Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 10

=December 10=

Food/Clothing for Mexican/Inuit children
I need to find information that will allow me to compare the food and clothing of Mexican children to those of Eskimo children. Where should I look? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.65.8 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * First, learn the PC/professional word "inuit", it should improve your searching. 2nd, you could check out the articles on Mexico and Greenland. Don't know much about Greenland, but I think they import a lot of cheap foods from Europe.惑乱 分からん 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per "DON'T BITE THE QUESTIONER" the article Eskimo says "There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit in northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland, and the Yupik of western Alaska and the Russian Far East." so your 'politically correct/professional' usage is questionable. Edison 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can find that information from Google. Do an image search to easily identify the info you need. Here's one for inuit + children + clothes: here.  Then substitute "mexican" for "inuit" and then repeat process for inuit + children + food and then mexican + children + food.  The main differences are due to the drastically different climates.  Inuits wear warmer clothes than Mexicans.  Interestingly enough, "Eskimo" means something like "raw meat eaters". Also think that people tend to eat what's around them.  A Mexican might eat cactus fruit where an Inuit might eat a seal, for instance.  Also look at the articles Inuit and Mexico and related articles linked from those. If you need more help, just post follow-up questions here. -THB 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know the Inuits were in Greenland too! I thought it was just Canada. | A ndonic O Talk 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason behind Islam's rapid spread?
It's very much established that Islam is rapidly growing and maybe the fastest. So, why is this? Was it because the Byzantine/Persian empires were weak and the Islamic armies were nomads, giving them an edge on survival in any environment, basically saying the Islam spread "by the sword"? Or was it because Islamic generals were good politicans and their religion spiritually appealed to many? I would like to know how Islam came to spread so fast, not how it's spreading right now. No offense is intended to Islam and all other institutions that possibly grew mainly by force. History is what it is. Thanks. --69.210.130.186 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Begin with the History of Islam and proceed from there. I think, though, you seem to have a good grasp of the reasons for the beginnings of Islamic expansion.  It was, and is, a militant religion with a simple message, which spread rapidly amongst the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, providing a focus for political unity.  However, its possible that it  may have been contained there but for the fact, as you suggest, both the Byzantine Empire and its great rival the Persian Empire had exhausted one another in a prolonged and destructive war.  Under the Emperor Heraclius, the Byzantines had prevailed; but no sooner had hostilities concluded than they faced a fresh assault from an unexpected direction.  It was a combination, therefore of organization, simplicity of message and military circumstances that led to the rapid advance of Islamic armies to the north, east and west.  It is important also to take into consideration the political and military talents of Abu Bakr, the first of the Sunni Caliphs.  Persia went under and Byzantium managed to hold out with difficulty.  The Empire's defeat at the Battle of Yarmuk opened Egypt and much of the Levant to Islam.  After that there was no other significant power standing in its way, allowing an advance all the way to the Pillars of Hercules and beyond.  Clio the Muse 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you said "Islam is rapidly growing", but this discussion has been about how it was growing rapidly centuries ago. I'm not sure about the current growth rate, do we have any figures on that ? StuRat 11:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just Google "fastest growing religion" and you will be left in no doubt.--Shantavira 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a reproductive effect?87.102.8.237 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Expanding on Clio the Muse's excellent work, I would point out that both the Byzantine and Persian empires had lost the support of many of their inhabitants because of the onerous taxes that they imposed to support their warfare and elaborate bureaucracies. The inhabitants of the Middle East may have welcomed the Arabs as liberators, particularly the Jews and Christians, who were treated with some tolerance by the Muslim Arabs.  Also, most of the Christians of Egypt and many of the Christians of the Levant were Monophysites, who were seen by the Orthodox Byzantines as heretics.  The Arabs at least accepted them as (lesser) people of the book, so they may have welcomed Arab rule for this reason as well.  These factors (and the more important ones mentioned by Clio) help to explain how the Arabs achieved victory militarily.  They gradually converted the conquered populations mainly by offering tax benefits and career opportunities to Muslims.  So some of their subjects converted partly out of self-interest.  Also, they used tax revenues to build magnificent mosques and to provide social support to Muslims, which no doubt attracted further converts.  Marco polo 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, Wikipedia discusses current growth in Claims to be the fastest growing religion. Marco polo 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My perception is that virtually every other religion only speaks to 'the Beyond' (life after death), while Islam deals with the here and now: daily prescriptions for living. It's basically a codified system of 'commmon-sense common law', now categorized as a religion. In my opinion is less a religion than a legal doctrine, which appears to appeal to a lot of people, mostly living near the equator, and mostly living in Central Asia and Africa. Mathiemood 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, our Claims to be the fastest growing religion article doesn't include Jedi, which in the UK grew from 0 adherents to 390,000, simply because of the Jedi_census_phenomenon. This infinite growth is hard to match. --Dweller 12:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I bet, just as a guess, it has something to do, at least these days, with the strictness of the religion (praying five times a day, month long Ramadan, etc.) I think, at least in Western culture, people are turning off of religion because it seems like a farce. I know fewer and fewer religious Jews, for instance, which may have something to do with the fact that Judaism as it is practiced in America is usually (discounting orthodox jews) a pretty lax religion. I think people looking into religion would find a religion with a more rigid code alluring. Also, to be somewhat crude and anti-religious, it seems that religion for the most part thrives in areas where the population is generally uneducated (ie poor.) The middle east is, while not terribly third world and while certainly containing both rich and poor, educated and not, a much worse-off area of the world right now in terms of distribution of wealth and education than the west. This could possibly contribute. Sashafklein 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Incentives for accepting refugees
How much money does the UNHCR give, for instance, to Czech Republic because the country accepts refugees?

