Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 2

= May 2 =

Sheet Music
Where can I find the sheet music for Ingrid Michaelson's Corner of Your Heart? I did a google search and called a local music store that sells sheet music but I couldn't find anything for that song. Thanks for the help. --71.90.24.21 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very possible that she doesn't have a publisher. Her website appears to be here; you could write and ask about getting a copy of the song. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Diversity
Which country has the most ethnically diverse population? Astronaut (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, by that do you mean having the most different ethnic groups (which will probably depend on how you define ethnic group but possibly could be roughly done) or the smallest largest ethnic group? Because a country could have small communities from many different cultures and backgrounds, each claiming a separate ethnic identity, but overall 97% of the population might belong to a single 'ethnic group', depending on definition.


 * For example, London is said to house representatives from every country in the world, but if you took the UK as a whole the population is largely white (not that white is an ethnicity, but I suspect this reflects what you actually want to know). Compare that to Canada, whose article says "The largest ethnic group is English (21%), followed by French (15.8%), Scottish (15.2%), Irish (13.9%), German (10.2%), Italian (5%), Chinese (4%), Ukrainian (3.6%), and First Nations (3.5%); Approximately, one third of respondents identified their ethnicity as "Canadian". (...) In 2006, 16.2% of the population belonged to non-aboriginal visible minorities." and tell me how you make sense of that and compare it? For the UK we learn "As of 2007, 22% of primary school children and 17.7% of children at secondary school in England were from ethnic minority families." but at the same time, about 86% recorded 'White British' on the census. BUT, unlike in Canada, people could not tick a box for 'English' or 'Scottish' or 'Welsh', only 'white other' if they didn't agree with the available options. Interestingly, only 1.2% recorded White Irish as compared to the Canadian 13.9%, which tells you issues of identity are as involved as actual ancestry.


 * So, how are you hoping to approach this? What is it you really want to know? 79.66.2.176 (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that Vatican City wins hands down in ethnic diversity. Unless there is a maternity ward (for which I estimate a rather limited clientele of local patients), 100% of the population of 824 (estimate July 2008) is foreign born.  During a papal enclave, there may be 900, but they still are all foreigners.  As to the cause of the population growth rate of 0.003%, well, it is a miracle to me...  .  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a similar idea being discussed on the language desk. Gwinva (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of language, if you look at it from that point of view, Papua New Guinea is the country with the most languages spoken, according to this. It says there are 820. Indonesia is next with 742, then Nigeria with 516 and India with 427. I agree with 77 that ethnicity is impossibly difficult to define and quantify. WikiJedits (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But of the 86% of people in the UK that are 'White British', surely they are all descendants of earlier waves of immigrants, which would make them a mixture of a variety of different nationalities and ethnic groups.HS7 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But Cheddar Man, who lived 9 000 years ago, has a relative living a mile away. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative conspiracy
When was the last time we had such a conservative dominance within G8 countries ? 69.157.234.29 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Canada : Harper (conservative, minority)
 * France : Sarkozy (conservative)
 * Germany : Merkel (conservative)
 * Italy : Berlusconi (conservative)
 * Russia : Putin-Medvedev (conservative)
 * Spain : Zapatero (liberal, though nearly defeated recently)
 * UK : Brown (liberal, although challenged by conservative David Cameron)
 * United States : Bush (conservative, though lame duck)


 * Here's a good place to start. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordon Brown is not a Liberal, he is a member of the Labour Party. And given that he is in government and David Cameron isn't, that's hardly evidence of your so-called conservative conspiracy. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And Harper has a minority government (though the opposition is currently his spineless toadies). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, Spain is not in the G8 and Zapatero is a Socialist. You are missing Japan (Yasuo Fukuda, conservative). But on the whole you see quite consistent shifts in balance over the 30 year existence of the G8/G7. In 1995 1999 the balance was almost reversed:


