Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 23

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.

October 23

Scholars Cited on Wikipedia

I was happy to notice that my friend, Jan Westerhoff, has become one of the Wikipedia entries. Nonetheless, I then searched for other (very senior) academics in similar fields, and found that none of them were listed. For example: Kate Crosby (scholar of Buddhism, Pali and Sanskrit) Daud Ali (eminent historian of ancient and medieval India)

Would you consider including them?

Best regards, Mattia Salvini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.192.39 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is emphatically not how it works. If somebody, unsolicited, sees fit to include references or citations to these scholars, so much the better. But the purpose of this project is not to affirm friends and colleagues' eminence in their respective fields. If the quality of their work is truly outstanding, chances are that it will find its way into Wikipedia sooner or later. Vranak (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But Mattia Salvini didn't indicate that these others were friends or even acquaintances. Further, although people whose work in certain fields (e.g. recording voices for Japanese animated movies) is entirely humdrum are indeed pretty sure to get articles, those who are renowned in certain academic fields are very unlikely to do so. Behind me is a shelf with books by Frederick Newmeyer and Ray Jackendoff (actual articles), Peter Culicover and Lydia White (mere stubs), Alan Cruse, Andrew Radford, Barry Blake, Jerome Feldman, Robert Binnick..... Hoary (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When Wikipedia calls itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," it's not an empty slogan. This is a volunteer project, and that means you, too! You really can go ahead and create pages for these people. If you do, I recommend posting links to their most significant academic papers, and also to instances where other respected people or organizations have cited or lauded that person's work. The article WP:ACADEMIC has some guidelines on what sort of academics qualify for an article, and WP:RELIABLE has some very useful guidelines on what we consider the "reliable sources" necessary to check up on the claims that the article makes. If you have trouble with your article, just type "{{helpme}}" on your personal page, and usually one of Wikipedia's senior volunteers will wander over to help out in fairly short order. --M@rēino 04:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

However, Mattia, we do have a service under Wikipedia:Requested articles, where you can list any topic you think would be a reasonable inclusion as a new article, and someone will eventually consider it and make a call as to whether an article is appropriate or not, and if so, start one. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of academics is spotty to say the least. At the level of "world famous scientist," it is pretty good, but other than that, it falls off the map completely. Part of this is that most academics don't appear in the kind of sources that Wikipedia editors read, and biographical information is almost nonexistent for most of them (other than the one-paragraph mini-CV that most post on their web pages). Additionally, the fact remains that even "eminent" scholars are probably known to a few dozen, maybe a hundred or so, people in the world to be such. That doesn't mean they can't be included (we have guidelines about that, linked above), but it does reduce the chance that anyone is going to bother including them. As far as I can tell, most "non-world famous" academics get added into Wikipedia because they are references for other articles—especially if they are contentious references. There are a lot of Darwin and Einstein scholars in here—because they are being cited in disputes about Einstein and Darwin, and being able to say, "my source is a high-grade, Ivy-league academic" does make a difference, and being able to say that with Wikipedia helps, too. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One obvious answer is: online availability. Current books by, say, Cambridge University Press are generally available for limited preview on googlebooks - so their authors have a wider presence on wikipedia than those whose books are available only as hard copies or through a paid subscription. A quick search for Kate Crosby shows her books not available online. NVO (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. I surely did not intend to highlight anybody's eminence - rather, my purpose was to offer a friendly suggestion to help Wikipedia become more complete (although, yes, both scholars are acquaintances of mine, for that matter). I am not necessarily as optimistic as to think that we live in a perfectly meritocratic world, hence I would not assume that outstanding work becomes necessarily and quickly visible on the net (however, I may well be wrong). In fact, incidentally, Daud Ali did publish with Cambridge (http://www.amazon.com/Courtly-Culture-Political-Medieval-Cambridge/dp/0521816270); and, unless I made a mistake in the procedure, I did make the request through the Requested Articles service too. Since these scholars are acquaintances of mine, I felt slightly awkward writing the entries myself, and rather, I preferred giving a suggestion that could be later on taken into consideration by others. Once again, I would like to make clear that neither do I have any interest in furthering their eminence, nor do I think they themselves would be interested in that. I hope you will trust that not all requests necessarily contain some hidden agenda (Mattia Salvini)

How can fines be cheaper than parking?