I couldn't find any information at http://www.unhcr.org/home.html .--Patchouli 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This page seems to indicate that the UNHCR spent $26,702 in the Czech Repulic last year. The Czech Republic has contributed $137,586 to the UNHCR this year, so the Czech Republic is a net donor to the commission. -- Mwalcoff 15:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Patchouli 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

1950s - 60s movie name spoken in the movie caused an audience reaction, what was the reaction, cheer?
In the late 50s when a charcter in a movie spoke the name of the movie, the audience would react. What was that reaction? I remember it being a cheer, it may have been a boo, but I only went to a couple of movies as a kid. The Tonight show audience would always ask Johnny Carlon a question when he mentioned a subject. JC, it was hot in LA today. Audience, How hot was it? Jay Leno got bent out of shape when the audience continued this practice when he took over. This is the type of reaction I am asking about for the movies of the 50s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.26.156 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Judaism
I have read the relevant articles on Judaism, but still a few things were not clear to me. So, i thought that i post my querries here.


 * Is there any last Messiah/Prophet (whichever is the correct term) of Judaism. If yes, who is he?


 * Who is the last common prophet between 1)Judaism and christianity, 2)Judaism and Islam.


 * Is there any legend parallel to second coming of christ.


 * According to Jewish escheatology/judgement day, what will happen to Non-jews. (For example, Islamic escheatology doesnt speak good about Non-muslims or non-christians and thus encourages others to convert to Islam. But judaism does not convert others, so how does it view them at the end of the world.)


 * I learned recently that Abraham is not accepted as a historical figure by the scholars (though the wiki article is not very clear about this). So who is the first Messiah prophet of Judaism, who is a historical figure too.

Thanks. nids(&#9794;) 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well I do know that in Judaism they "believe" in a Messiah but hasn't come "yet". Also I do think they believe in a form of judgement, see here. I am not so sure about the other info. &mdash; Seadog 13:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi nids. Here are some answers to your questions:


 * 1) See Jewish Messiah. In short, yes, Judaism does expects a messiah, who has not come yet, but he will not be a divine being like Jesus is supposed to be, just a human being who sets things right. Jews differ in how much they cling to the messiah idea, with some, such as Chabad followers, making a bigger deal out of it than others.
 * 2) Malachi.
 * 3) No -- there is no second coming in Jewish lore, as far as I know.
 * 4) This page says any Gentile who follows the Noahide Laws gets to participate in the World to Come.
 * 5) Judaism says the Messiah has not come yet, so there is no real answer to your question. I'm not sure, but Omri and Ahab, kings of Israel, may be the first Biblical characters mentioned in contemporary secular sources. -- Mwalcoff 13:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mwalcoff, thanks for your kind reply but I think i have to elaborate my 1st and 5th questions.


