Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 17

= April 17 =

dragon_rider
who is ben, how do the humans get there (to the forest) in 2 days, and why does silver wing allow ben to ride on his back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.218.55 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Cough* Little brother, (the above user is my brother),I don't this isn't a place for questions like this. Look it up. And what in the world in dragon rider???? I don't know what you're talking about. Shindo9 Hikaru  02:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it may be referring to The Neverending Story.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a video game, I suggest posting to the Computer Ref Desk. If this is about a book or movie or TV show, I suggest the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Need info on war map/table/model...
Hello: Firstly, I'm a newbie to using the Wiki Reference Desk, so please forgive me should I make any faux pas.

I'm needing information on what I call a war map, or war table. I'm not sure of the correct name, but it's simply a table with a land map mounted on the surface, with various models (almost like chess pawns) to indicate troop strategy (or some such thing). Miniature "rakes" are used to push around the models/pawns. It's the sort of thing you would imagine would be in the center of a "war room". I recall seeing such a thing in the past, but don't know where to find information on it. I've looked everywhere, to no avail.

The most helpful information would be pictures or illustrations, but any text on the subject would be of tremendous help as well.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything.

Kind Regards, Siouxdax 05:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you saw anything like that anywhere, you'd think it would be in the Map Room of the Cabinet War Rooms deep beneath London. But the Map Room seems to have its maps on the wall. I know I've seen it a hundred times in movies, though - but I can't find anything online under "strategic map" or "battle map" that would fit. -- Charlene 06:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * perhaps you mean something like this 1 it's called a "sand table". More examples [2] Gradvmedusa 06:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On aircraft carriers, the tables of this sort (used to coordinate flight deck operations) are colloquially known as "ouija boards" . &mdash; Lomn 14:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million for all the help. You guys rock! Siouxdax 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a drawing of one of those tables in use during WW2, on the Imperial War Museum Duxford's web site. I looked there because I remembered that the museum has a preserved or re-created room like this, and I was hoping for a photo, but I didn't find one. Note this page gives no name for the table itself. But since the people are plotters, I suppose it could be called a plotting table or just a map table. --Anonymous, April 18, 2007, 01:56(UTC).

Newspaper advertising culture in USA and developed world
I live in New Delhi and I am a News Junkie. I have subscribed to more than 20 Indian newspapers and 50 magazines. (The only International publication I subscribe to being Businessweek). I haven't seen foreign newspapers however. Recently, I had a chance to get a copy of The Wall street Journal New york edition. I found mostly full page advertisements and was suprised to see that more than 15 ads were full page ads and only 3 to 4 pages were small ads. I want to know whether all newspapers in USA get only full page ads for most of their ad pages. Or does only WSJ has full page ads while other newspapers have only small ads. Do small local newspapers also get only full page ads for most of their ad pages? Does anyone know what is the situation in UK and Japan and other developed world? Do they also get only full page ads? For your information: I found not even one single page ad in today's top 3 Indian newspapers! Not even one in The Hindu or The Times of India or Daily news and analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.96.22.160 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Most local papers will have many pages of small ads. The large national papers tend to have more full page ads because just the act of taking out a full page ad in one of the big papers (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post) is likely to get some publicity.  Other papers may report that XXX took out a full page Ad in the Wall Street Journal also, the papers here will have many local advertising inserts, that would not be printed for outside audiences.  Why waste the paper on some local New Youk sale for some guy in India. -Czmtzc 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're seeing an artifact of the WSJ. Because it is the "paper of record" for a particular political and economic type, its advertising space is very desirable to people aiming at that niche, and the paper will have bidders.  Because the advertisers do not want their messages alloyed with anyone else's, and because they are wealthy, they'll do the full page bit.  The New York Times has more full page ads than most papers, too, for the same reasons (but the other side of the demographic split).  Most papers will have ads of all sorts, and, if you go to the later pages of the NYT you'll see the small ads proliferating.  In other words, your sample wasn't representative.  I am fairly sure that Advertising Week tracks things like this in aggregate, and I would venture to guess that the Columbia Journalism Review would have articles on advertising rates in general.  Utgard Loki 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know about International culture? Is it a full page culture in UK and Japan and other developed countries?


