Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 30

Humanities desk
< May 29	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 31 >

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.

May 30

Israeli Nuclear Technology

I am trying to find out Israel's views towards Nuclear weaponry and Nuclear power for a world history project. 71.71.88.14 00:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend reading Israel and weapons of mass destruction, and also doing a google search. --Random ^{Say it here!} 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, you'll find context by reading The Holocaust and Arab-Israeli conflict (and subarticles). You'll need to understand the state of mind of the Israeli governments since 1948 and these two issues have been paramount in their thinking. --Dweller 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I once spotted Mordecai Vanunu in a Jerusalem café. That man's fate is indicative of how Israel feels about nuclear weaponry. Ninebucks 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian History in 20th Century

Is there any books on Canadian history in 20th Century and if not, what are major topics or events happened in Canadian history in 20th Century? Thanks

You're talking about a period of 100 years, or 36,525 days. A hell of a lot happens in 36,525 days. Can you be more specific? -- JackofOz 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Maple Leaf Flag of Canada was adopted in 1964. That always struck me as odd given that Canada a nation for about a century before the issue of a national flag was resolved. And what could be more important than having a flag to wave? Other contenders for important events in Canada during the 20th century might include the addition of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949, and the introduction of the Loonie in 1987. ..ok, maybe it would be better to read the many articles on Canada. Some even list book references. Pfly 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not unlike some other Commonwealth countries, though. Australia's National Flag was first flown in 1901, but was not approved by King Edward VII until 1902, and was not given full official legal status until 1954. And we're still not happy about it. JackofOz 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then there was the repatriation of the Constitution, and, back in 1970, the FLQ terrorist crisis that led to the invocation of the War Measures Act, with its suspension of civil liberties. Bielle 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That remark that Canada was "a nation for about a century before" raises a very deep issue about what it means to be "a nation". If the original poster is looking for a topic to write an assignment on, that's a good one right there.

Some points about the status of Canada:

• In 1914 Britain's declaration of war was taken as automatically committing Canada to fight as well.
• Once the war was over, that changed: see Chanak crisis. (In 1939 Canada declared war about a week after Britain.)
• The UK officially had legislative authority over Canada until the Statute of Westminster.
• The highest court of appeal for Canada was in Britain until the 1930s or thereabouts. If the Supreme Court of Canada had had the final say in 1929, women would not have legally been considered "persons" in Canada.
• Canada was considered part of the British Empire until that term passed out of use and was replaced with "British Commonwealth".
• When the United Nations was founded, the Soviets objected to Canada (and Australia) having a vote separate from the UK, and demanded that what we now call Ukraine and Belarus each be given one also, although they were part of the USSR.
• There was no such thing as Canadian citizenship (or UK citizenship either) until about 1949. All citizens of what became the Commonwealth were simply British subjects. (The term "British subject" continued in use after the change, but now effectively meant "citizen of a Commonwealth country".)
• All British subjects resident in Canada, whether Canadian citizens or not, could vote in Canadian elections until the 1970s or maybe 1980s.
• Canada's Constitution remained under the formal control of the British Parliament until 1982.
• Even now, Canada still has the same monarch as the UK. However, this is now considered a Personal union, i.e. an independent title, and of course the monarchy is only symbolic.

And some points about nations (see also that article!) in Canada:

• Many of the French-descended people of Quebec likewise consider themselves a separate nation from the country's English-speaking majority. Canada has been described as consisting of "one nation" and of "two nations" by people taking different views about this. See various articles about Quebec. For a recent official recognition of this view, see here.
• The aboriginal peoples of Canada and the US (the ones we used to call Indians and Eskimos) also generally consider themselves nations... that is, each tribe a separate nation. In politically correct terminology in Canada they are now called First Nations.

--Anonymous Canadian, May 30, 2007 04:20 (UTC).

