Humanities desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 4

British American football teams

In an episode of Family Guy, Peter joins the "London Sillynannies", an effeminate English football (not soccer) team. I didn't think there was such a thing, but I looked it up and was surprised to learn that there really is a British American Football League. My question is, what is the popular perception of these teams in Britain? Do people make fun of them? Is there a stereotype of people who watch American football rather than soccer or other sports?

Also, isn't London Blitz an offensive name (because of the London Blitz)? —Keenan Pepper 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No British person would find the use offensive in this context. Clio the Muse 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a minority sport in Britain that I don't think any popular perceptions have really bedded in. The accusation of effeminacy comes from the perceived contrast between the clothes worn onfield by American footballers and players of rugby, which is an extremely popular sport in some parts of the UK. People wonder why American footballers need so much padding and protection when players of rugby, which is at least as physical a sport if not more so, have nothing except a mouth guard and a jock strap for company. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this attitude a lot among British sports fans. It's ironic, because the last thing Americans would ever think about (American) football is that it's somehow wimpy. Players are always getting horribly mangled. A couple of NFL players have been paralyzed from game injuries. This may be because the type of contact in American football is different than the type of contact in rugby, where interference and forward passing are illegal. A wide receiver (who typically weighs under 200 lbs.) will often have to leap in the air, completely unprotected, and then get whammed by a 260-pound linebacker who has a head start of several seconds. Quarterbacks are often hit completely from the blindside with no warning by people weighing up to 100 lbs. more than them. Not that rugby players aren't insane in what they go through. -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pro team called the London Monarchs, who played in a European league for a while, with some success. Their profile rose and fell but never really captured the public's imagination, despite some "celebrity" signings and other razzmatazz. I'd say that their press coverage was respectful. Unfortunately, the Brits are sports-crazy and it's a hard to break a new sport into the marketplace. There's an excellent parallel with Harlequins Rugby League, who've been trying without overwhelming success to break a (northern) British sport into a new (southern) British area (ie London) for several decades, again without overwhelming progress, despite patches of on-the-field success. PS I think that the London Monarchs were badly named - it may have sounded good to an American PR guru, but the naming coincided with one of the least popular periods for the Royal family... and how butch does "Monarchs" sound????!!?! Amateur (British) American football has zero profile, outside of the players' circles. --Dweller 08:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be more a university thing; I've seen a couple of unis with American Football teams. La ï ka 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would dearly love to see an exhibition match (for some good charity) in which an American pro football team would play against a Britise football (rugby) team. After all, the two sports only diverged in the 1880's and both a re collision sports. By coin toss, they would play one game for a half and then the other game for a half. Each team would get, say a week's training in the rules, equipment, and strategy of the other team. Leaving aside the unequal scoring schemes, it would be fascinating to see those tough Rugby guys try to deal with the size and power of the American linemen. The college players drafted into the NFL as offensive linemen typically weigh over 300 pounds (135 kg) and have to be fast on their feet (40 yards in a little over 5 seconds), and tall (many over 6 feet 6 inches (198cm)) and strong (25 reps of 225 pounds (102 kg))[1]. Other positions will be lighter and faster. The padding was necessitated by the high death rate among college and professional atheletes, to avoid the sport being banned altogether as a gladiatorial spectacle. [2] gives stats for Rugby players but I'm not sure which would be comparable in relative level of competition. They seem to be lighter in general but comparable in speed with U.S players.Edison 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would take more than a week to teach American football. It takes years to understand blocking assignments, pass patterns, zone defences, etc. That's why the playground games of football you'll see on American streets looks very little like the game played in stadiums. -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would doubtless take more than a week to learn Rugby, so both sides would be on an equal footing. Edison 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a futile exercise. A similar thing was tried between England's (then) leading Rugby Union and Rugby League teams... from our article on Bath Rugby:

In May 1996, Bath Rugby and Wigan RLFC made history by playing against each other at both codes. The first match was at Maine Road, Manchester under League rules - result Wigan 82 Bath 6; then two weeks later the return match under Union rules was held at Twickenham - result Bath 44 Wigan 19.