 * In Australia there are full page adds. In Herald Sun 11 Jan 2007 there were no full page adds but 4 half page (that each leaving one page with news to read).There were many small adds too. Local rural papers have lots - "Kyneton Midland Express" has all the real estate adds in one multi-page block in the middle.Polypipe Wrangler 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Holder of Copyright
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.199.118.170 (talk • contribs).
 * 1) Title of Work: Certain Winds From the South
 * 2) Author: Ama Ata Aidoo
 * 3) Genre: Short Story
 * 4) Purpose: To request Rights to reprint it in an East African Anthology


 * NO SWEETNESS HERE and Other Stories
 * Aidoo, Ama Ata
 * Eleven short stories showing conflicts in rural and urban Ghana. Includes the works Everything Counts, The Message, Certain Winds from the South, A Gift from Somewhere, Two Sisters and Something to Talk About on the Way to the Funeral. 134pp, USA. FEMINIST PRESS, 1558611193
 * 1970 Rights should known USA. FEMINIST PRESS adress is here-- jlorenz1 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that they've outsourced their permissions. See here. You're looking for reprint permissions, which are listed there. You'll want to phone or email the person listed at that link. grendel|khan 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

non-combatants/civilians in war
Hi, I have read all the relevant pages on wikipedia about civilians in war but i really need some academic opinion or articles to read on te extent of non-combatant immunity in war.

My thinking is that this principle is not absolute for the following reasons;

1.It cant be avoided that civilians will be killed, even if not directly targetted (for e.g. due to weapon malfunctions etc.

2.Civilians may be in/around military objects, and becuase these constitute a means of winning the war with their destruction there cannot be an absolute ban on the targeting of such objects. Here i would bring in the principle of double effect probably, stating how as long as it is proportional then it is ok for cvilians to be killed.

Are these the types of issues i should be looking at or am i missing some of the main points??

I also need to be reflective and critical about these exceptions-how do i do this??

I'm very greatful for any help you can give me.

xx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.48.230 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Wikipedeia has a lot of overlapping article related to the question. Take a look at Civilian, Combatant , Non-combatant , Geneva Conventions , Laws of war , Law of land warfare and Collective punishment for starters. You might also find useful Atrocity , Military necessity , Distinction (law) , Unlawful combatant ,  Partisan (military) . Resistance movement , Underground resistance , Resistance during World War II .  A good external reference on the early 20h century views on collective punishment of civilians for, say, shooting a sentry or sabotage, pre-4th Geneva Conventions, if your library has the old New York Times articles on microfilm or if you can get online access is " "The laws of war as to conquered territory" by William Miller Collier, New York Times, November 29, 1914, p SM6 " The Germans felt entitled o shoot hostages and conduct other reprisals against the civilian population of Belgium, but were widely criticized for it in WW1. Soldiers in wars subsequent to the signing of the Geneva Conventions have sometimes been accused of conducting reprisals against civilians not directly responsible for attacks on the soldiers, to get revenge or to discourage further attacks on uniformed soldiers by civilians or irregulars, with varying degrees of approval by higher command. For some controversial deliberate killings of civilians in wartimein the 2oth and 21st century see Rape of Belgium , Lidice, Nanking Massacre , No Gun Ri , My Lai Massacre , Massacre at Huế and Haditha killings. Edison 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this question calls for opinion, I've answered here:. StuRat 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a huge and contentious issue, in political, moral and historical terms. Let me confine myself, therefore, to discussion of one particular dimension, namely the issue of area bombing during the Second World War. My remarks are further limited to examples drawn from the history and experience of my own country-England-rather than the Allied strategic bombing offensive as a whole. Oddly, this highly controversial subject is one which can, in some instances, unite former enemies in equal condemnation. Two of the most relevant texts here are Among the Dead Cities: Was the Allied Boming of Civilians in WWII a Necessity or a Crime? by A. C. Grayling, and The Fire: the Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945 by Jörg Friedrich. There is also a recent article in the BBC History Magazine (March, 2007), entitled Bomber Boys, based on the book by the same name by Patrick Bishop, which touches on aspects of this debate. For both Friedrich and Grayling the area bombing of civilian targets was a crime, implied by the former, and openly stated by the latter. Indeed, Grayling's argument can be reduced to one core proposition: if area bombing had been specifically illegal then the Allies would have been guilty of war crimes, even in pursuit of victory over a greater evil.