A brief note -- in the U.S., Indians and Eskimos remain the most-common terms used for those groups of ethnicities, often at the request of Indians and Eskimos themselves. -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Note I was just being silly, and thinking mainly of Canada Day as marking, as that article puts it, "the formation of the country on July 1, 1867" -- and thinking of an episode of "This American Life" about Canada, in which one person, a Canadian, tries to explain to another, an American, various things about Canada. The topic of the flag coming a century after the founding is one of the things they talk about, with the Canadian speaker explaining "we're gradualists". Pfly 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The obvious place to start is History of Canada. By the way, it isn't right to say that Canada had no flag before 1964. Although it was not officially adopted by Parliament, Canada used different versions of the Canadian Red Ensign until 1965. Marco polo 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch and their cents

Since the Dutch got rid of their penny in the 80s, what was the impact of the Euro and its one cent coin? Do businesses in the Netherlands still just round to the nearest nickel as I would assume that they did after eliminating the penny? Has the one cent coin caught on there? Or has the one cent coin become like the two dollar bill in the U.S. where it's still legal currency but just never really used at all? Dismas|^(talk) 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dutch businesses got rid of the 1 and 2 cents as well on January 1 2004. Most business now round to the closest five cents (just like in the good old days). Note that this was a decision made by business and not by the state. So they are still legal. Some business, like Aldi still accept cents. Electronic payment (via your Debit card) is still exact to the cent. Read more on Dutch euro coins.C mon 09:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the link! Dismas|^(talk) 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disraeli's ideas

In what did Disraeli's ideas on life and society influence the course of his political career?

Have you started with Benjamin Disraeli? It won't answer your question, but it'll give you a lot of ammunition. --Dweller 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

...for the paper you've been assigned. --Wetman 17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are one or two additional pieces of information that I can add, not, I think, fully covered by the Wikipedia article. Disraeli, the Jewish-born outsider who made his way to the top of the 'greasy pole' of the aristocratic Tory Party, and from thence to the very pinnacle of British politics, has long been viewed as a cynical and unprincipled manipulator: a charlatan in charlatan's clothing. However, an examination of both his published work, and his political conduct, reveals another side to his character altogether.

The first and greatest influence in his life was Isaac Disraeli, his father, who inspired in him a reverance for all of England's ancient institutions-the crown, the landed aristocracy and the established church. These, Disraeli came to believe, were a vital source of both English identity and social cohesion. In 1835 he published a pamphlet entitled Vindication of the English Constitution, intended to show the origins and purpose of the elements that made up the constitution. For Disraeli, the Whigs were parvenus, who came along in the eighteenth century and established an 'oligarchy of self-interest', monopolising government for purely selfish ends. The Tories, in contrast, were the true national party, and the guardians of the real England. Looking at contemporary political life, he concluded that the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832, introduced by the Whig government, was a piece of political gerrymandering, intended to arrange the electoral systemm in such a way as to perpetuate an 'unholy alliance' between Utilitarian Radicals, Protestant Dissenters and Irish Nationalists.

After he became an MP in 1837 he identified with the nascent Young England movement, developing his ideas still further in a trilogy of novels: Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred. Sybil, in particular, deals with the so-called 'Condition of England Question'. Published in the same year as Fredrich Engels' Condition of the Working Class in England, it is also a sustained attack on the forms of laissez-faire liberalism favoured by the Whigs, though from a different perspective altogether. Disraeli hearkens back to a mythical Arcadia, in which a paternalist aristocracy and a caring church protected the poor. The Whigs, whose ancestors had plundered the monastic lands, were again to blame for the dissolution of this ideal, organic social order, introducing a rapacious individualism and harsh legislation, such as the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. Holding such beliefs, and hating the Whigs, goes much of the way to explaining why Disraeli later became such a bitter critic of Sir Robert Peel, the leader of his own party, after he started to adopt measures favoured by the opposition.