All it really proved was that each team was better at its own sport than the other, although fans of league had some justification for claiming the victory on points difference. If you did the same for either code of Rugby (you don't stipulate which, perhaps you're unaware of the difference - see Comparison of rugby league and rugby union) against American footballers, I can pretty much guarantee serious injuries, particularly at the scrimmage and in the scrummage. --Dweller 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and Punishment Translations

I've never got around to reading Crime and Punishment, so I thought I'd sit down with it over Christmas. Any thoughts on which translation is the best? The Crime and Punishment article says the Constance Garnett is the classic translation, but doesn't go any further than that... Thanks, GreatManTheory 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garnett's is one of the original and best translations, and it was her version that I first read. There are more up to date translations by Jessie Coulson-Oxford-and David McDuff-Penguin. Clio the Muse 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Garnett is the "classic" in the sense of being the 19th c. translation that made Dostoevsky felt in English. But the modern classic is Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Look into it & I'm sure you'll easily find some of the rapturous reviews their Dostoevsky translations (and their Anna Karenina; still waiting for War & Peace tho) have received. I have not read their C&P (sitting on the shelf), but I've read their Brothers K. and Demons (and their tr. of Gogol's Dead Souls), and I recommend their versions highly. (They allow just a bit of the Russianness of the idiom to come through, but overall I don't think you'll get more of Dostoevsky's passion, flow, thought, & style in English than they offer.) Wareh 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of WWI Trenches

What where the trench systems on the western front at the Swiss border and Atlantic Ocean like?

The trench system began at the Swiss border and ended by the shores of the North Sea, not the Atlantic. At both ends it petered out with gun emplacements and barbed wire entanglements. Clio the Muse 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest and Shortest Wars