Regularly I've read news stories mentioning some company such as FreshDirect parking their trucks on the street and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines rather than parking legally. How can such a business model make sense? Do they play the odds and find that you don't get ticketed every time? Imagine Reason (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the time that they save by not having to find a legal parking spot factors into the equation. —Kevin Myers 06:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This article [1] doesn't quite come out and connect the dots, nor does it say what their sales figures are, but they hire very cheap labor, and that probably helps offset the price of doing business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In Manhattan finding legal parking for each stop along a delivery route would be infeasible. In many places, finding a legal space for a full sized truck within a reasonable distance of the destination is impossible, much less on a reasonable schedule. So even if the fines end up being costly, they don't have too much choice. Rckrone (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean unfeasible. 78.149.146.34 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Both words are correct, and their Google counts show that "infeasible" is somewhat more commonly used. --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, October 23, 2009.

Although stuff I'm finding on google says it's legal to double park while making a delivery provided there are no spaces nearby (except in midtown), so I wonder what exactly they do that's illegal. Rckrone (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's likely also a compromise reached after collecting together a month's worth of tickets and utilizing representation when visiting the clerk's office -- similar to paying back taxes and getting a substantial break. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, in DC it's a similar situation: some times they just plain can't find a legal spot, and double parking is only legal in very narrow circumstances. But the DC government doesn't want to run these guys out of business; they just want to collect enough money to compensate the citizenry for the trouble that the deliverymen cause travellers. So the fines are substantial, but not so high that it would make sense to spend 15 minutes looking for a spot, end up parking 4 blocks away, and then hauling the delivery 4 blocks. The company is better off getting tickets. --M@rēino 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rckrone got it right - in a lot of cases the (delivery/taxi) drivers have no choice. They even have a show for that Parking Wars - very funny when you are watching this calm and collected at home, not so funny when you are the guy getting the ticket. Royor (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. I've been under the impression that they park overnight illegally as well. That would not make sense, would it? Imagine Reason (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

US (state sizes)

Why are the western US states larger than the eastern ones? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eastern states were founded as the Thirteen Colonies, which were semi-self-governing dependcies of the British crown. Their borders and areas were established in the 17th century, and were often based on natural boundaries, such as rivers or mountain ranges. The area of these 13 states provided the original territory of the country; while a few states were divided out of the territory of these states (Tennessee out of North Carolina, Maine out of Massachusetts, Vermont out of New York/New Hampshire) most of the remaining states were created "on demand" as the U.S. expanded westward during the period known as Manifest Destiny. Most of the Western U.S. had VERY low population density, and was subdivided into areas known as "territories" which were granted limited local self government, but were still administered directly by the U.S. federal government, and these areas did not have the same rights as States did. When one of these territories reached a sufficient population, they often applied for and were granted Statehood, which gave them coequal status with other states. Since the territories themselves tended to be rather large in area, due mostly to low population, the states simply adopted the full area of the old "territory". Thus, Colorado Territory just became the state of Colorado. Only one large western state, Texas, had a serious movement to carve it up; the original treaty that annexed Texas to the U.S. left open the option of creating up to 4 additional new states out of its area; that never happened. --Jayron32 05:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I was going to say "because they have more square miles!" and then write something along the same lines that you did. And to point out that even today there are large areas of the west that are very sparsely populated, a fact reflected in where county lines are drawn. The sparser the population, the larger the counties. You have some counties in western states that are larger than Rhode Island, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The largest American county in area is San Bernardino County, California, which is larger than the nine smallest states as noted in List of U.S. states and territories by area, 8 of which are eastern shore states and the other is Hawaii. Harney County, Oregon is another large county, larger than the six smallest states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The most sparsely populated state appears to be Wyoming, which ranks last in population among the 50 states as noted in List of U.S. states and territories by population, but is 10th among all states in terms of area. Vermont and D.C. are among the smallest states in area, yet are more populous than Wyoming. So when you see a "red and blue" map, it looks mostly red but that red is over much lower population densities. What would be nice here is a list that ranks states by population density. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps Bugs? List of U.S. states by population density Googlemeister (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a slip of the mind or pixels, but DC is, of course, not a state. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeh, but the point is that D.C., a city, if you will, has more people in it than the entire state of Wyoming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My state of Rhode Island has about a million people living on about a thousand square miles of land (about 1,000/sq. mile). Wyoming has about half a million living on about 100,000 square miles (about 5/sq. mile). Most of the 250-odd counties in Texas, and about half of the 58 in California, have larger areas than that of the entire State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations. Large states weren't very practical until the development of railroads, although Virginia's original claim was quite large. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Alaska would be the most sparsely populated. It has something like 1 person per square mile. Googlemeister (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Area cartogram of the United States, with each county rescaled in proportion to its population. Colors refer to the results of the 2004 U.S. presidential election popular vote.