 * In first question, i am referring to the last Messiah prophet who has walked on earth. Not the ones who are yet to come.
 * In fifth question, i am asking who is the first prophet of judaism who is a historical figure too. For example, Noah and Adam are not accepted as real historical figures by the scholars. Same is the case for Abraham. But David is a historical figure. And (perhaps) Moses too. But who is the first historical figure who is also a Prophet.

Thanks.nids(&#9794;) 14:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to question one there hasn't been any messiah "yet" in the Judaism faith, but for question 5 I am not to sure. &mdash; Seadog 14:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is secular historical evidence for any Biblical prophet. Kings, yes, but I don't know about prophets. David was a king, not a prophet, and although there is evidence that future Judean kings referred to themselves as the "House of David," no evidence contemporary with David himself has yet been found, as far as I know. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, only that we haven't found anything belonging to him yet. -- Mwalcoff 15:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also here is some more info on the Jewish Messiah. Cheers.&mdash; Seadog 15:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these replies.nids(&#9794;) 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anytime. &mdash; Seadog 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Given your revisions of questions 1 and 5, the answer to No 1 is the same as No 2: Malachai.


 * Not having taken a survey of all scholars I cannot give a definitive answer to who the majority believes was historic. I would venture a guess that it would be someone from the era when the scene was dominated by the Assyrians (like Isaiah). Whether the majority would agree to earlier figures such as Elijah or even Deborah becomes problematic.


 * BTW, well answered by Mwalcoff –B00P 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Hong Kong contribute only financially in the Asia-Pacific Region?
"Does Hong Kong contribute only financially in the Asia-Pacific Region?" I highly hope that some really useful information can be provided by this web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.186.25.151 (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * No, Hong Kong contributes in many ways. The article discusses ideas that you might use in detail and has links to other articles.  The article on global cities classifies Hong Kong as a 10-point Alpha City and goes into detail on the characteristics such a city has. -THB 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One major cultural contribution is in the form of martial arts movies, such as those by Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Li. StuRat 09:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

newspaper delivery costs in the USA
I am preparing a research for newspaper business in USA. I want to know a few things about newspaper distribution. >>How much does it cost to distribute a newspaper like USA today or New york times on an average to readers across USA? For example, you may say it costs 30 cents or say 60 cents. >>Also tell me more about distribution infrastructure in USA. Is there any special distribution companies which distribute papers or is it somekind of a franchisee system or is handled by each and every company seperately? >>Does a same delivery-boy distributes papers of all competing newspapers in a street?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.123.117 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I cannot tell you how much it costs, but I would seriously doubt 60¢. The New York Times subscription rate is only $3.15 per week (45¢ per day), and (if I remember rightly, since I don't have one in front of me), the USA Today only costs 75¢ per day.  Of course, subscription and purchase prices aren't the newspaper's entire revenue, but I would guess far lower than 60¢.
 * Not sure about national papers, but in my small town there are several popular newspapers from larger nearby towns, and I know that they're delivered by different people, all of whom are simply local residents.
 * Hopefully someone else more knowledgeable can give you solid information! Nyttend 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Times is $9.90 a week in the city, more elsewhere. (link). -THB 19:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Which "Times" ? There are several.  Also, that link doesn't work for me. StuRat 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, each carrier contracts to deliver a single type of newspaper. Durova Charg e!  23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Belfry of Mons, Belgium
Who were the architects of the current structure and when was it completed..were there earlier belfry's on this site? Did WWI cause damage to Belfry? Did WWII cause damage to Belfry? Any help would be appreciated! Thank You! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.66.148 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
 * According to the Dutch wikipedia it was built in 1662 . That's all they tell us. Skarioffszky 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a source giving 1719 .EricR 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Designed by Louis Ledoux, built in 1662 and renovated in 1864, according to my 1910 Baedeker. The 1929 Blue Guide describes the Belfry and doesn't mention that it was damaged in WWI. -- Necrothesp 16:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, i was looking at the wrong tower.EricR 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody "translate" the 20/20 section for people who are married 20 yrs, 20 yrs of service are comleted, 3 years of marriage was active duty and the rest while retired
Full Privileges - the "20/20/20" former spouse

Full benefits (medical, commissary, base exchange, theater, etc.) are extended to an unremarried former spouse when:

1. the parties had been married for at least 20 years;

2. the member performed at least 20 years of service creditable for retired pay; and

3. there was at least a 20 year overlap of the marriage and the military service.