What were the longest and shortest wars in the past 2000 years? I remember hearing of one war, I think between Britain and a mediteranean nation, which started in the 15th or 16th century, and due to clerical error, didn't end until said error was discovered in the 1960s or 70s. As for the shortest, I heard of one which lasted 45 minutes from the begginning of shelling to surrender. I forget the name of that one as well... any ideas? Crisco 1492 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War and Anglo-Zanzibar War. Unless you consider the war between the sexes to be the longest. Clarityfiend 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War between the sexes? Was that not won long ago? Clio the Muse 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clerical error war you mention probably refers to violent little Berwick-upon-Tweed. meltBanana 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely short wars usually result from one side putting up token resistance to overwhelming force and enduring a bombardment before striking the colors, to avoid the shame of surrendering without any defense as did Fort Mackinac in the War of 1812. The result is a foregone conclusion, there is no possibility of holding out until help arrives, and there is no desire to fight to the death. Another factor is that the attackers do not give an ultimatum to surrender without a fight or be slaughtered. Edison 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would more apply to a very short battle than a very short war. The shortest war (Anglo-Zanzibar War) did not involve a token resistance - just massive overwhelming force. Rmhermen 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... Wow, it appears that Cathy Ryan was right: "If you don't write it down, it never happened." And ya, the 335 years war and the Anglo-Zanzibar war are the ones I was thinking of. For the sake of curiousity Cleo, who won the War of the Sexes? I'd say it was a tie (or pretty close to it) since after a war ends, the victor usually subjugates to loser. Currently most places have equal rights, so I should hope it was a tie :P Crisco 1492 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know? Well, have a look at the terms of the peace treaty. What did Richard Armour say? Yes, I remember; It was a man's world. Then Eve arrived. But my personal favourite is dear old Timothy Leary; Women who seek to be the equal of men lack ambition. Clio the Muse 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FromAxis powers of World War II:"In the immediate aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan invaded Thailand on the morning of December 8, 1941. Only hours after the invasion, Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram, the prime minister, ordered the cessation of resistance." Edison 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would still make these 'hostilities' longer than the Anglo-Zanzibar War. And as there was no official declaration of war between Japan and Thailand, and thus no peace treaty to follow, this example does not really count. Clio the Muse 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No declaration of war? A war exists from the initial attack, per F.D. Roosevelt, Dec. 8, 1941. How many "wars" has the U.S. fought for how many years, with how many tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers killed and how many hundreds of thousands wounded, without any declaration of war? At least 114,000 killed and 250,000 wounded in Korea and Vietnam, 2900 killed and 21,000 wounded in the present Iraq conflict. [3] Truman decided in 1950 that he could send U.S. forces into combat without any congressional declaration of war in response to the invasion of South Korea by North Korea. Invasions were conducted or troops were sent into conflict without a declaration of war in the following cases listed at [4]: Korea(1950), Lebanon (1958), Cuba(1962), Dominican Republic (1965), Vietnam (1957-75), Lebanon (1983), Panama(1989), Persian Gulf(1990), Somalia (1991), Operation Endurung Freedom (2001-present). The superpowers also had plans to fight World War III, a nuclear holocaust killing half their populations, without the requirement of a declaration of war, since the initial nuclear strikes might leave no quorum in the congress or the Supreme Soviet. The military chain of command was empowered to launch initial and followup strikes. How about other major and minor powers? How many have formally declared war since World War II? I expect some have, but none come to mind. Edison 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Edison, this is all quite correct, and there is no dispute between us on the matter. Formal declarations of war, with peace treaties at the conclusion of the conflict, seem to be disappearing from the diplomatic lexicon. But I understood this question to be about past wars within firmly defined parameters, a definite beginning, and a definite end. This, I think, is how it has been answered in the main. But this is getting away from the point: the Anglo-Zanzibar War was still shorter than the example you have raised, with or without a formal declaration of war. Clio the Muse 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well from an Abrahamic religious POV, I guess the longest war is the war between God and Evil/the Devil. Nil Einne 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Clio, the question was meant to be a "formal" war, if there is such a thing. In a couple years, I guess the definition of war is gonna change, is it not? Oh, as for the war of the sexes... I say we're still in a MAD-like state, with Women still slightly disadvantaged in the career field (changing quickly, far as I know, at least in Canada, most of Europe, and the States) while men are much more disadvantaged when it comes to raising children and whatnot. (Think Daddy Daycare). Tit for tat, ya? Crisco 1492 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Crisco. Not from where I stand! Be seeing you. Clio the Muse 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now who was it who said "Can't we all just get along?" I think that would be an interesting study: The longest period of time when there were NO wars. Any Ideas when that would be? (Excluding before mankind was around, of course :P) Crisco_1492

Now that really is an interesting question! According to Edward Gibbon, the great historian of the Roman Empire, the second century AD, from the beginning of the reign of Hadrian in 117 to the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius in 161 is the closest humankind has ever come to peace and perfection. But I imagine you would still find some war, if you looked hard enough. Clio the Muse 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, knowing the ancient romans, there would probably have been a couple squabbles between Roman lords and whatnot. At best, I'd say maybe one or two skirmishes... I hope... Well, I'm gonna pop open some bubbly if we ever manage complete peace for a year... Only question now is... dikocok atau diaduk? Crisco 1492 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colors associated with Christmas

What is the origin of the use of red and green for Christmas decorations? Tcolonna 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holly. —Keenan Pepper 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then I suppose we need to figure out why this plant is associated with Xmas. Somebody misread the lyrics to Silent Night ("Holly infant so tender and mild") ? :-) StuRat 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another song explains: "Of all the trees that are in the wood, the holly bears the crown" (The Holly and the Ivy). Holly, being one of the few lively, attractive plants at that time of year, it was probably often used for decoration as it still is. meltBanana 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, poinsettias are also red and green at that time of the year. So, were they chosen as XMAS plants because of that, or are XMAS colors red and green as a result ? StuRat 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poinsettia are a more modern custom. Rmhermen 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did have another theory about why red and green are the XMAS colors, but I think it's probably only my family who celebrates XMAS by putting frogs in blenders. :-) StuRat 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs? In blenders? I would never come up with that. Anyways, I thought white was also a Christmas color. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being both the color of snow and of purity (as in the "virgin" birth), that makes sense to me. StuRat 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you add milk to the frogs too? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't snow during the summer Nil Einne 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out Nil, but remember that in the Northern Hemisphere, it's winter. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the term?