 * Canada: Jean Chrétien, liberal
 * Germany: Gerhard Schröder, social-democrat
 * Italy: Massimo D'Alema, socialist
 * Japan: Keizo Obuchi, conservative
 * Russia: Boris Jeltsin, reformer
 * United Kingdom: Tony Blair, social-democrat
 * United States: Bill Clinton, (liberal) Democrat
 * France: Jacques Chirac, conservative in coalition with social-democrats

In 1988 the situation was reversed again:
 * Canada: Brian Mulroney, conservative
 * Germany: Helmut Kohl, Christian-democrat
 * France: François Mitterrand, socialist
 * Italy: Ciriaco de Mita, Christian-democrat
 * Japan: Noboru Takeshita, conservative
 * United Kingdom: Margaret Thatcher, conservative
 * United States: Ronald Reagan, (conservative) Republican

In 1977 we see a shift in balance towards the left:
 * Canada: Pierre Trudeau, liberal
 * Germany: Helmut Schmidt, social-democrat
 * France: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Christian-democrat
 * Italy: Giulio Andreotti, Christian-Democrat
 * Japan: Takeo Fukuda, conservative
 * UK: James Callaghan, social-democrat
 * US: Jimmy Carter, (liberal) Democrat

- C mon (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither Tony Blair nor James Callaghan were Social Democrats. What exactly is the problem with putting Labour Party? Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure in 1995 John Major was Prime Minister in the UK, not Tony Blair. It's because so many people hate their governmet, so they vote for the opposite style of leaders a few years later.

I am absolutely delighted to report that the Conservative conspiracy is advancing rapidly across England; even the oinks are turning! I'm just waiting for final confirmation that the tide of Tsar Boris has washed over the ghastly King Newt! But we'll row forever. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was confirmed some 8 minutes before your post, Clio. Don't tell me you aren't glued to the BBC website? Algebraist 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Algebraist. I took my eye off the ball!  Thank you, London!!!  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you've also been celebrating the return of Torydom to Cambridge? Algebraist 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Need you ask?! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then all hail, Boris! I find him much sounder than he looks - which I admit it would be hard not to be... Xn4  23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kipling and Recessional
It's always puzzled me that Affred Austen was appointed Poet Laureate over Kipling. Was the reason political? I can't but think so. My main question, however, is about Kipling's poem 'Recessional'. This was written in celebration of the 1897 Jubilee and of the Empire but clerly reflects a sense of unease. What was it, specifically, Kipling was worried about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.12 (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Kipling was very much an imperialist, but he was also a shrewd fellow and no doubt could see enough of the future to know that the vainglorious hubris of the second Jubilee was a kind of summit: from the summit, you can only go down.
 * Far-called, our navies melt away;
 * On dune and headland sinks the fire:
 * Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
 * Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
 * Not bad, for a mere scribbler! Xn4  23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister, certainly expressed a preference for Rudyard Kipling over the grimly mediocre Alfred Austin. However, Kipling himself was not particularly receptive to the idea. Besides, it's possible that there may have been some resistance to the suggestion in the royal household itself. The Queen may not have been best amused by The Widow at Windsor!

Recessional is a fine poem, a hymn to the noon-day of British Imperialism, but far from being a jingoistic clarion; it does, indeed, as you have suggested, show a deep sense of unease. A lot of the introspection can indeed be explained by contemporary events. France was, once again, proving troublesome, as the Fashoda Incident was to demonstrate, and Germany and Italy, Europe's adolescent nations, were disturbing the old imperial calm. More than that, the British manufacturing, the very thing upon which the Empire was built, was facing ever fiercer competition from both Germany and the United States. The problem here was that much of the traditional industrial base was increasingly obsolete, with a marked failure to modernise and reinvest. Only 'invisible' exports served to carry the economy into surplus.