Bugs, are you aware of cartograms? The one pictured to the right corrects for the issue of large, sparsely-populated areas. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The creation and delineation of US states is a topic more complex than one might at first suspect. Certainly there is something to the points given above. Over time it began easier to travel longer distances, thus making larger areas able to come together and form a government. And much of the west was arid with poor potential for the kind of dense agricultural development seen in the east. Despite major advances in irrigation and the like, the population density in the west is significantly lower than in the east (with a few notable exceptions such as California). But there were other factors in how new states were created. Politics played a major role, especially in the era leading up to the Civil War, when the average size of new states began to increase significantly. Since each new state meant two new Senators in Congress and perhaps in time quite a few Representatives in the House, the addition of new states threatened any political balance of power in Congress. In the decades before the Civil War, when there was a basic balance of power between northern and southern states in Congress, it became standard practice to admit new states in pairs--one form the south and one from the north, in order to maintain the Congressional balance of power. For either side it would have made political sense to create relatively small states, so that a larger number of future states might be created with northern or southern sympathies. The new states themselves typically desired larger sizes, especially as new states battled for access to rivers, ports, natural resources, etc. Then there was the sudden and rather unplanned addition of Texas and California, both far larger than anything previous. The large size of Texas in particular resulted in the southern faction of Congress fighting against the creation of smaller states in the north. Even after the Civil War politics played a major role in how new states came to be defined. In short, the large size of western states seems logical in hindsight due to the relatively low population density through much of the region, but at the time the states were being made population density was overshadowed by the political fighting and compromises between the parties of Congress. After all, it was Congress that decide whether a new state would become a state, and when, and with what borders. Do you think members of Congress base their decisions on rather abstract notions like, "the land is arid and may not ever develop a dense population", or do they base them on how their political party can gain, or maintain power? Two new senators per state tended to trump all other concerns. Pfly (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote, California (1851) and Texas (1846), two large states admitted during the Mexican War period and thus before the Transcontinental Railroad, were given the option of subdividing into two (for California) and as many as six (for Texas—or is it 5?). This would reflect both practical limits within the newly-admitted states before railroads had fully developed, and political convenience beyond them. The balance of Senators, and of states required to ratify Constitutional amendments, was important to the South when the balance of national opinion was turning against slavery and towards its restriction or abolition by legislation or constitutional amendment. Had Southern California (with Southern sympathies) become a separate state, she would likely have sent two Senators friendly to the South. Had there been more than two Senators from all the Texases together, they would also have added to the southern bloc. Southern California and Texan spin-offs would also have increased the number of states needed to amend the Constitution. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by date of statehood does not particularly support that premise. The chief debate was about slave states vs. free states, which came to a head and then become irrelevant as a result of the Civil War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're treating that way too lightly. Pfly is correct; it was a deep part of why states are the way they are now, for decades. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You may notice that North Dakota and South Dakota are relatively small, as Western states go. Our article at Dakota Territory says, that among other reasons, the Territory was divided into two states so that the Republicans could have more representation in the Senate. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A recent book by Mark Stein, "How the States Got Their Shape" (Harper Collins 2008) delves into the question. It notes that Congress post 1791 adopted a principle that new states should be created equal, as much as feasible. This is why most of the post-original 13 states have a similar width. For the original 13, the vagaries of colonization meant that they were of very different sizes, but it was felt that future states should have a more standardized size. Texas, California and Alaska were exceptions, but they were already well-defined entities when they became states, in contrast with the Kansas, Colorado, Oregon or Dakota territories from which a number of new states of roughly equal size were carved.

--Xuxl (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read that book and it is fascinating (for a geography nerd like me), but woefully lacking in references and citations. I found his claims about the goal of standardized sized states intriguing--especially in the specific details regarding lines of latitude and longitude. But when I tried to find further sources--primary sources--backing up his claims, I could not. His book, though a fun read, would never make Wikipedia feature class for lack of citations alone. Using his vague source hints I scoured the Congressional archives looking for some decision or agreement on the standardization of state shapes and sizes. I admit I did not read all the Congressional records, but I looked pretty hard and found nothing. Furthermore, Stein makes some plainly outrageous claims. For example, he states as simple fact that the 42nd parallel (today the border of several western states) was chosen during the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819 because it had been specified in the 1792 Nootka Convention between Spain and Britain--at which time the 42nd parallel was chosen because that line more or less ran south of the Columbia River's drainage basin. But in 1792 no one had the slightest clue about the Columbia's basin. The river's mouth wasn't even entered until 1792. Furthermore, the Nootka Conventions contain no explicit boundaries and never mention any latitudes or any other border lines. That Stein could claim that the borders of several US states have their roots in the Nootka Convention is simply wrong. With such a glaring and easily debunked claim playing a major role in Stein's book, I caution against the rest. It is a good read, and much of it is probably true and accurate. But it is not a scholarly work, contains some basic errors, and lacks references. If anyone knows of a better source to back up the idea that Congress decided and worked to create states of a standardized size like Stein describes, I would like to know. I tried to verify it and failed. Pfly (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that some of the original 13 states at first had no specific western boundary and claimed land far to the west of their heartland. Virginia and Connecticut both claimed land that became part of the state of Ohio. Georgia and Tennessee claimed land as far west as the Mississippi River. The states ceded their western land to the federal government between 1780 and 1802 -- see state cessions. Virginia remained pretty big until the separation of West Virginia during the civil war. -- 23:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