What is the term for giving an inanimate object a personality? I found a reference to that in a book a couple of years ago, but I can't seem to find it again, and no one that we know can tell us what the word is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.241.142.150 (talk • contribs).

Personification? Anthropomorphism? --jh51681 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with anthropomorphitization, but I may not be able to, since this computer hates me and often refuses to work. StuRat 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo, Idol Worship ? (joke hopefully)83.100.183.34 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fetishisation, at least as Marx uses the term. Cheers, Sam Clark 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say personification as you are giving an inanimate object a personality. On another note, isnt' this a question for the language desk? --The Dark Side 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember back in the nineties, Westerners tended to anthropomorphize stuff like computers, game consoles, joysticks, pads of paper, airplanes, TVs, the Earth, even numbers and dates more than things we now consider to be close kin, like snakes, hawks, hippos, lions, sharks, and the like. It's like that now we've gotten over our collective fear of such things, we can treat them as relative equals. There's no more banging angrily on TVs to fix the reception. Of course LCDs and cable signals wouldn't respond to such violence, but the point remains. Theavatar3 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then came Pet Rocks. Cryptonymius 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a Dremel on a gemstone.

Hello, I am interested in carving two stones, Lapis and Tigers eye, into smooth polished orbs as well as other items including rings, pendants, bracelets, etc. I have found through extensive research that the tool I may need is called a Dremel. However, I have found no clues on what sort of Dremel I need to buy. The Dremel, from what I understand, will enable me to cut and fashion the stone into my desired shape, but what is the best way to polish gemstones? In their raw state, they aren't too pretty - But once polished, they are very beautiful. So, in short, what sort of dremel do I need (If infact I do need one), and how do I polish my finished product? And are there any other tools I could benefit from having/using?

Thank you very much, -- Enrique. P.S., I know your website warns against listing my email address for my own privacy, but I already have an email address that is completely sold out to junk-email, yet I still check it very regularly, and thus, I have NO qualms about listing it here. Please respond to my question by email if possible. ecoh1112@hotmail.com Yep, it's a hotmail account. Go figure, huh? lol.

A Dremel could be useful to carve them into a specific shape, but what you really want is a rock tumbler. You can leave it running for a long time, and switch to finer and finer grits, to get them much smoother and shinier. —Keenan Pepper 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes - a dremel would be usefull - as would a tumbler (which is also useful for fine polishing)

The term you want to look up is lapidary - I can't give you much info myself but there is a lot of info on the web on polishing gemstones - try a google search on 'lapidary' and 'gemstone' or both. eg http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/personal/lapidary.htm and http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/nenam/lapidary-safety.htm gives some dremel tips (watch out for that stone dust!) The web is loaded with gemcutting tips if you look.. An alternative to a dremel type tool is a electric rotary grindstone - like used for sharpening axes - you'd need different fittings for grindind/smoothing/polishing - but the machines are quite cheap - not much more than a dremel or less.87.102.32.183 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of food in Sierra Leone?

Since Sierra Leone has long been considered the poorest of all countries, how much does it take to sustain a family for a whole year? By sustain, I mean, food, shelter & clothing.69.110.4.54 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Economy of Sierra Leone, which appears to be taken from the CIA Factbook, the annual GDP is $800 per person. However, the income distribution is extremely unbalanced, so the amount is significantly less than $800. -THB 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Income distribution is extremely unbalanced everywhere, but Sierra Leone is an extreme case according to the List of countries by income equality (note, though, that this is based on 1989 data). However, especially in Africa, it is not uncommon for people to live on land that is traditionally theirs, build their own houses and grow their own food (both usually communally) and such, not needing any money. Maybe this is very common in Sierra Leone, which would explain both teh low average income and the income inequality. So these things don't necessarily mean poverty or physical inequality (respectively). Without money you may not have any hopes of getting rich, but it doesn't have to mean you have a miseable life. These are just things to keep in mind when you read data like that. In how far this applies to Sierra Leone, I don't know. DirkvdM 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in most countries income is highly dependent on employment (with a few exceptions, of course). StuRat 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWORDS and metals : what swords were made of

I was not sure where to post this, but i figured this being partially a cultural question, so...

