts (i.e., sagas or legends) might be.  According to tradition, the account of Abraham in Genesis was written by Moses, but serious scholars do not accept that Moses was the author.


 * More than a thousand years later, Muhammad became a religious leader in Arabia. According to Muslims, the Quran consists of messages from God spoken by Muhammad.  Muhammad did not write these messages down.  He proclaimed them, and his followers then memorized them and wrote them down to become the Quran.  Non-Muslim scholars would suggest that Muhammad would have been exposed to Jewish and Christian beliefs and even writings and that these may have influenced the material in the Quran.  In addition to Jewish and Christian sources, Muhammad would have been exposed to Arabic oral texts.  Since a number of Arabic tribes claim descent from Abraham through his first-born son, Ishmael, these would probably have included oral texts about Abraham. It might well be that there was in ancient times a common pool of legends about Abraham, though it might also be that those who claimed descent from Abraham through Ishmael (ancestors of some Arabs) had one set of legends, and those who claimed descent through Isaac (ancient Jews) had another set.  Even if there was once a single set of legends about Abraham, those legends were committed to writing in the Jewish Bible long before Muhammad proclaimed the Quran. So, if Arabic legends influenced Muhammad, they would likely have undergone some elaboration or reinterpretation in the course of centuries of oral retelling.  Marco polo (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's one thing more certain than another, it's that Muhammad never read any written Biblical text, whether Jewish or Christian. However, he did have conversations with some of the Christians and Jews who were accessible to him in the Hijaz (not always Christians and Jews that were most knowledgeable about and orthodox in their own religions, apparently).  This purely oral mode of transmission explains why Muhammad conflated Biblical narratives with much later folkloric and midrashic elaborations of Biblical narratives, and why he did such things as having Haman of the Book of Esther work with the Pharoah of the Book of Exodus to build the Tower of Babel of the Book of Genesis, or apparently confusing Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam sister of Moses (calling Mary &#1575;&#1576;&#1606;&#1577; &#1593;&#1605;&#1585;&#1575;&#1606;&#1548; &#1571;&#1582;&#1578; &#1607;&#1585;&#1608;&#1606;) despite the fact that the two women lived over a thousand years apart, etc. etc..  He also apparently sometimes talked with Samaritans, since it's quite difficult to imagine how Muhammad ever would have gotten the very strange idea of accusing Jews of worshipping Ezra as the son of God except by accepting at face value wild Samaritan accusations against Judaism.


 * When the Qur'an is looked at from the point of view of historical content, it really doesn't contain any solid history (as opposed to commonly circulating folklore like the Alexander Romance) that would have been beyond the memories of Muhammad's father's generation. Many knowledgeable Jews and Christians will concede that the Qur'an contains a number of solid precepts of morality and many impassioned ethical injunctions, but they find it to be a rather strong let-down or anti-climax when they compare such things as the account of Solomon in the Bible vs. the account of Solomon in the Qur'an (to take one example):  the Bible contains a detailed history, with many personal names, place names, and detailed recounting of events, not omitting various criticisms of Solomon (see 1 Kings chapter 11).  By contrast, the Qur'an contains a purely  folkloric legend about Solomon's occultistic powers in conversing with ants, a fantasy which floats free of any connection with history.  Many Jews and Christians also have not necessarily been too impressed by the fact that where there are any differences between the Bible and the Qur'an, the traditional Muslim indiscriminate blanket answer was always that the slightest potential discrepancy between the Qur'an and Jewish or Christian texts signals that the Jewish or Christian texts must ipso facto necessarily be "corrupted"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Many knowledgeable Jews and Christians" meaning, of course, yourself. Your comment is informative, but your tone is too inflammatory for the Reference Desk. I'd add, following your style, that "many atheists" find such arrogant comments by "many Jews and Christians" ridiculous, given that all of their own holy books also contain tons of obvious folkloric material and fantasies. If one has chosen to subscribe to one's own sanctified fairy tales, at least one shouldn't criticize other such groups' sanctified fairy tales for not being science.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are going to go there, you'll have to admit that "many atheists" are too arrogant to accept that some of that material is historical material. There are huge chunks of the Old Testament that are just regular chronicles. Of course God is mentioned everywhere, but so what? That is true of thousands of other chronicles that do not happen to have become religious scriptures. All AnonMoos was saying is that a chronicle of Solomon's reign is different than having Solomon talk to ants. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever, guy -- I could cite a number of websites showing that I'm far from alone in my thinking, but probably you would consider them to be too "inflammatory". Meanwhile, I would be the first to admit that the Bible contains much legendary or mythological material -- but it also contains much historical material, and it's usually not too hard to tell the two apart.  I'm sorry if you found my tone too acerbic, but I presented some mostly objectively verifiable basic facts as a corrective to the rather implausible scenarios which some here seemed to be spinning -- such as the hypothesis of there being thousands of years of traditions in Arabia about Abraham completely independent of Jewish religion and scriptures (which seems to be prohibitively unlikely, given the treatment of other ancient themes in the Qur'an).


