Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 6

= July 6 =

attribution of a passage on Coleridge
Found scribbled among some notes:
 * The irresolution and lack of practical energy, which so deeply marred his later life, had already begun their injurious work with him.

I recall this as being from the introduction of a student or pocket edition c. 1900. Editor, I want to say Katherine somebody? Cyrusc 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? It sounds like something Thomas Carlyle wrote in his Characters.  He would say, eventually, that Coleridge looked like "an archangel, slightly damaged."  Geogre 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be thinking of the eminent Coleridge scholar Kathleen Coburn, though her dates (1905-1991) don't square with your memory. However, in the 60s she was the editor of the Coleridge volume of Twentieth Century Interpretations, which were collections of critical essays for undergraduates. This may be the link. --Halcatalyst 03:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Google's book search suggests it is in Coleridge's Ancient Mariner by Katharine Lee Bates.  meltBanana  03:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse-five
Billy Pilgrim finds a soft drink bottle on the windowsill, whose label boasted "that it contained no nourishment whatsoever." Is this reference to an actual marketing campaign, or just some satire about soda? In my copy, it's on page 73 (Bantam, 1991). Thanks. Llamabr 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd put a lot of the family fortune on a bet that it is a typical Vonnegut joke. I suspect it refers to the great long lists ("boastful") of ingredients that, in summation, show that there is no nutrition. Bielle 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any zero-calorie diet drink could be considered as having "no nourishment whatever". --Anonymous, July 6, 02:45 (UTC).

Hmm. I was hoping that some actual soft drink company employed this as a slogan during the 60's. If one hasn't, someone ought to. Llamabr 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That kind of irony would have sunk like a lead balloon in the 60s. Nowadays we're surrounded by postmodern ironies, where people and corporations poke fun at themselves, so we think it's common. Back then it wouldn't have worked. -- Charlene 07:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Salary
What is a marine biologist's average salary in Florida? I have looked everywhere and can't find anything. Any help would be nice. Thanks.
 * I don't know, but have you tried calling the careers service of some universities in the area?


 * $40,697, though presumably that varies a fair bit by subdiscipline, experience, &c. If you are already a marine biologist, try an online cost-of-living calculator to get an idea of what to ask for. If you are a student deciding on a major or somesuch your department certainly has recruitment resources. Elsewise, check the relevant professional society (American Physical Society, for me), they should have job listings at the very least. NOAA has lots of information about being a marine biologist. This Stanford site lists some career resources, though nothing looked like collated statistics. Good luck. -Eldereft 08:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

typeface
Good day

my name is Valerie Towson, I work for Fox Publishing in SA. Our company is running a really fun competition at the moment and I am hoping you could help me with one of the questions.

the question is: Which font (typeface) was designed by an editor while on a long boat journey in the 19th century?

Thank you

Valerie Towson


 * I think if your company has set a quiz, for us to provide the answer would be cheating. You could start with the Font article, though. Good luck.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We also have a list of type designers.--Shantavira|feed me 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with a recent Guinness World Records book?
Could someone see if it has any listings for longest city in the world and if so, that it's City and County of Honolulu. If you do find it, tell me what edition and what page number so I can reference it in the article (or do it yourself). The article used to claim it was the longest city in the world according to Guinness but this didn't agree with the reference (who doesn't say anything about Guinness) Nil Einne 07:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just checked 5 or 6 different editions of Guinness from 1973 to 2005. None of them had a listing for "longest" city, and I do not remember ever seeing such an expression used before.  I do remember seeing a claim long ago that Honolulu was the world's largest city by area, but that's clearly not true now, if it ever was.  This is a category that has been in Guinness: in 1973 they said Kiruna, in 1984 and several later editions up to 1997 Mount Isa.  The next edition I have after 1997 that I can find is 2005, which has dropped this category.  --Anonymous, July 6, 2007, 08:45 (UTC).