The ideas of Young England continued to inform Disraeli's actions throughout his political life. Although he himself was later to be responsible for a further extension of the franchise in the Second Reform Act, it was fully consistent with his beliefs, reaching beyond a constituency of self-interst, towards a much more widely based electorate. Although not initially successful, it marked the beginning of a process of political engagement between the Conservative Party-as the Tories were now called-and the British working-classes, who had little to gain from unrestrained free market liberalism. In a speech of 1872 Disraeli repeated the assertion that he had made in 1867 that there was a natural affinity between the Conservatives and the working class, on the basis of shared 'national principles.' The working classes, as he put it, 'were English to the core' and proud of their country. In the Parliamentary election of 1874 the Conservative Party, under Disraeli's leadership, began to move out of its traditional rural heartlands into the urban areas, particularly in London and Lancashire. It is perhaps due to Disraeli, more than any single man, that the working-class in Britain were well on the way to becoming the most 'bourgeois' in Europe, to the dismay of Marx and Lenin. Clio the Muse 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Who says the working-classes have (or had) little to gain from free markets? Who benefitted more than they from the repeal of the Corn Laws? —Tamfang 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the precise wording. They had little to gain from 'unrestrained free market liberalism.' This would have allowed virtually no social legislation whatsoever. Clio the Muse 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I still happen to disagree (this is not the place to say why), but that's more defensible. —Tamfang 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to cross swords in such a civilized fashion, Tamfang. Might I suggest that you look at the motives behind the Anti-Corn law campaign? It was not all altruism, I assure you! The effect of cheaper food on wage rates was an important consideration. For a general depiction of the impact of laissez-faire liberalism on the labouring classes you could do no better that glance through the pages of Charles Dickens. Clio the Muse 06:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Which Dickens have you in mind? Oliver Twist (1837-9)? A Christmas Carol (1843)? These are what usually get thrown at me, but the first triumph of the free trade movement (repeal of the Corn Laws) was in 1846. And isn't it true that wages in Dickens's formative years were depressed by the Enclosures Acts, i.e. legislation contrary to private property rights of the non-elite? — To answer your other remarks I'd have to break the promise implied above, if I haven't already. —Tamfang 07:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of his critique of liberalism in the widest sense, not of any specific aspect of that movement, and you will find this in virtually all of his novels to some degree or other, including Our Mutual Friend, the last he completed during his lifetime. There is no need to break your promise. I am happy to let matters stand as they are. However, I should add that I am, in responding to the initial question, describing how Disraeli's ideas contributed to the shaping of a particular form of Tory paternalism. This does not mean to say that I personally identify with this, though if pushed I will confess that I prefer it to Gradgrind liberalism. Clio the Muse 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly expect any successful writer of fiction to abandon the viewpoint that made him a star. I'm not acquainted with Hard Times, but the article gives me enough of a picture of Gradgrind to remind me of the phrase "dismal science", and in turn of what cause Carlyle was denouncing when he coined it. —Tamfang 08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic

How close did the Germans come to breaking the supply links between Britain and the United States in the Second World War? Captainhardy 10:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, reading Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945), would be a good idea. Personally, I believe they came quite close indeed. Remember that my opinion is POV. --Random ^{Say it here!} 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The question seems to imply that there were a certain number of "supply links" and if only these were "broken" then the Germans would have succeeded in blocking supplies to Britain. In fact there were thousands of oceangoing ships and more being built, and each one could carry supplies independently... although if enough ships were being sunk, their owners or the authorities in charge of them might not be willing to do so. Anyway, a more meaningful question might be to ask how near the Germans came to sinking enough ships to cut off enough supplies so that Britain would be forced to surrender. --Anonymous, May 30, 2007, 22:21 (UTC).

There is merit in what you write, Anonymous, though there was, in fact, a 'link' between America and Britain: namely the North Atlantic Convoy Route, which went in a north-easterly direction from Halifax in Nova Scotia, before turning south-east towards Liverpool. To see how close this came to being 'cut' please look at the Second happy time, as well as the page linked by Random. America's entry into the war gave a fresh impetus to the German U-Boat arm, particularly as the United States, unlike Britain, was slow to develop a convoy system. In January 1942 the Germans sunk 106 ships off the American coast, and a further 154 in February. The campaign climaxed in June, when total monthly losses reached 834,196 tons, or 173 ships. On a world-wide scale, four million tons of shipping was lost to the U-Boats in the first half of 1942, outstripping the replacement capacity of Allied ship-yards. If matters had gone on like this the Germans could very well have won the 'Battle of Supplies'. You will find details of all of these figures in The Battle of the Atlantic by Andrew Williams, and Hitler's U-Boat War by Clay Blair. Clio the Muse 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Founder of Biblioteca Marciana