Going beyond the area of economics there were any number of challenges to the old order. Trade unions were growing in strength and militancy; women were beginning to question political orthodoxy; and Irish nationalism was a problem that simply refused to go away. Kipling's poem, which was widely popular, might be said to have spoken to all of these anxieties, particularly over the possible decline of British Naval power; that the bonfires of celebration might well be temporary and over-optimistic-On dune and headland sinks the fire. It's as if a Roman poet were writing at the time of Marcus Aurelius, warning what lay just over the horizon;

If, drunk with sight of power,

We loose wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,

Such boastings as the Gentiles use,

Of lesser breeds without the Law-

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Least we forget-lest we forget!

Kipling's sense of foreboding was also expressed in a letter to his cousin;

''Seeing what manner of armed barbarians we are surrounded with, we're about the only power with a glimmer of civilization in us...This is no ideal world but a nest of burglars, alas; and we must protect ourselves against being burgled. All the same, we have no need to shout and yell and ramp about strength because that is a waste of power, and because other nations can do the advertising better than we can. The big smash is coming one of these days, sure enough, but I think we shall pull through, not without credit.''

We did pull through, not without credit, as Kipling predicted, but only in such a way that all the pomp of yesterday would indeed be one with Nineveh and Tyre. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you found a umbrella organization?
Some of us are looking to found an umbrella organization for pro-free culture groups in New York City, including e.g. a Wikimedia affiliate, local Students for Free Culture groups, a One Laptop per Child affiliate and a chapter of the Internet Society.

But I'm not sure of the legal basis for founding such a group. Do we sign a simple agreemeent document? Do we have to establish a separate non-profit? Should this all be organized as a "project" of our most "senior" established partner?--Pharos (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to have your expenses be tax deductible you'll need to register as a non-profit. But altogether this is the sort of question that is probably best handled by talking with a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing (non-profit law and/or corporations law)—I'm betting that someone at the EFF would be willing and able to help. They'll know the best tax option and the best business options in this case. --140.247.240.135 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If one of our partner organizations is already a registered non-profit, can we declare them the "senior" partner, and have them formally handle our joint account?--Pharos (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Hi if i took the wechsler adult intelligence scale IQ test and scored full marks on the verbal and performance tests, what would my:

Thanks --Hadseys 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Full scale IQ
 * Verbal IQ
 * Performance IQ be?


 * While the WAIS article does not answer this (to my glancing eye), the Intelligence quotient one does - "In addition, IQ tests like the Wechsler were not intended to reliably discriminate much beyond IQ 130, as they simply do not contain enough exceptionally difficult items." While not directly answering your question(s), it provides a useful guideline. I know first hand (original research!) that scores above 130 are possible, but as the text indicates, are as useful as handlebars on a basketball. -- Ironmandius (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Josephine Butler
Josephine Butler has become a rather marginal figure in the annals of British feminism. Is there any reason for this? Is it perhaps that the kind of moral crusading that she favoured has rather gone out of fashion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.12 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Try Josephine Butler. For more, see Barbara Caine's Victorian Feminists (1992). Xn4  00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Josephine Butler was certainly an important figure, the first woman to become a national political activist, as important in her own way as Florence Nightingale or Emmeline Pankhurst. I suppose her reputation has indeed suffered by her close association with the likes of William Thomas Stead, with all of his harsh mid-Victorian morality. She deserves better. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So do many of our foremothers deserve better. Angela Burdett-Coutts, 1st Baroness Burdett-Coutts, the wealthiest heiress in England, devoted her life to good works and philanthropy. Dull? Not a bit of it -- she contracted a scandalous marriage, which surely counterbalances the worthiness of founding the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Why is she not more celebrated? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What was the danger?
What was the danger that Euphrosyne warned the emperor Theophilos (ninth century byzantine) of? Jenny Engels (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is in our article on Euphrosyne :) WikiJedits (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, not really; not that I can see, anyway!