 * The thing is that even when the Bible is more legendary than historical, it presents a consistent internal relative chronology -- where the Antediluvian Age precedes the Age of the Patriarchs, the Age of the Patriarchs precedes the Age of the Sojourn in Egypt and Exodus, the Age of the Sojourn in Egypt and Exodus precedes the Age of Judges, the Age of Judges precedes the Age of the United Monarchy (David and Solomon), the Age of the United Monarchy precedes the Age of the Divided Monarchies, the Age of the Divided Monarchies precedes the Age of the Judean Monarchy, the Age of the Judean Monarchy precedes the Age of the Babylonian Exile, and the Age of the Babylonian Exile precedes the Age of Ezra and Nehemiah.  In the Bible, figures from one era are never presented as interacting with figures from other eras in a manner which would violate this internal chronology.  So when Muhammad violates the Biblical internal chronology, and has Haman (from the Age of Ezra and Nehemiah) building the tower  of Babel (from the Age of the Patriarchs), it really reveals that he has no real grasp of the overall Biblical scheme of history -- as could be expected from someone who had listened to oral narratives of folklorically elaborated versions of selected Bible stories, but never read the Bible as a written text.  If one were to read a book where Winston Churchill was depicted as serving under King Richard the Lionhearted, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the author either really didn't know much about history, or didn't care much about history and was writing a pure inventive fantasy. AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC) AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so Muslims believe a "wrong" version of the silly fantastical crap that Jews and Christians believe. So what? A better example would be: If one were to read a book where Sauron was the headmaster of Hogwarts, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the author didn't read the LOTR and Harry Potter. 41.213.125.249 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're perfectly free to continue to believe that all religions are "bunk" (to quote Henry Ford) -- but such a universal state of pan-religious bunkitude actually has little direct relationship with the question I was discussing, namely whether there's any realistic probability that the Qur'an preserves additional valid historical information and/or surviving ancient traditions about the prominent figures of the Jewish and Christian Bible, beyond what is known by Jews and Christians. On a number of grounds -- logical, historical,  and internal documentary -- the most objective answer to this question is that it's overwhelmingly improbable that such is the case.  (This answer holds whether or not it's true that all religions are "bunk".)  I don't think that one has to be a Jewish or Christian fanatic to recognize the basic fact that the various Biblical texts are slotted in along an internally-consistent timeline, and that the Biblical authors preserved much historical information, as far as was consistent with their particular purposes and motivations (which were not always primarily historical), and recognizing that strict quasi-modern history of the Thucydides type simply didn't yet exist in the world during most of the time when the Bible was written.  Conversely, I don't think one has to be a biased anti-Muslim bigot to recognize the basic fact that Muhammad was unaware of and/or uninterested in this whole painfully accumulated and elaborated Biblical timeline, so that pretty much anything more than a generation back from  the Year of the Elephant fell into a kind of legendary dreamtime, where there was no real chronological structuring (other than a few specified ancestor-descendant genealogical relationships), so that Mary mother of Jesus was free to become the sister of Aaron (the brother of Moses), etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

vote pairing
I'm a libdem supporter in a Labour/Tory marginal; is there anywhere where I can vote pair with a labour supporter in a tory/libdem marginal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.31.228 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is useful information, and a list of links, on this site, at least covering the principle of tactical voting in the UK. I would have thought it likely that other sites will spring up over the next couple of weeks.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you need recourse to vote for another party - often tactical voting occurs without vote pairing, based on a percieved preference to "keep someone out". If you have a preference between Labour and the Tories, as many do, you may not feel the need to vote pair. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously. But some sites, like the one I linked to, try to give objective guidance in cases where these things may not be clear.  For instance, in the small town where I live, the local options are, effectively, Con or Lib Dem, but in the wider parliamentary constituency as a whole Labour get a reasonably high percentage of votes.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why our preferential system is nice. I can vote 1 for my candidate of my choice, give them their $2 and register my dissatisfaction with the major parties, then vote 2 for whichever of the possible winners I least don't want to be elected. :) FiggyBee (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to source a quotation about economics.
It's something I read somewhere a while ago, which makes a point that I'd like to quote in a specific conext, with proper attribution.

The quotation reads, approximately,


 * "economics is fiction written in equations".