 * You can search for world records on their website, http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/ but "longest city" is a weird idea. Presumably you want the largest city.--Shantavira|feed me 09:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or "Longest city name?" in which case, Los Angeles is properly El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula, and Bangkok is Krungthep Mahanakhon Amonrattanakosin Mahintharayutthaya Mahadilokphop Noppharatratchathani Burirom-udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amonphiman Awatansathit Sakkathattiya Witsanu Kamprasit. Totnesmartin 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikpedia article still claims this 'longest city' record, but I am not sure that I quite understand what the article means by that... Lanfear&#39;s Bane


 * Longest city is not such a weird concept when you consider the odd shapes of some countries. Chile would probably qualify as the country with the greatest disparity between its longest and shortest dimensions (north-south vs. east-west).  Most cities tend to be roughly round in shape, but maybe there's a major city somewhere that is disproportionately long along one axis.  --  JackofOz 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's the list of countries by compactness. Chile is one of the last. A.Z. 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "longest city" would be the one with the greatest distance between the two most distant points within the city limits. If a city is unconstrained (Indianapolis comes to mind) with no natural barriers, it should spread out like a blob. If it has a bay (San Francisco) it is forced to expand around the bay, but is constrained by the presence of adjacent towns. New Orleans is constrained by a Lake (and by other cities being across the river). So a city on a strip of land on an island, or between 2 bodies of water, might be more notable for being long than for being large. Chicago had to extend the city limits with a narrow neck of land to annex the O'Hare airport, and is constrained by the lake, so it is fairly long. It also expanded, like other cities, by annexing adjoining cities. The success of this depends on politics within the state, and on having something the residents of an adjoining town want, in exchange for giving up their independence. It is difficult to tell on Mapquest or Google maps where the city limits are, and what is the next town versus a named community or neighborhood within the actual town, but Honolulu looks way less "long" than Chicago, taken from the NW corner of O'Hare to the next town SE along Lake Michigan. Where does Honolulu stop at the SE and NW? Edison 14:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the idea. I hadn't heard the concept used before this question was asked.  As to San Francisco, though, it hasn't expanded around the bay; it's a roughly square city at the tip of the peninsula between the bay and the ocean. Of course if we were using "city" in the metropolitan-area sense it would be different, but in this context the subject is official cities, under a single municipal government.  --Anonymous, July 6, 21:55 (UTC).


 * Actually the website only features a small number of records, which was why I wanted to see if there was anything in the book. "Remember that our website features only a small selection of the 40,000 records listed in the Guinness World Records database." Nil Einne 05:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A look at the article reveals Nil Einne's meaning. Honolulu city limits includes several minor islands off Hawaii, so "longest" includes these as well. Tokyo has the same thing there {the Izu Islands coming under Tokyo city boundaries) so Honolulu has a rival in this respect. Lets see: Tokyo's islands reach for 1850 km, and Honolulu's for 2221. So Honolulu wins. Totnesmartin 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But Juneau, Alaska, land and water, has an area of 3,255 sq. mi. Don'e know how long it is, though.  Corvus cornix 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Sochi is claimed to be the longest city in Europe, at 90 miles, but it's not really contiguous. There is a discussion on the subject on Talk:Sochi. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that's how I got involved in this. There was an issue with sourcing for the claim Sochi is the longest city in the world according to some definitions. I quickly found out that the wikipedia article for City and County of Honolulu claimed it was the longest city in the world according to the Guinness Book of World Records (sic). This was sourced but upon checking, I found out the source said nothing about it being a Guinness World Record. Google didn't help and I searched on the website but that only features a small number of records. So I came here to check and it appears there is no Guinness World Record. Personally, I don't really give a damn since it sounds like a bit of a silly record especially given all the technicalities involved I was only really interested in it from the wikipedia sourcing aspect Nil Einne 05:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How US associate degrees compare with british degrees
We do not have associate dgrees here in the UK, or at least we didnt when I used to be a student. I'm curious what they would be equivalent to in the UK education system. Thanks. 80.0.130.158 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly Foundation degrees? DuncanHill 13:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Churchill
Was Churchill's performance as war time prime minister ever criticised, and if so why? Essex teen 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is this mention in the article on Churchill and the article on the bombing to provide more detail. Lanfear&#39;s Bane

He faced at least two votes of confidence in the House of Commons, one in May 1940 after his appointment as Prime Minister, and one in January 1942 (you can read his speech on that occasion here). At the crisis of the war, in July 1942, his opponents called for a vote of censure against him, claiming that the management of the whole war effort was beyond his powers and that a new war leader should be appointed (Churchill's response is here). Gdr 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to that response of his. It's amazing and depressing just how substantive it was, as compared to the sorts of wartime cheerleadering we endure today.  --TotoBaggins 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a truism that history is written by the victors, one that achieves, perhaps, its most perfect expression in the wartime career of Winston Churchill; for he was both a writer and a victor. In retrospect, his position seems assured: the craftsman of victory, standing above all others. By 1945 he was in a position of great srength, both as Prime Minister and as leader of the Conservative Party. However, if one takes a bottom up, rather than a top down, approach to history, it can be seen that there were times in the first half of the war when he was subject to quite detailed criticism, criticism that could coneivably have led to his political downfall, much like that of Neville Chamberlain in May 1940. He survived in part because of the personal support he enjoyed in the country, in part because of his standing in international politcs, and in part because his chief rivals had none of his determination. He survived, above all, because he was a superlative manager of the whole Parliamentary process, arguably the greatest of his singular talents.