 * The danger, Jenny, came after rumours reached Constantinople that Theophilos had been killed in his campaign against Al-Afshin in Anatolia. Those senators and senior officials opposed to the Emperor did not trouble to discover if the news was true or not before considering alternative candidates for the throne.  Euphrosyne, aware of these political maneuvers, sent a messenger in search of her stepson, advising him to return without delay.  According to later Arabic and Syriac sources the message read "The Romans who have come have reported that you are killed and they wish to appoint another king; come quickly."  Theophilos returned.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Belly Dance
I know that belly dance is part of Arab culture, but I began to notice that Iranian and Afghani Pashtuns girls are doing. Is there a history behind this or these wanted to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine it would have spread with the spread of Islam. Belly dancing, if the original Arabic words for it are directly translated, is called "country dancing" or "folk dancing". In N Africa, at least. Also, with belly dancing women only dance for other women. The men and the women split and dance with their own group. Wrad (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Belly dance. Wrad (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural resources of Canada issues
What are the issues that Canada is facing when it comes to its natural resources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some good places to start are Hydroelectricity, Tar Sands, Cod, Salmon, Uranium mining and Wind Power. WikiJedits (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

new year
I notice that ethnic group Bengali, Punjabi and Persian have their own new year celebrations, but what about the Arabs and the Turks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See Islamic New Year. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify: the Islamic New Year is celebrated by Muslim Arabs and Turks. It generally isn't celebrated by Arabs and Turks who are Christian, Jewish, atheist, etc. There are probably more of them than you think. --D. Monack | talk 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, citizens of Turkey who are Kurdish celebrate new year at the spring equinox. It is called Nawruz. Many peoples have their own new year festivities. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tabandeh and Mahmassani
Who are Sultanhussein Tabandeh and Subhi Mahmassani? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A search on google hints that they are modern Iranian writers. Spencer  T♦C 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Struggle between east and west
This would seem to have anicient roots. Would you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.70 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. Read all the articles linked to on this page, and then all those linked to on those pages, for a detailed explanation of what happened.HS7 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You could do no better than read Professor Anthony Pagden's recently published Worlds at War: The 2,500-Year Struggle Between East and West (Oxford University Press, March 2008). Clio the Muse (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the media pay more attention to East coast baseball clubs, probably because those on the West coast are all expansion teams and have not had the same length of time to build up a fan base, people can't remember being taken to games with the Mariners for example with their father because the team did not exist then.Also, much of the media is East coast based and the later times of games in the West means they don't finish in time for East coast TV reporting.hotclaws 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The East/West barrier is artificial and arbitrary, and struggles between belligerants on either side of said divide are neither more frequent, nor more important, than struggles between belligerants from the same side of said divide. Ninebucks (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Less than a generation ago, the media presentation of the world divide was into North and South, and not in Elizabeth Gaskell's meaning. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to Sino-Indian war of communities in Singapore and Malaysia?
Hello,

since Singapore and Malaysia have a considerable percentage of ethnic Chinese and Indian people, I was just wondering how these communities reacted to the Sino-Indian war. Did they take different sides or were they indifferent? Thanks,Evilbu (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is an awfully good question. I can tell you that the Chinese minority in India suffered after the 1962 war. The perceived betrayal of Nehru's trust by Mao meant that the image of the perfidious Chinese entered the public imagination, completely replacing the much more benign image that had existed before. This had awful consequences for the 100,000 Chinese, especially in the north-east and Bengal, which were most at risk from Chinese invasion. Many of the more recent immigrants were deported to a prison camp in Rajasthan built at American insistence to hold "communist agitators"; the naturalisation process for many of the others was stopped. In response, the Indo-Chinese community has gradually built up an aggressively anti-People's Republic sense of Chinese nationalism: it was first focused on Hong Kong, and then, after Thatcher blinked, it turned inward and Westward. In recent years, the largest city for Indian Chinese is not Calcutta but Toronto, where I understand they are considered "different".
 * I would suppose that the minorities in SE Asia were similarly concerned with their own immediate affairs. Singapore had not made the final break with Malaysia yet; my supposition is that the two minorities were more concerned with ensuring their positions were protected vis-a-vis the Malay majority than in turning on each other... -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Rockefeller
Why is there no Wikipedia entry on Nicholas Rockefeller? 99.232.35.234 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Michael Epstein