Who or what group was the actual founder of Biblioteca Marciana and how did it start? Did it go by another name when it started?--Doug ^talk 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the "History" page (in Italian) on the website of the Biblioteca Marciana, it started with the donation by cardinal Bessarion also related in the Wikipedia article. Although the city of Venice was in the possession of Petrarch's bequeathed collection of manuscripts, there was no public library in the City. Apparently Bessarion's gift gave the necessary impetus. The webpage states that Venice was committed to house the collection in a place worthy of the gift; I can actually imagine that the foundation of a public library was a condition for this magnificent gift.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Lambiam for this excellent answer. Apparently then Petrarch's bequeathed collection of manuscripts was perhaps stored at the church of Saint Mark in Venice to the point of an actual library building being constructed for cardinal Bessarion's gift. It looks like to me then Petrarch's manuscripts was the "core basis" for the library and perhaps then its real founder (since it was a large collection in itself), even though Bessarion's gift gave the necessary impetus for the construction of an actual building. This would be like Thomas Jefferson's personal collection of books as the "core basis" for the Library of Congress even though it was not actually enacted until 1800 by President John Adams. --Doug ^talk 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Archives and accumulations of books generally precede formal "founding" of libraries to house them distinctively. --Wetman 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K., then what you are saying is basically what I am saying then I believe: by the gift of Petrarch's books and manuscripts to the Republic of Venice (in an agreement for exchange for a house; "life estate" of his books reverting to Venice upon his death) he is then the official "founder" of the The Marcian library. The Biblioteca Marciana and The Marcian library I assume are the same thing. Then cardinal Bessarion is not the official "founder" (however Petrarch), especially if I could find this in another encyclopedia. Is all this correct?--Doug ^talk 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Palazzo Molina

Where exactly is Palazzo Molina? I assume it is in Venice somewhere.--Doug ^talk 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is, in English, the "Palace of the Two Towers". See [1] for the location: "on the Riva degli Schiavoni, looking out over the Bacino". --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your find and the link. Reading over that paragraph it apparently is saying that on 4 June 1364 at midday Petrarch is with his friend Bartolommeo de Papazzurri "at the window of his house". So happens that Petrarch lived in Venice from 1362 to 1367, so this fits. It looks like to me this Sanudo person is saying the Palazzo Molina is Petrarch's house. Is that your take on this?--Doug ^talk 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It was given to Petrarch (according to the book). He lived there until some conflict in Venice (according to the book, also). I have no clue who this Petrarch was. The book appears to be his life story. I only scanned a few pages of it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the current Casa Petrarca hotel is at the site of that palazzo? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Francesco Petrarch was the Father of Humanisn, sometimes known as the father of the Renaissance. It looks like to me then, if I am putting the pieces together properly, that this Palazzo Molina was really Petrarch's home in Venice. Apparently it is on one of the canals. Here then Petrarch kept his famous collection of books and manuscripts - which apparently then never moved from this spot when Petrarch moved out in 1367. The property reverted back to the Republic of Venice ("Life Estate") and everything in the house. This being then Petrarch's library. Ultimately this became the basis for The Marcian library in Venice (a.k.a. The Library of Saint Mark or Biblioteca Marciana). So apparently Petrarch's books never moved from this location until the construction of the library some 100 years later. How's that for a little detective work.....--Doug ^talk 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just excellent. So, why don't you join the Ref Desk now, and answer other people's questions, too? Bielle 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On this webpage, discussing the fate of Petrarch's library(!), Petrarch's house is called Ca’ Molin delle due Torri, which must be Venetian dialect for Casa Molina delle due Torri (House Molina of the two Towers). Here we learn that today the address is Riva degli Schiavoni, no. 4145. And here is the approximate location on Google maps.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great information Lambiam. I found some material, however not as good as you found. I did find in an old encyclopedia at a library this wording: "By the gift of Petrarch's books to the church of St. Mark, Venice, he became the founder of its famous library." Your link to the fate of Petrarch's library is excellent and better material I believe. That clears up things quite a bit as to why the "founder" of Biblioteca Marciana is created to be Cardinal Bessarion. The "House Molina of the two Towers" makes sense also as that of "Palazzo Molina". Also that confirms that Casa Petrarca hotel is not this. Thanks again for clearing up these issues and helping me on this.--Doug ^talk 23:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Zen Yoga

What is Zen Yoga?