Although there are many in Britain who would not accept this contention, the wartime role of Bomber Command, particularly under the direction of Sir Arthur Harris, continues to cause a considerable degree of discomfort, especially when specific operations are called to mind, most notably the destruction of Dresden in Operation Thunderclap. Yet, one has to consider that, for a good part of the war, the Bomber Offensive against Germany was the only way that Britain was able to strike at the enemy. Pinpoint attacks had been tried an failed; so only carpet bombing was considered to be an effective means of hitting the target. More than this, the revisionism of people like Grayling and Friedrich has deflected the argument too far away from sacrifice and courage of the bomber crews, and the contribution they made towards the defeat of Hitler. In no other branch of the British services were casualty rates so high, approaching First World War levels of attrition. Even in the case of Dresden, which has probably generated more debate than any other war target, the issue is not quite so simple as most commonly depicted. By 1945 the city was not only an important transport hub, used in the transfer of men and materials to the Eastern Front, but it was also a war manufacturing centre. Even so, the Nazis had taken no effective measures for its defence, and it lacked both anti-aircraft cover and adequate shelter provision, though Martin Mutschmann, the Gauleiter of Saxony, had made sure that his own family were safe.

Acts of aggression against civilians may indeed be a crime, but they are subsumed by the greater crime, war itself. And it is important to remember that all modern war is total to one degree or other, involving high civilian casualties, no matter how 'smart' the bomb or guided the weapon. Clio the Muse 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Older wars also targeted civilians in great numbers. During classical antiquity whole cities where destroyed and the population massacred and survivors sold as slaves. In the conquest of Jerusalem by the first crusade the civilian population was largely massacred. During the middle ages enemy nobles targeted each others peasants to dry up the revenue of the the other side. Gengis Khan destroyed dozens of cities leaving noone alive. Civilians have always been targeted and suffered during wars. Flamarande 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say often, but not always. There have been many wars where both sides agreed that civilians were off limits. StuRat 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Provide these 'clean' wars please. I am very curious. Such a statement needs evidence. Flamarande 10:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the Falklands War ? StuRat 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lenin's pseudonym
Short and sweet: Where do lie the roots to Ulyanov's pseudonym, Lenin? Many believe it lies in the name of the Russian river, Lena, but just now my colleague had sent me a quote from a book saying this story is made up. Anyone have any ideas? Lenin's Wikipedia entry is silent on the subject, so I'm taking this here. Thanks for the input and have a nice day! --Ouro (blah blah) 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He started to use the pseudonym 'Lenin' after returning to central Russia from Siberian exile in 1900. It is often assumed that it came from the River Lena, but this has never been proved one way or the other.  Perhaps the book you mention has some more specific information, at least on the origin of the alleged fabrication?  Clio the Muse 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Clio. The book alludes to the Lena massacre, and that Ulyanov started using this pseudonym referring to the river, in memory of the ones fallen. The Wikipedia article on the massacre even states that he had started using this name earlier, but does not provide an alternate source where it could have stemmed from. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ouro. Yes, his use of the name precedes the Lena massacre by at least ten years.  It is not impossible that his adopted name was, indeed, taken fron the Siberian river; it's just that this contention has never been proved conclusively, so far as I am aware.  Clio the Muse 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My biography (a Polish translation of a collective work by a group of Russian biographers, polish edition 1970) says that Nadezhda Krupskaya says it's a coincidence. He started using it ca. 1901. The text suggests, however, that he might have taken the idea from his co-worker Georgi Plekhanov (from the Iskra paper) who took to calling himself Volgin, openly referring to the Volga river. Thank you for your answer! --Ouro (blah blah) 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Letters of Lenin (1937, Doris Mudie ed.) claims he authored articles in 1898 as N. Lenin while still at Shushenskoye.