SWORDS AND METALS

As is known, during the iron age they used iron to make swords and weapons, but one eventually figured STEEL was the best metal for making weapons as far as I know. But question is, was there any other metals they used for making swords ? Sometimes I see weapons whose blades is much darker than average, almost going over to black, while other times i see weapons with blades more bronze-coloured... So is there any dark metals that was used for sword-making, or was bronze used? Or was it maybe steel all along, that steel can take on both dark and various colors ? I know steel as blank in color... And i wonder then about which metals CAN BE and WAS used for sword-making in the past, and then especially during the the middle ages (about 800-1400) And which metals was the best to use ? was there any better than STEEL or did any other metal even come close to the same quality?

I've tried search and read both sword, middle-ages, various metals and leather but didnt find the answers i seek. And about the leather, i wonder what kind of leather was used and how the leather was treated before and when one covered the hilt of the sword?

Thank you - eager and impressed user of Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klippert (talk • contribs).

Swords were made of bronze during the bronze age, iron during the iron age, and then steel in modern times. Iron has the black color you mention, at least if it is kept properly oiled to prevent rust. StuRat 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing on tv that in India, they made swords differently (don't know if technique or materiel), and this helped the turks in the crusades. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Damascus steel but the connection to Indian wootz steel is still debated. Rmhermen 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advent

In the Roman Catholic Church, why is the rose candle lit on the third Sunday of Advent on the Advent wreath?

Thanks for asking, I always wondered, but never asked. In the Advent article, the Candles and Calendars section explains this. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Law: Bail/Suicide

Suppose a person is accused of crime, but not yet convicted. They are allowed free on bail. If they were to run away, the bail money would be forfeit. If they died of natural causes before their court date, I think the money would be returned. However, what if the accused commits suicide? Does that count as absconding or evading justice?

I have been unable to find any prior cases that indicate what happens to the bail money, in this situation. 32.97.110.142 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it depends on the jurisdiction. Here in Nevada, for example, the law says that death "exonerates" any surety (bail); it does not distinguish suicide from any other death. Some state constitutions explicitly rule out any such distinction (and I got to remind myself again of the wonderful word deodand while studying this.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiddleAge-swords : various questions

Krikkert7 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)krikkert7[reply]

First i just gotta say that I know that SHAGREEN-leather is used to cover the sword-hilts during the MiddleAges. Back in the middleage that meant the skin from a horseback, and in the east i think they used the skin from a onager-creature as well. I know that today in modern times we use shark-skin and ray-skin to make SHAGREEN-leather, but the modern days are not of interest to me.

My questions is :

1) Is there any other type of leather than SHAGREEN that was used on sword-hilts ?

2) I read that SHAGREEN-leather tends to be green in color... But sword-hilts were often brown or dark in colour, so SHAGREEN can take on other colors too, right ? Like dark brown and black ? Otherwise, that must mean more than only SHAGREEN was used.

Leathers can be easily died - blue leather for instance - shagreen is probably no exception.

3) I read about the techniques for preparing the leather before wrapping it around the hilt, but i am unsure if i am understanding it right... I read lots about "when the leather is dry... bla bla" Does this mean the leather is boiled in hot water before using it on the hilt, just liek they do with leather-armor to make it hard and rough?

4) The pommel and the crossguard/crucifix was mostly or always made of the same metal as the blade itself, right ?? The reason for me asking is that i have noticed that both the pommel and the crossguard often are a bit different in colour than the blade itself, making me wonder if maybe another metal was used ? I'm not sure, but it would only be logical to assume i guess that the entire blade(pommel,crossguard,blade and handle) is made as one by the same metal, am I right? and ofcourse, the leather was put on afterwards on the handle/hilt.