Googling brings up: "http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926680.100-crazy-money.html". I am a subscriber, so it's probable I read the printed article. The full quote is:
 * "Put simply, the orthodox economics and finance taught today in universities and business schools cannot be considered a science in any sense (not even a dismal one); it is no more than a fiction written in equations rather than prose"

I no longer have the printed copy, and am a bit disoriented with the web layout. My questions are: Thanks, --NorwegianBluetalk 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) to whom should the quote be attributed? Is appears to be Andrew Slater(?)
 * 2) if so, who is Andrew Slater? Is there a the Andrew Slater? (googling sugests there are many Andrew Slaters).
 * 3) Does the quotation have any similar precedents, that did not turn up in my google search, which should more properly be quoted?
 * Andrew Slater appears to be just some opinionated reader of the magazine. The stuff he writes about economics being fiction is a tired old clich&eacute;, though there is truth to it.  Economics may say similar things (I haven't looked). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's from the Andrew Slater who claims to live in Sevenoaks, Kent, UK. Perhaps a phone book from the region would allow you to identify him further. But I doubt he's anyone notable. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --NorwegianBluetalk 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Politics
On the extreme left of the political spectrum is communism, and on the extreme right is fascism. However, these two ideologies seem essentially the same. Are they really? If so, why are they considered on opposite sides of the political spectrum? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Our Political spectrum article mentions this very issue at the beginning and explores several more sophisticated attempts at charting different political and social viewpoints on several axes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Because the idea of politics being on a spectrum is extremely limited. It ceases to make much sense at the extremes. It doesn't make a great deal of sense in the middle, really (at the very least, you need to consider more than just one dimension - the political compass is one attempt to do that). The ideologies behind communism and fascism are very different but in practice the states that result are very similar. --Tango (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the idea of a 'political spectrum' is that it confuses some very different ideas. The only 'spectrum' that people are actually concerned about is a liberal-idealist spectrum (from government that fulfills its obligations to the people being governed to government that despotically abuses the people being governed).  Totalitarian state governments always lean towards the 'bad' end of that spectrum, and it really doesn't matter what philosophy such a state espouses, since all it is really interested in is domination, to a massive degree.  both 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' proponents are (usually) interested in government that fulfills its obligations to the people, and both try to demonize their opponents by equating their opponents with groups at the 'bad' end of the spectrum.  Basically, liberals call conservatives 'fascists' and conservatives call liberals 'commies', and the confusion that creates gives the truly bad people all the cover they need to pursue despotic domination unhindered.  kinda sucks.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "liberal-idealist" as synonyms, opposites, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean it in the sense of 'the ideals of liberalism' - basically the ideal that a government's only purpose is to serve the collective interest and protect the sovereignty of its individual citizens (ala John Locke). Both capitalism and Marxism (in their pure forms) are liberal-idealist: They both advocate for the freedom of the individual within the collectivity (it's just that Marxism portrays capitalism as a despotism of the capitalist class, and capitalism portrays Marxism as the suppression of individual enterprise).  Note that the Nazi's were ostensibly socialists, but one of the first things they did when they took power was to purge  communists, Marxists and social democrats form the political system. -- Ludwigs 2  04:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to consider both social and economic matters. Both are extremely authoritarian (regarded as right wing), while communism takes part in large scale economic intervention (regarded as left wing). Historic fascists have been slightly left of centre when it comes to economic intervention.--92.251.166.223 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because most people are moderate, any extreme policy will require similar extreme methods. —Tamfang (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Main article is Horseshoe theory... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What both these ideologies have in common is that they reject "progressive" liberal democracy of the English, American, and French revolutionary type. Communists thought liberal democracy hadn't gone far enough, whereas fascists thought liberal democracy had been a bad idea to start with. Communists wanted to fulfil liberal democracy's broken promises of true freedom and equality, whereas fascists wanted to obliterate all traces of it. So in theory and in inspiration, communism and fascism are diametrically opposed, and that is why they are considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum. In practice, what the two movements achieved when in power was very similar in many respects - by rejecting liberal democracy, both produced modernized editions of mediaeval-style despotism. That's why they may "seem essentially the same" or at least similar to many.

Still, there are important differences even between their practical workings as determined by their ideologies: a relatively greater emphasis on science, education and social welfare in communist regimes and on national identity, orderliness and subordination in fascist regimes. The social mobility as well as the social cataclisms have been much greater in communism, which was generally opposed to the old elites in its entirety, than in fascism, which was often supported by them as an antithesis to communism.

Communism has been the more schizophrenic of the two, because it has changed much more in different times and places, often coming close to fascism. Fascism promised to create hierarchical empires and when it achieved pretty much the opposite results in the end of WW2, there was no way for it to convince itself that it had succeeded. Communism promised to create egalitarian republics and as it kept achieving pretty much the opposite results, it kept trying to convince itself that these results were somehow consistent with its original objectives; as a result, a self-professed "communist" today can be anything between an unusually populist fascist and an unusually radical democrat.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IP 91.148... very nice assessment.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We've been through discussions many times before at WP:RDH about the logic behind the political spectrum. There are various different proposals to use other axis than left-right, but somehow none of them has caught root. The problem is sort of the following: I think 'X' is the most important feature in political life. Thus I create a theoretical model where I measure all political actors on how they relate to 'X'. The result is quite self-revealing, the model will show the political party I like favourably, and will show those I don't like in a negative light. As a result, noone else than my own co-thinkers will adopt it.
 * Depending on how you frame the question, you can link virtually any ideology with another. In some respects, fascism and liberalism have common features than communism lacks, in other respects communists and liberalism hold similar views and fascists don't. Etc, etc... --Soman (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)