&mdash;eric 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Does the book offer any explanation as to the source of the pseudonym? I surmise you'd have mentioned it, but still I ask explicitly :) --Ouro (blah blah) 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, nor any publication information for any of the articles in question.&mdash;eric 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouro, I discovered some more of his aliases, which include K. Tulin and V. Ilin (A History of Russia by N. V. Riasansovsky, 5th edition, 1993 p. 687). It looks to me as if Lenin evolved from Ilin.  Clio the Muse 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's one possibility, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure now that he's dead. He did occasionally use the "N. Lenin" form but, despite what some Western commentators still seem to think, the N never stood for Nikolai.  "N. " was a common device, often seen in Chekhov et al, used to indicate that the person's given name and patronymic were either unknown, irrelevant to the context, or intended to remain secret.  There is debate about what the "N" stands for - some say it's from ном (nom = name), some say it's from никто (nikto = nobody).  What's certain is that it does not stand for Nikolai.  JackofOz 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Clio, yes, I know he had used other pseudonyms when signing his documens or articles for newspapers (different still from the ones you mentioned, but I do not know their proper translations into English), but Lenin interested me because it stuck. It's very possible that it could have evolved from Ilin, I will not contest this at all. In this aspect it's a shame he's dead. The connection with the river Lena seems, however, the most obvious to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K., Ouro, in the style of bloodhound, once I have a scent in my nose I do not let it go before I have traced it to source! Anyway, I spent part of my morning looking up monographs and texts in the main university library here, and I am now able to give you some more detailed information. I'm no further forward on the exact origins of the Lenin sobriquet, though, and the best guess remains either the River Lena or a variation on an earlier theme. What I can tell you is that he used no less than 150, yes, 150, pseudonyms in the relatively brief period between the mid-1890s and 1902 (Lenin, C. Reid, 2005 p. 44). In his earliest writings, dating to 1893, he signed himself simply as 'V.U'., expanding this to 'K. Tulin', taken from the town of Tula, later that same year. In 1898 he used the name 'Vl. Iliyin' in reviewing a book by Parvus. (Lenin: Life and Legacy, D. Volkogonov, 1994 p. 2) The names he used most frequently were 'Tulin' or 'Iliyin'. In January 1901 he started to use 'Lenin' for the first time, but in the form of N. Lenin. It might, for necessary clandestine reasons, have changed yet again, but for one thing: in 1902 he published What is to be Done?, a title taken from his favourite political novel. It was this tract, signed 'N. Lenin', that established his name in the Socialist and Marxist world. (Lenin: A Biography, R. Service, 2000 p. 138) Although he continued to use other names, particularly in correspondence with the German Social Democrats, he published from that time forward under the name Lenin, with the initial eventually changing from N to V.  The River Lena does, indeed, seem obvious-since in the case of Tula he had already used a name with a geographical source-, and is a story so well-established that it will never go away, though I personally favour a modification of the earlier Iliyin. My apologies if you already knew most of this: I did not. Long live Poland! Clio the Muse 11:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

did Stalin get his name from a russian river?--Lerdthenerd 08:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you not read the Stalin page, Lerd? It means 'Man of Steel' in Russian.  Clio the Muse 11:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You make me go wow, Clio. I didn't imagine that he had used so many pseudonyms! And I didn't know most of what you wrote, most of this is new to me, thank you. You're right that it seems obvious where Lenin came from in conjunction with the example of Tula. I'll try to dig further - but today won't be a fruitful day since public libraries are closed in Poland Wednesdays. Thank you again! Long live Britain! --Ouro (blah blah) 11:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)