 * You can request one at WP:Requested articles. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk  19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An article on someone with this name (I do not know if it is the same person you mention) was deleted last year on the grounds that he is not considered important enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. An archived discussion of the reasoning can be read here WikiJedits (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Solid ("RS") biographical data on him should be here:, an about the authors page of a volume he contributed to.John Z (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Parr
what is significant about queen catherine parr other than being the last of henry 8s wives?86.153.162.80 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In what context? PeterSymonds | talk  19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The other piece of trivia which gets rolled out about her a lot is that "She was the most married English queen, with four husbands." See Catherine Parr. SaundersW (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * More significantly, she was the last native-born Englishwoman to be Queen Consort before Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the late Quuen Mum. --Wetman (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Englishwoman is a bad word, Britishwoman would be more appropriate, given her ancestry, dont you think? Moreover, Catherine was the first Queen of Ireland. She was raised a catholic but later converted to the new faith. Her strength and religious convictions, greatly influenced her stepdaughter Elizabeth I. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the Queen Mum be considered Scottish?  Corvus cornix  talk  20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

She was probably the most intelligent of Henry's wives; she was certainly the most literate. She financed the translation of Erasmus' Paraphrases of the gospels, choosing the translators for each book, and may very well have translated The Boke of St Matthew herself. She certainly translated John Fisher's Psalms or Prayers. Her greatest achievement, though, was in writing Lamentations of a Sinner, the first work every published by a Queen of England, and the first in prose to be published by a woman in the sixteenth century.

Catherine was also a figure of some political influence. It was largely thanks to her that Princess Mary was brought back into the line of succession. She was trusted enough by Henry to have diplomatic conversations with the ambassadors of the Emperor Charles in the interest of improving Anglo-Imperial relations. When Henry went campaigning against France in 1544 he appointed Catherine Regent-General. She was highly adept in the arts of governance, even being bold enough to countermand an order from the King over military supplies.

So, in all, much more than the most married English Queen! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism-arguments against
What are the philosophical arguments against anarchism? St Sancho (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that it ignores human nature and thus can't possibly work? --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sancho, I suspect you already know some arguments against anarchism, especially if you have been reading The German Ideology! However, this is more raw polemic than philosophy, I freely admit!