Concerning medical care, if the former spouse is covered by an employer-sponsored health care plan, medical care is not authorized. However, when the former spouse is no longer covered by the employer-sponsored plan, military medical care benefits may be reinstated upon application by the former spouse.

If a 20/20/20 former spouse remarries, eligibility for the benefits is terminated. If the subsequent marriage is ended by divorce or death, commissary, base exchange and theater privileges may be reinstated. Medical care cannot be reinstated.

Limited privileges: the "20/20/15" former spouse.

Divorces before April 1, 1985:

A four year renewable identification card authorizing medical benefits (no commissary, base exchange, or theater privileges) is awarded to an unremarried former spouse when:

1. the parties had been married for at least 20 years;

2. the member performed at least 20 years of service creditable for retired pay; and

3. there was at least a 15 year overlap of the marriage and the military service.

Concerning medical care, if the former spouse is covered by an employer-sponsored health care plan, medical care is not authorized. However, when the former spouse is no longer covered by the employer-sponsored plan, military medical care benefits may be reinstated.70.252.86.140 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Manuela Monroe


 * Sorry, I've read this 3 times and I still don't understand. Please can you clarify what the question is? And should we guess that you're talking about the US military? --Dweller 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the question is in the title. Ms. Monroe, if you don't get an answer here, go to this website and read that article.  If it doesn't answer your questions, e-mail the moderator of that site Rod Powers. Good luck. -THB 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

US Supreme Court cases and constitutional theories
I am searching for landmark cases of the US SC:

1. A case in which the SC applied an extreme strict interpretation of constitution and gave verdict that severly opposed the social, cultural or political changes of the American society.

2. A case to the contrary, in which mild interpretation allowed to give verdict that pushed the American society forward.

I also look for quotes of scholars that would describe the basic principles of originalism, contructionism as well as theories of liberal interpretation.

Thank you in advance for your precious help. Yarovit 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)--


 * I don't know a whole lot about interpretation, but how about:


 * Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education and then Brown v. Board of Education
 * Dred Scott v. Sandford as an example of (1). -- Cat Whisperer 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See judicial interpretation for some discussion of these topics. Newyorkbrad 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider for (2) Griswold v. Connecticut Wolfgangus 20:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the case that led to, Roe v. Wade.
 * As for No. 1, you can also look at some of the cases that brought down the First New Deal, such as United States v. Butler. -- Mwalcoff 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Falklands War" v "Falklands Conflict"
Have other (especially UK-based) editors heard / been told that referring to the "Falklands War" is erroneous, as war was never declared (by either party) and that therefore "Falklands Conflict" is the correct title? I'm just wondering if there's any awareness of this issue. --Dweller 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when does a war absolutly need to be declared (so if A invades B whitout a formal declaration it isn't a war? Ha, don't make me laugh). I remember a few wars that began without a formal/official declaration. It seems to me that you have been misled by ruleslawyers. But please, read the article Falklands War. Flamarande 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the United States hasn't actually declared war since 1941. That's why you sometimes see the Korean War called the Korean Conflict. But the distinction between declared wars and undeclared conflicts has become so muddled that no one wrings his hands over the name "War in Iraq." -- Mwalcoff 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dweller. I live in the UK and I am not aware, so far as I am aware of it at all, that there is a technically correct usage for referring to the conflict in the Falklands. I think it is mostly called the Falklands War, though there was never any official decalaration to this effect. It is true, as I have said elsewhere, that declarations of war as such now seem a little old fashioned, largely dropping out of the political and diplomatic lexicon. Indeed, I do not believe that there have been any declarations in this form, anywhere in the world, since 1945. But there is really no reason why an armed conflict, depending on the scale, should not be called a war. However, there is one small caveat I should add to this. The British struggle against Communist insurgents in Malay States from the late 1940s onwards was officially known as the 'Malay Emergency' rather than the war. This was to do, I understand, with preserving the validity of insurance claims held by British rubber planters in the area. Clio the Muse 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this was a genuine controversy at the time: although I only remember that because "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole" (whose author Sue Townsend was quite active in left-wing politics) parodied the point. I'm afraid that's all I can remember, though. AndyJones 09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a citation for this line of thinking in The Times style guide but the regular editors at the Falklands War article don't think this is a reputable source. --Dweller 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Times doesn't want to use Falklands War because war wasn't declared but has no problem with the "War in Iraq" where war hasn't been declared? Rmhermen 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