-john

You should start with Zen, which is a philosophy of positive abnegation, and then apply that, in whatever way one can, to Yoga. I cannot imagine how yoga would be altered by the pursuit of Zen, but, then again, there seems to be a mania for "slash" Yoga these days. ("No, no, you must pay me to be your master, because I'm doing Vegan Beyonce Yoga with a Tantric Twist Dance Step Class.") It might be a gimmick, and it might be a personalized vision for how yoga can further Zen philosophy, and it might be nothing. Utgard Loki 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Emery: the question.

What is the title for the last song on the re-release of the band Emery's cd The Question?

-Ryann

  The song is titled "Thought Life"

Jesus' patronymic

Is there any base to assume that Jesus might be originally called Joshua Bar (or Ben) Joseph at the time, like Simon bar Kokhba for example? --Brand спойт 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrews of that day were pretty wrapped up with genealogies, so it was common to identify individuals by their family heritage. An interesting aspect that comes out of the Gospel narratives if you're aware of this is the insult paid to Him here: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3 KJV) It is significant that they called Him "Yahshua ben Miriam," or "Yahshua bar Miriam," (depending on whether they were using Hebrew or Aramaic, respectively) as opposed to "ben/bar Yoseph." That would have been the proper term... but since they were not convinced about the story of the virgin birth... you can imagine what this implied. "Well, we know Mary is his mother... but as far as his father goes..." To answer your question, it would depend on who was speaking... those who accepted Joseph as His father would probably follow the common conventions of the day. Those who did not (either seeing Him as the Son of God, or as the son of some other, unidentified, figure) would use another term if referring to His parentage at all. ◄Zahakiel► 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's something of a hard question to answer. "Is there some basis" is difficult. Would he be called "Joshua bastard child of Joseph?" Some people think that he should have been known under that title and have gone searching for any evidence that he was. They've come up empty. There is no evidence at all that Jesus was known by that title, but some clever people think that, because it was common practice to use that form for illegitimate children, he should have been known that way. Therefore, there is some basis for the idea that Jesus could have been known that way, but there is no evidence at all that Jesus was ever known that way -- at least that I'm aware of. Utgard Loki 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Loki's right; especially if you mean outside the Bible. In the Scriptures we do have Him called that indirectly, (or, possibly, the Greek equivalent) when referring to His "legal" line of descent: "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph (Yahshua Natzari, ben/bar Yoseph - top-of-my-head translation)." (John 1:45) ◄Zahakiel► 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Greek equivelent would be to use the genetive form for each of the qualifiers, the direct translation of which would read "Jesus of Nazareth of Joseph." Pastordavid 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Greek equivalent of what? John 3:15 John 1:45 has "... ιησουν υιον του ιωσηφ τον απο ναζαρετ", literally "... Jesus the son of Joseph from Nazaret", where in the Greek text it is clear that "from Nazaret" refers to "Jesus". There is, however, no compelling reason to assume that the text of the gospels gives a faithful word-for-word account of conversations as they took place decades before the text was compiled.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have your verses mixed up... John 3:15 doesn't contain any of those words. The question was about whether or not He may have been called by his name, suffixed with "son of Joseph" in the common language of the day. Whether or not the text of John is faithful to the precise words of any particular occasion is another topic... the point is that it was the common way to refer to people, and we do have evidence of that; and unless certain individuals were trying to deliberately cast doubts upon His linage (see the example in Luke's Gospel above) there is no reason to suppose that He was called by anything but the common manner in 1st century Palestine... give or take a few decades :) ◄Zahakiel► 03:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I meant of course John 1:45, the verse mentioned above by you. For the rest, what is the meaning of might have been called? We have no strong basis for excluding the possibility, so the answer is simply: yes. Do we have any evidence he was actually called that way? No. Is it plausible? Yes (if you accept the historicity of Jesus), given what we know about the usual conventions of that time and place.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, accepting the historicity of Jesus, from my point of view in particular. --Brand спойт 14:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, all :) I am assuming the poster of the original question is accepting the historicity of Jesus, if for no other reason than that he draws the comparison between Him and Simon bar Kokhba. But yeah, that's what I was getting at... essentially we have a "base to assume" (using the wording of the question) that He was called by that name, but no surviving record of which I am aware in which the words appear in that exact order. ◄Zahakiel► 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The original Hebrew/Aramaic of Jesus name was Yešu` (ישוע) with final voiced pharyngeal `Ayin consonant (or Yešuǎ` in a post-Biblical Masoretic pronunciation), but not "Yahshua"[sic]. 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that debate :) Ain is a guttural for which there is no true English equivalent, it's sort of an in-the-throat "uah" sound that almost sounds like "g" with some accents, hence the name "Gommorah" in the Bible, which actually begins with Ain, not Gimel (the G-sound). The first vowel is sort of like what you'd see in a dictionary (the upside-down "e") that can represent a number of short sounds. And, of course, there is no such thing as Masoertic pronunciation... that was a system of writing with diacritic markings from which we are able to derive some (but not all) possible pronunciations of Hebrew words. But... that's another topic. ◄Zahakiel► 03:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