The cross guard is almost certainly iron or steel like the sword - the pommel isn't though - I'm sure I've see pommels made out of ivory etc..

5) Steel is made of iron(+ more), and thus i guess steel is stronger and better suited for swords and weapons than iron is. And bronze is weaker than iron, right ? Which makes Steel the ultimate sword-metal then ? or could Iron and bronze swords be of the same standard ?

Bronze is pretty good, and was originally better than the iron swords of ancient times - but iron is more common and cheaper than the tin and copper used to make bronze. Modern metallurgy probably could make a bronze alloy as good as steel in some respects but probably lacking in springyness. Plus bronze doesn't rust. In general steel would probably be the ultimate sword material as you say without going into making exotic alloys.(Best = steel>bronze>iron)

6) Could you LINK me to an info-page about oiling of sword-blades and weapons to avoid rust? i don't know how to search for it, and what to call it.

Basically you just oil it - clean the old oil of periodically and reoil - for more info (japaanese swords) see http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/care.htm I just did a search like this http://ww.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=oiling+sword&meta=. Lots of info. Also here http://swordforum.com/sfu/primer/oiling.html

7) Could you also link me to a page giving info on how they kept their swords sharp ? you know, they used to use some kind of stone or something to polish the sword-edges. I dont know what stones they used or what the technique is called and not what to search for.

"Whetstone" is probably the word you are looking for. The page sharpening should have the basics. Also here http://swordforum.com/sfu/primer/sharpening.html

I'm no expert but this site looks really reliable http://swordforum.com/sfu/87.102.21.243 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Iron swords are much harder than bronze swords. In fact, back in the Bronze Age, armies with Iron weapons would win every battle until the opposition caught up with them in technology. (example: Isrealites vs. Philistines). However, different colored swords of the same metal would probably mean the quality was different. That was probably the case with the hilts too. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

justice

i am having trouble defining the concept of "sense of justice". Specifically, how someone with a sense of justice feels about wrongful convictions and the criminal justice system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.116.21 (talk • contribs)

I suggest reading Justice and Punishment as starting places. But to give a short answer: presumably someone with a sense of justice is angered or wounded by injustice, in such a way that she wants to do something about it, by righting the wrong or responding to the wrongdoer. For John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism, our desire for justice is a combination of two more primitive human feelings: the desire to retaliate against people who have hurt us, and our capacity for sympathetic identification with others. So, when we see someone hurt, we imagine ourselves in her position, and want to lash out at the wrongdoer on her behalf. Hope this helps. Sam Clark 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what Sam has written I would add the general observation that in a perfect world justice and a sense of justice would be a reflex, like breathing. But for a definition of things as they are, and how the law-as opposed to justice-actually works, I recall the words of Jonathan Swift; Laws are like cobwebs, which catch the small flies, but let wasps and hornets pass through. Clio the Muse 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laws are flawed as we humans are. Flamarande 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sense of justice is basically the sense of accountability. It is rooted in the fact that human beings have a sense of cause and effect, and so therefore something causes something to happen. The one that caused a certain state of things is the one "accountable" for it. One could argue that you can never really trace accountability in its final form, somewhat like "the lonely hour of the 'last instance' never arrives" (but that's different.) Society, however, to maintain social order, cannot dispense with its justice system. So even if it is true that a bad society produces bad individuals, you just have to punish some individuals in order to save the whole society. Moonwalkerwiz 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche said something to the effect of 'distrust he in whom the tendency to punish is strong.'

Thus, even the lightest of punishments may be regarded as unjust.

Also, a quote from Baldur's Gate: "If you have a problem with me, you have a problem with YOU!" (spoken by a gigantic ogre).

Every system of justice there could ever be is predicated on the validity of finding/punishing fault. Thus, justice itself is predicated on an unfortunate state of affairs -- people doing evil things, and people being harsh and punitive in return.