To begin with we have to understand one salient point: Churchill is unlikely ever to have become Prime Minister but for the military crisis of 1940. For years before this he had been an isolated and unpopular figure within the Conservative Party, prepared to say things that nobody wanted to hear. It's almost certain that the bulk of his fellow MPs would have preferred Lord Halifax to replace Chamberlain; but Halifax, unlike Churchill, was not a fighter. Both country and Parliament united behind Churchill in the summer of 1940, and his position was consolidated by victory over the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. But once the immediate danger had passed, and final victory became ever more elusive, then the potential weakness of his position began to show. The first crisis came with the virtual collapse of the Mediterranean front in 1941.

Churchill had taken the decision to spread British forces across two theatres of war, in Libya and in Greece. Inadequate for the task, by the spring of 1941 the army was forced to give way to Axis forces on both fronts. In Parliament Churchill's opponents, under the leadership of David Lloyd George, who had led the country to victory in 1918, prepared for their own onslaught. Churchill, whose strategic judgement on this occasion was at serious fault, neverthless was superb in Parliamentary counter-attack. He decided to force a vote of confidence at just the right time. In the debate that followed he likened Lloyd George, effectively head of the 'peace party', to Marshall Petain. This was enough for the waverers, fearful of the political consequences of voting against the Prime Minister. For Churchill the debate probably came at just the right time, between the British withdrawal from mainland Greece and the German airborne assault on Crete. The eventual evacuation of Crete in May was likely to have been just one Dunkirk too many.

The second crisis, which came in early 1942, was if anything, even more serious, because the Prime Minister at last looked as if he was losing the suport of the country at large. The Japanese entry into the war led to a succession of military disasters in the Far East, peaking in February 1942 with the loss of Singapore. There were many, even among Churchill's supporters, who believed the government was effectively 'doomed', likening the situation in Malaya to that in Norway earlier in the war, which had caused the demise of Chamberlain. Fortunately for Churchill, there was no-one as well-placed as he had been in 1940, no-one with the same dregree of determination. Critics were 'silenced' by fresh promotions, or, in the case of Stafford Cripps, sent off on impossible political missions. The ambitious Anthony Eden, the 'crown prince' of the Conservative party, was consoled by assurances that the Prime Minister's departure was 'imminent'; it was to remain 'imminent' for years after. Parliament grumbled; but with no leadership contender, retreated into silent acquiescence.