British Princes and Princesses

Some British Princes and Princesses seem to be officially referred to with the definite article in front of their names, for instand "HRH the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon". Is there any general rule about when the definite article should be used? --rossb (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See Forms of address in the United Kingdom. Basically, "the" implies holding a rank in one's own right, while absence of "the" implies a rank based on one's father's (higher) rank. So "John, the Viscount Norton" is the holder of an hereditary viscounty, while "John, Viscount Norton" is the son of the Earl of Norton. Tevildo (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Tevildo, but that's not what Ross Burgess asked. Princess Margaret was "HRH the Princess Margaret" because she was a daughter of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales is "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, etc" because he is a son of the Sovereign, but his children do not have the definite article in front of their titles because they are not yet children of the Sovereign. Wife of "The Prince X" is "The Princess X"; for example Camilla is officially "The Princess Charles". Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, my apologies. The system is consistent, fortunately - one is a prince or princess "in one's own right" if one is the son or daughter of the Sovereign, but "Prince" is only a courtesy title of the son of the son of the Sovereign. _Not_ the son of the daughter of the Sovereign - Peter Phillips, despite being eleventh in line to the throne, has no title of nobility at all (as his father was a commoner). Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to actually read courtesy title - the son of peer doesn't use the same title just reduced one level as a courtesy title, they use one of their father's lesser titles (which will have a different place name). --Tango (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Command and control still used by the military despite being very outdated in management or business?