If ever a time came when mankind was not collectively in an 'unfortunate state' (see Iraq, Afghanistan, poverty etc), perhaps there would be no need for justice at all! Theavatar3 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theavatar, I thought you were "super-cynical"? You should know that the time when man is nevermore in an 'unfortunate state' is utopian. And I don't think justice is predicated on an 'unfortunate' state of affairs. Punishment - whatever form, whatever degree - is possible only because of the conception of "being," which gives rise to "subjectivity," and finally fault or accountability. I think man/woman will continue to punish as long as he/she uses the word "I". Moonwalkerwiz 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'There is no pre-established harmony between truth and benefit to humanity' -- paraphrasing Nietzsche, and averting my gaze from Derrida's body (of work).

Also Nietzsche was highly critical of the notion of 'self', and it wasn't because he was completely insane.

A couple other Nietzache cites:

"There is only one figure burning"

"The hour glass wheels round, the real tragedy begins"

"Delight at the spectacle of suffering"

Theavatar3 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheat Berry substitute

My local bulk barn store does not carry wheat berries. Does anyone know what I can use to substitute this in a receipe? My kids are making "Kutya" for a class project and it calls for this ingredient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.147.115 (talk • contribs)

This website offers the following:

wheat berries = hard wheat berries = whole wheat berries. Notes: These are wheat kernels that have been stripped only of their inedible outer hulls. They're nutritious, but they take hours to cook. If you don't have the patience to use the whole berries, try the more convenient cracked wheat, bulgur, or wheat flakes. Substitutes: kamut berries OR spelt berries OR soft wheat berries (softer and starchier) OR triticale berries OR cracked wheat OR bulgur

Cheers, Sam Clark 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch employment law

Is it legal in the Netherlands to ask about marital status in a job interview? Thanks. moink 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moink! As far as I am aware, a potential employer is allowed to ask you, en passant, of your marital status. However, it cannot be used as grounds for discriminating against you, be it in a positive or a negative way. The Dutch General Equal Treatment Act states that discrimination on the grounds of religion, gender, philosophy of life, political conviction, race, heterosexual or homosexual orientation and marital status is unacceptable. The problem would be proving that you lost a job opportunity just because of your marital status.

Best wishes, It's is not a genitive/fala-me 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe that in Canada and the U.S., they avoid that whole having to prove harm thing by simply making it illegal to ask. I was surprised that it came up. moink 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the List of "Best Universities

I heard somewhere that a list exists ranking universities (I assume in order of achievements or popularity...)Does anyone know the name of this list and by what they are ranked?Links would be nice. Thanks --San22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)~

You haven't said where you're from and what country/category/whatever you're looking at. Take a look at College and university rankings. moink 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean's publishes a list of Canadian Universities by ranking once a year. I'm assuming there are a few magazines in the states that do so as well. Crisco 1492 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many such rankings. In the UK, The Guardian publishes a widely-recognised (and often controversial) ranking every year. In my own subject, Brian Leiter publishes a 'Philosophical Gourmet Report' on graduate schools in the UK and US. As Moink suggests, we could be more help if you said which country and subject you're interested in. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this[5] | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found what I was looking for via University rankings ( world top 500) Thanks --San 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)81.244.157.131 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's our pleasure (otherwise, we wouldn't do it.) :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right to a telephone call on arrest

Historically speaking, when was the right to have a single telephone call to a lawywer or friend introduced to the USA. If it's not a right, when was it common practice? Clearly it cannot predate the invention and use of the telephone, other than that I have no idea. Rob Burbidge 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question was asked a few weeks ago and received an extensively researched answer which still did not find a definitive date. See [6] from Sept 27 and scroll down to "Historical context of the right to make a phone call when arrested." You can search for archived Q & A in Google by using site:en.wikipedia.org "reference desk" added to Google search string. I found that in 1914 there did not appear to be a recognized right of the arrested person to make a phone call, but by 1936 there was. Laws regarding it may have been modified at various times in various locations. Edison 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]