The fundamental objection is, of course, to the core assumption that the state will always exercise a coercive influence, and that society without the state, however conceived, will always be better. It is almost impossible to demonstrate this contention in any meaningful way. Utopias, moreover, have a habit of becoming more oppressive than the old systems of governance. Lawlessness does not reduce oppression; it merely allows new forms of oppression to thrive. The closest one can get to the ideal is in the practical-minded notions of people like Robert Nozick. Better a minimal state than no state at all. Better private property and freedom than licence and anarchy. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Iron law of oligarchy may be more of an argument of the futility then against the ideology per se. I think there's also a quote somewhere that once you have two social persons, you have a hierarchical people de facto. (Edit - my apologies, I think I am trapped in indent ambiguity, but this is a response to Sancho) -- Ironmandius (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We have an entire article on this subject, Criticisms of anarchism. It is though, perhaps unsurprisingly, a bit of a mess. For specifically Marxist criticisms of anarchism (as opposed to, say, criticisms from the right), our article on Anarchism and Marxism is somewhat better. --Delirium (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Roads. -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms prior to Henry II
Is there any evidence of English Royal arms being used before Henry II? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the back of my mind, it begins with Henry II's father Geoffrey of Anjou. Checking our article on Geoffrey, I see it says "The first reference to Norman heraldry was in 1128, when Henry I of England knighted his son-in-law Geoffrey and granted him a badge of gold lions (or leopards) on a blue background..." Sadly, that isn't directly cited, but you may be able to track it down. Xn4  23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How are new militaries formed???
When a military is first formed, how do they fill the roles? Who gets to be a General and who gets to be a Private?--Goon Noot (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the whole, those who borrowed the money to hire themselves a new army got to lead it, or else to appoint its leaders. The desperadoes who took the King's shilling began at the bottom of the command structure and generally stayed there. Xn4  23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The armies of the Confederate States of America were hastily assembled in 1861. Generally, the officers were elected democratically. A wealthy person might have funded the regiment and been acclaimed colonel. Generals generally got their commisions from the King, Congress, or other governing authority. In some countries, like Britain of the 18th century, it was common to purchase commisions as officer. Edison (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are too many (if any!) examples of any modern-day nation deciding to create a completely new military organization from nothing, but I would imagine that if a modern-day country, by some miracle or magic, suddenly found itself completely without any military personnel, resources and infrastructure, and decided that they really needed to have some, the Minister of Defense or someone in a comparable position (depending on the type of government in said country, of course) would appoint people in charge of this new army -- that is to say, generals, who would then make their own appointments and recruit men into the army by whatever methods would be legally available to them. These geenrals would probably be people who had previous experience of running large military organizations, or who at least had a good understanding of how that sort of thing is done, if no such people were available at all -- not to mention people equipped with functioning morals and ethics, one would hope. The appointments would probably be based on skill, merit, connections, loyalty and/or bribes, depending on the government in question. It could even be a democratic process.
 * If, on the other hand, this new military was a more private enterprise along the lines of "an organized horde of armed guys calling itself an army", the general would probably start out as the guy who commanded the most respect and had some understanding of tactics and strategy, and probably enough charisma, brains and connections to keep his soldiers armed, fed, loyal, happy and winning fights, or at least not losing too badly. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See Blackwater Worldwide and Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army --S.dedalus (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, but that's really a pretty straightforward employer/employee relationship, surely, and it's a business that's selling services. I don't think that's quite what Goon Noot was asking about. (Or is it?) Also, does Blackwater qualify as an army? I'm wondering, because the number of people involved is relatively small and they don't actually operate as an army, they just hire out personnel and services to other parties. I've always thought of them more as a a highly specialized temping agency than an army in themselves, if you'll allow a slightly dumb analogy. The Blackwater article doesn't seem to address these questions very well. Other mercenary outfits, like the now defunct Executive Outcomes have popped up over the years, but I've never thought of them as "armies", either -- not that I think that such a thing as a mercenary army couldn't exist, but I don't think they qualify. If anyone is better informed about this stuff, I'd be very interested in pointers on where to look for further information along these lines... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the replies. What I was looking for is information on the new Iraqi army and the afghan national army.--Goon Noot (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, ignore those military establishments -- those armies are of dubious quality, & there is serious doubt that they can keep their respective governments in power. (IMHO, the Afghan army is a better bet than the Iraqi army.) Instead look at the groups who are most likely to gain control of those countries, & watch how they go thru the steps of (1) accumulating weapons & material to pose a military threat; (2) establish discipline over the members of those groups -- otherwise they are little better than brigands -- then (3) organize an infrastructure that allows their combatants to devote themselves to being soldiers full time. -- llywrch (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think the quality of the armies is the question here at all, llywrch...
 * In any case, Goon Noot, I think the articles you link to already contain some information about the subject, but in both cases, they aren't really brand new armies, or "militaries that are being first formed" -- rather, they are a reformation of an existing military structure. To put it in the simplest possible terms, they are operating with a mandate from their respective governments, probably with not inconsiderable influence from the United States. They have undoubtedly appointed certain people to be in charge (i.e., made them generals, if they didn't already hold that rank, or promoted suitably experienced people to that rank from lesser ranks, if the current generals are deemed unsuitable for the job). Naturally, new recruits in these armies start out as privates. This is all supposition, of course, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that they would use some completely different process for doing it, as this is pretty much established practice. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)