In management the Command And Control style would be considered old fashioned and sub-optimal, although it probably still exists in more backward organisations and, I imagine, ignorant supervisors. Is Command And Control still the bee's knees in military theory, or has military theory begun to catch up with management theory? A side point that I anticipate someone asserting is that Command And Control would be appropriate during emergency situations such as on the battlefield, or in coercing reluctant squadies to risk their lives, but I'm not so sure. 78.149.146.34 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're behind the times, it's C4ISTAR now. two more C's. They're attacking us on the left what shall we do? The control system in wikipedia is of course the acme of perfection, all decisions will be by consensus. Please ask questions in a more neutral tone, or better yet may I suggest you learn how to use the search box and then the wisdom of wikipedia will be open to you and you won't have to worry about being subjected to sarcastic replies. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if they ask questions in a neutral tone? Since when do we require our questioners to be neutral? Or even our answerers, frankly. I'm not neutral and I don't try to be. I'm not writing an encyclopedia article, here, I'm answering a question! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This response was way out of line. --Sean 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC, response to the OP) You have to remember that the Military and Business organizations have very different goals. Business is primarily concerned with making money; or more importantly, with creating value for shareholders. That is its only goal. The military is primarily concerned with killing people before your own people get killed. This difference in goals will necessitate a difference in management styles to bring the different goals around. Its a bit hard to develop mission statements and have brainstorming sessions and teambuilding activities while bombs are falling around your head, and cubicle workers will only take getting screamed at for so long. --Jayron32 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I know a couple officers and enlisted men who studied business or politics, and they have been quite pleased with how flexible and adaptive military management can be. One Marine major describes his job as that of a consultant: soldiers from all over the division come to him with intel problems, and he pulls together ad hoc teams to solve them. That said, at base it is Command And Control, because there's still one big difference between the military and the business world -- if two people start quarrelling over who has what authority in the heat of a battle, people die. --M@rēino 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion and consensus high up. At the bottom though what they really seem to want is to build tightly knitted teams, and to some extent that is accentuated by them not being able to answer back too much individually and therefore forming a group to unite. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just curious -- what now-trendy management/organizational model(s) would you (78.149.146.34) recommend the military consider implementing so as to be more efficient and productive at what the military does, and why? Wikiscient 20:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the army (and the military in general) doesn't use managers, they have leaders; the two terms are not synonymous. If you'd like an excellent discussion of the difference between the two, I would recommend Small Unit Leadership [2] by Dandridge Malone. In military communities, Command and Control has, in my experience, never been referred to as a management or leadership style, but rather used as a noun, e.g. you either have it or you don't during tactical operations. While the concept of management and leadership are related, they are different, and in the case of the Army, management usually refers to a system developed to aid in the accomplishment of a task (e.g. risk management) vs. the social interaction that encourages subordinates to assist you in accomplishing a task(e.g. coercive leadership, as the OP mentioned. "I'm telling you to do it and if you don't, I'll recommend you for Nonjudicial punishment." Another good example that may help to better understand the army leadership system would be to read Field Manual 6-22: Leadership. [3]Zharmad (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I like to second Wikiscient's question, and wondering if the OP would give example/situation when the army is being sub-optimal? Coercing reluctant squadies (soldiers) to risk their lives? Ho ho, you don't coerce, order - soldiers obey - death. (which is very hard and costly, if not impossible, for a business to get that kind of loyalty). Royor (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point Royor and Wikiscient to the guidelines of the reference desk, at the top of the page. Turning the table back on the OP with such remarks, requesting solutions from the one who asks the question is not appropriate. You are supposed to be here to help. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Aside: Fair enough. I certainly meant no offense, nor was I trying to turn any tables. I was just curious, though, in part because, given the variety of "management styles" in use in the military depending on situation, mission, etc., I wanted to clarify what exactly was being asked. I'm new to the reference desk, so don't have a good feel yet for what's considered PC or not. Thank you for your patience with that. But: I don't see anything at the top of the page about not asking follow-up questions, and I've certainly seen it done by others since I started reading though answers a few days ago...! Wikiscient 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I guess I was out of line. I apologize. Royor (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what the latest in management theory is - it may be the Balanced scorecard. Having been both employed in a large government organisation and studied business and management, my impression is that the idea of things being run by The Leader is considered a bad thing. Rather, each invidual should be the selfless and impartial administrator of various procedures, codes of conduct, job role, ethics, laws, decision rules (such as seeking to increase the net present value), goals (like "maximising shareholder value", "good customer service", "reducing staff turnover"). Initiative within the preceeding constraints is good at all levels. The big problem with having a strong leader is that people are afraid to pass information including bad news upwards: without this feedback the organisation has no means to do maintenance and repairs, optimise, or react to a changing environment, and it therefore stops fulfilling its goals. People cover things up to please those with power over them, people are rewarded for lip-service, The Leader makes decisions on the basis of this fiction rather than actuality. The assessment and promotion of people on the basis of their willingness to give lip service can become institutionalised, and in my experience people can even internalise these values.

I can see how the "strong leader" may be effective where the leader is in the same environment as the subordinates and can see with his or her own eyes the same things that the subordinates are aware of without needing to be told by them. But where the organisation is too large for the leader to see for themselves what is going on, then the autocratic leader idea is ineffective. Another mistake that someone in a leadership position may make is to believe that their role is simply being that of a leader and to therefore neglect all the other duties of management as listed by Henri Fayol for example. 78.149.142.134 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your idea of the autocratic leader shows why totalitarian regimes tend to suffer after a while. In such regimes, it's expected that the people at the top know everything - so the military might suffer.

Take American football, for instance, as it has been compared to war in some ways by many, becuase of the very physical nature of the sport. A really autocratic leader might not listen to his players, when one of them sees some weakness in the other team that can be exploited. A slightly less autocratic (but still command and control) leader will allow some measure of control to subordinates - so the quarterback can, say, change the play at the line to take advantage, without having to get the coach's permission. that doesn't make the coach less command and control. It just means he is able to relinquish a bit of control at just the right moments.

Now, just translate that to the battlefield. A command and control person can still give his subordinates room for a little ingenuity, but they had better have a very good reason, that's all.209.244.187.155 (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This idea of them doing things because they fear being shot by their own side, that isn't how it works except in extreme cases. What I was saying above about forming tightly knitted teams is more the goal - then you get them looking after each other's welfare and having the support of each other and sharing the risks. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell it to U.S. CEOs, lol! ;)

I respect the points raised by 78.149.142.134 and agree with 209.244.187.155's & Dmcq's comments. Basically: it's a delicate balance considering what the military is tasked, over-all, to do, but the idea is to have strong leadership without that leadership becoming excessively, counter-productively "authoritarian" (= bad leadership). Wikiscient 21:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)