I would be interested to know how the western powers reacted to the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961? Gordon Nash 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article that you have linked gives some information on this. What else did you want to know? You could try the references listed at the bottom of that article. Marco polo 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Publicly, they complained. In private, they were happy to see the Soviet Bloc address its problem with West Berlin without infringing on Western rights or resorting to armed conflict. In reality, they did nothing practical to oppose the construction of the wall. -- Mwalcoff 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Western governments had long called for a unified Germany in public, while in private accepting the division of the country. The construction of the Wall did no more than stabilise an uncertain political situation. Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State, even went so far as to say of the Wall that "in realistic terms it would make a Berlin settlement easier." Sir Christopher Steel, the British ambassador to West Germany, said in his report to London "I must say that I personally have always wondered that the East Germans have waited so long to seal this boundary." His main concern was to ensure that Washington did not over-react. The French, busy with a bloody war of liberation in Algeria, were in no mind to 'die for Berlin', as Pierre Messmer, the Defence Minister, put it. Privately, though nominally committed to a unified Germany, France was happy with the existing division. Francois Mauriac, the author and friend of Charles de Gaulle, surely echoed the views of his President when he said "I like Germany so much, I want two of her." Indeed, it was when the Wall came down in 1989 that the real panic set in in certain western government circles. Suddenly the game was no longer predictable. Clio the Muse 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian female soldier

I'm trying to remember the name of a woman who served in the Russian army in the First World War. She became quite well known. Any ideas?

Perhaps it is Olga Krasilnikov? --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick scan of the Women in the Russian and Soviet military article suggests that it might be Maria Bochkareva that you're trying to think of. Dismas|^(talk) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that this is anyone other than Maria Bochkareva, the founder of the Women's Death Battalion. The daughter of a former serf, she entered the army in November 1914 by special permission of the Tsar. Bochkareva-or Yashka, as she was known to her comrades-first went into combat with the Siberian V Corps in 1915, part of the Russian Second Army. She and her battalion, some 250 strong, was in the first assault wave against a German position. Before the infantry advance the enemy lines had been subject to an artillery bombardment, designed to destroy the barbwire entanglements; but when Yashka's company advanced they found the wire intact. Unable to advance, and caught between the German machine guns and other Russian companies advancing from behind, 180 were killed or wounded before being ordered back. Yashka later recounted that, unable to endure the screams of the wounded soldiers trapped in no-man's land, she crawled out of her trench time and again during the night, and began dragging men back to the Russian lines. By dawn she had managed to rescue fifty soldiers this way.

Yashka initially welcomed the Revolution of February 1917, but was dismayed by the breakdown of discipline in the army caused by the spread of soldier's councils (soviets). At political meetings she declared that the fighting should go on until Russia was free of the enemy. Mikhail Rodzyanko, the President of the Duma, attended one such meeting, and invited her back to Petrograd to talk to Alexander Kerensky, then Minister of War. It was during the trip that she conceived of the idea of a Woman's battalion, to shame the male soldiers back into the fight. Kerensky approved and gave her a lieutenant's commission. The Death Battalion was duly formed, though in the end Yashka found only 300 volunteers willing to adhere to her strict standards of discipline. The unit went into battle in the Russian summer offensive of 1917, as part of the 172nd Division. They performed well under fire, though the men, by now thoroughly demoralised, were not sufficiently inspired by their example, and reacted with hostility. During two months at the front the Women's Death Battalion suffered an 80% caualty rate, not all at the hands of the Germans.