The fall of Tobruk in June 1942 was the last great strategic disaster of Churchill's career. Criticism surfaced yet again, but, once again, no acceptable alternative leader emerged. Besides, Churchill had proved his value on the international stage, by ensuring that Stalin, disappointed by the failure of the western allies to open a second front in Europe, would not be tempted to make a separate peace with the Germans. The military news might be bad, but Churchill's relationship with both Stalin and Roosevelt made him 'an asset of incalculable value', as one of his former opponents remarked at the time. And thus he remained, and thus he passed into history. Clio the Muse 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What have Islamic terrorists got against the west?
Its an obvious question, but I don't know the answer. There was terrorism even before the invasion of Iraq. What don't they like about us? 80.0.132.127 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Every group has different justifications for its actions, but some of the most common ones are the West's support of Israel, the stationing of U.S. troops in the Middle East (Especially Saudi Arabia) and the perceived "godlessness" of Western culture when compared to Islamic fundamentalism. GhostPirate 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another reason would be the West's backing of repressive regimes in Muslim countries that do the West's bidding (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia). Also, I don't think that it is simply the West's support of Israel, but the West's unbending support of Israel even when Israel commits war crimes against the Palestinians, seizes their land, etc. Many Muslims, particularly Arabs, see the West, and particularly the United States and Britain, as their committed enemies. And because of repressive regimes in Arab countries and the desperation of the Palestinians, some Arabs feel that they have no hope for the future and nothing to lose and may seek an eternal reward through martyrdom.  Marco polo 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic political fundamentalism (Al Qaeda etc) seeks to revive the Islamic Caliphate, a Medieval theocratic system of government that has virtually nothing in common with modern Western liberal representative democracy. That is, ultimately, what they have against the West. Support for Israel, Saudi Arabia etc is an excuse. Batmanand | Talk 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of Muslims do not support Islamic political fundamentalism and do not hate the West, although they may be critical of various aspects of Western culture as they see it (which may be distorted, just like many people everywhere have a distorted view of cultures they are not familiar with). And those who do hate it, often still have a love–hate relation to it. But, unfortunately, a not uncommon kind of view is that of the West, or powerful factions of the West led by America/Wall Street/Zionists/..., being out to attack and destroy Arabic culture/Muslims/Islam. This can turn into a justification of terrorist acts as self-defence, and is used by fundamentalist propaganda. While we're discussing this here, probably some people in Islamic countries are wondering and discussing what the West has got against Islam. --Lambiam Talk  21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think every literate person in the west should become acquainted with the life, work, and thought of Sayyid Qutb, probably the major intellectual force behind current radical Islamism.  My own first encounter with him was in Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism (2002, I think).  I think a lot of people want the same question answered, expressed sometimes as "why do they hate us so much?"  Berman's book traces the intellectual roots of contemporary Islamist terrorism, and he spends a lot of time on Qutb.  Antandrus  (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It also helps that the Qur'an divides the world into Muslims and non-Mulsims, and, between it and the hadith, sends the message that the entire world should submit to Islam, either by conversion or by subjugation. The Jade Knight 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually this is not true. "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error" (Quran, 2:256) It should also be noted that the more extreme versions of Christianity spend a large part of their time trying to convert others. S.dedalus 02:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is true. Muhammad required those who opposed him to either convert or be subjected to his rule and pay the non-Muslim Islamic tax.  Conversion is not required, but those who do not convert are required to submit to Muslim rule and pay special non-Muslim taxes.  In some cases, conversion has been specifically required, as well (consider studying, for example, the Ridda Wars).  Read the Qur'an, study the Hadith, and check out al-Tabari's history, and it will become quite clear that from the beginning Islam has been a religion requiring conversion or subjugation (generally the choice was given, however).  The Jade Knight 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people misunderstand this, however, and think that conversion was required. This was usually not the case (with a few exceptions, such as the Ridda Wars).  Those who did not wish to convert were allowed to retain their religion by paying special taxes and being ruled by Muslims.  If you want a quote from the Qur'an, consider this:
 * "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (9:29)
 * In other words, the Qur'an is commanding that Muslims fight non-Muslims who do not submit to Muslim rule and pay a special tax (the Jizyah). The Jade Knight 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can also ask, what do they want to achieve with their bombs? Are they punishment, and encouragement to withdraw from Iraq and so on, attempts at colonisation, or what? 80.2.196.144 08:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Iraqi insurgency. S.dedalus 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the ultimate answer is wealth and power. America is the richest, most powerful country on the planet. Even in countries like the UK, which are allied to America, do pretty well out of the alliance and have broadly the same cultural outlook, there are those who resent that. In countries that have a completely different cultural outlook but still find themselves subordinate to the USA, that resentment is much greater. Many those countries have totalitarian regimes that allow no dissent, often set up or supported by America to control access to their oil reserves. The people of those countries have no political power to do anything about the situation, and they blame America, not unreasonably as its power has either created their powerlessness or benefits from it. Deny people a reasonable voice and they'll turn to unreason - violent religious fanaticism. That's probably a bit of a simplification, but I think it's a valid explanation. --Nicknack009 22:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tour de force, ... er ... France
What time does the race start on Saturday? 86.154.103.50 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That information was surprisingly hard to find!


 * Apparently what will be held on Saturday (tomorrow/today, depending on where you are) is a "prologue" consisting of an individual time trial on a short course in central London, i.e. the racers will start at separate times and not in a mass. The first one will start at 3 pm British time (which is 4 pm in France, 14:00 UTC, or in North America 10 am EDT, 7 am PDT) and this will go on for about 3 hours.  The main race will start the next day (Sunday) at 11 am British time (noon in France, 10:00 UTC, 6 am EDT, 3 am PDT).  See here.  --Anonymous, July 6, 2007, 23:28 (UTC).


 * Thanks. 86.154.103.50 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)