After the Bolshevik seizure of power in October Yashka was taken to the Smolny Institute, where she was interrogated by Lenin and Trotsky. Admiring her fighting record, they invited her to join their forces, but she refused. Still later, she tried to form another women's battalion to serve with the counter-revolutionary forces of Admiral Kolchak. Falling captive to the advancing Red Army, she was executed at Omsk by local Cheka units in May 1920. The wider world became aware of the story of this extraordinary women with the publication in 1919 of Yashka, My Life. Clio the Muse 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

World economics

Hi, I was reading a little on the value of a dollar. I need it to be broken down to me in terms for a simple person, in other words can you explain it to me as if I were 3. I want to know what makes a dollar a dollar.Gary

As fiat currency, the modern dollar has value because (1) the US Government (through the Federal Reserve Board) says it does and (2) people trust the statement in (1). The dollar value fluctuates relative to other currencies because, while people trust that the dollar has some value, they also believe that that value can change. — Lomn 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can also try the Simple English Wikipedia entry for dollar. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the dollar has value because the government says it does and because people believe this. Going a little further, one of the main reasons the dollar has value is that the U.S. government requires tax payments in dollars, as do U.S. local governments. There is no other way to pay these taxes than in dollars. Another reason that the dollar has value is that in the United States, lenders are required to accept dollars as payment for debts. As for why it has a specific value at any given moment, the dollar is traded in financial markets that work like a continuous auction. Because a market is open in some part of the world 24 hours a day, this trading never stops. At any given moment, the value of the dollar, relative to other currencies or relative to traded commodities such as gold or oil, is based on the dollar amount offered by the highest bidder for another currency, for oil, or for some other commodity.

If the oil or other commodity is in short supply, or if traders believe that supplies will drop, then they offer more dollars for it, its dollar price rises, and the value of the dollar in terms of that commodity drops, because a dollar will buy less of that commodity. Likewise, with a currency such as the euro, if traders think that the European Central Bank is making the euro scarcer, traders will offer more dollars for the euro, since they expect there to be more dollars around for every euro. The European Central Bank can make the euro scarcer by raising interest rates, which discourages borrowers from borrowing, since when banks lend money, they are really creating money. If it takes more dollars to buy a euro, then the dollar is worth less, in terms of a euro.

Finally, the Federal Reserve Bank can affect the value of the dollar by setting interest rates for short-term loans. If the Federal Reserve Bank sets rates low, then more dollars will be borrowed and created. If the supply of dollars grows relative to the supply of gold, oil, or another currency, then traders (who now have more dollars at their disposal) will have to offer more dollars to outbid other traders for those commodities or currencies. Then the value of the dollar will drop in terms of those commodities or currencies. There will be a steady drop in the value of the dollar if the interest rates borrowers have to pay on loans produce less gain per year than the rise in the price of other currencies or commodities. For example, if the value of gold, oil, or the euro is rising at more than 6% a year, but interest rates for dollars borrowed are less than 6% a year, then people will keep borrowing (and creating) dollars to buy gold, oil, and euros, and the dollar will keep dropping relative to gold, oil, and euros. This is what has actually been happening for the last several years. Marco polo 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Handcuffs

Under UK law, is a person carrying a set of handcuffs committing any form of offence?

Thanks, --Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't give out legal advice on Wikipedia. You should query a lawyer.Bielle 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Chachu207, your question as posed cannot be answered definitively even if someone wanted to. For example, it depends on who the person is and the capacity under which they are acting (security guard, exporter, manufacturer, police). Please see also Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and associated links if you haven't already. dr.ef.tymac 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll do as you ask. --Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 11:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As me being a serving police officer in GMP i have never come across a civilian carry handcuffs, but it is not illegal as long as they dont use them to abduct anyone or cause alarm. I hope this answers your question but remember the disclaimers and such blah blah blah. BTW: UK cops carry Hiatts Speedcuffs - I just felt like saying that :-) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)