US Military Expenditures
Hello,

I am writing a term paper explaining why the U.S. Military should cease its operations in Okinawa, Japan. I was going to support it with overwhelmingly heated protest from the Okinawans( which I think I have good support for), and the fact that compared to the rest of world-wide military operations, the bases simply aren’t worth the money and troops- especially with what is going on in Iraq.

What I need some guidance on, is how I could find some materials as to how much the United States spends, what projects that could use more money (Iraq War for example). It would be pretty easy to simply say more money would be better, but I am having some difficulty finding precise figures on spending, what could be helped, etc. I am sure this is on the internet somewhere, but I have searched tenaciously yet in vain.

If anyone could help me with those resources, or better structure my thesis any help would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.58.92 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Well, for one, the trillions of dollars being spent on the military could be used to reduce poverty in the United States. -THB 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This could VERY easily just turn into a flame fest, be careful;). As the article about the Military budget of the United States states ;), the US spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined, 46% of the world's total in fact. I don't think any argument you put forward about a few billion dollars this way or that will have any weight what so ever. Sorry.. I agree with you, but budget is not where you should make your argument. On the other hand, you're probably better off trying to sell a fridge to a duck then to argue 'strategic importance' with the country that is still entrenched in Iraq. ;) Vespine 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To make an argument against US bases in Japan, you need to understand the historic context. After WW2, the US didn't want Japan to have a powerful military, which would have been seen as a threat. Thus, the Japanese Constitution was written such that their military is rather limited in scope and scale. This, of course, would leave Japan quite vulnerable, so the US, in turn, took on the role of the defense of Japan. It can be argued that it's time for this era to come to an end, and for Japan to once again defend itself. However, their are powerful enemies in the area, including North Korea and potentially China. Therefore, if we leave Japan to defend itself, it will need to dramatically expand it's military, and quite possibly will want to get nuclear weapons to balance those in NK and China. These are difficult issues to decide. The US, of course, also wants bases there as a method of power projection into the Western Pacific and Eastern Asia. StuRat 09:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, unless Japan wants to spend a few trillion yen of it's own, it's best choice is to accept an American presence. I'm sorry for all those Okinowans, but you should support the US bases (IMHO). | A ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the potential enemies in China+ North Korea, especially since NK has nukes now and neither country really likes Japan for that matter. If the American presence was not there, would Japan HAVE to re-arm and expand its military? I actually agree with you guys on that that is a pretty... less desirable alternative, but I need to find some research on that topic. So I would be arguing that despite the crimes committed on the Okinawans, the bases are justified because if Japan was to rearm an arms race would occur?Takucharael 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that Japan would likely be punished by the international community, at least for a while, for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by developing such weapons, even if they were legitimately needed for self-defense. I'd like to say the US would use their permanent seat on the security council to block any UN action, but that might not be "politically viable".  Wouldn't a better option be to retain US troops, but confine them to their bases ?  StuRat 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Elected communists/Marxist leaders in democratic governments
Salvador Allende is often called the first elected Marxist leader of a democratic country. How many other elected Marxists or communists have there been? Who were they? When were they elected? What countries did they lead? I can only think of Vladimir Voronin of Moldova. Soviet Dolphin 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Robert Mugabe? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Indian state of Kerala is unique in that Communists often win control of its government in free elections -- and keep control in free elections.
 * It's also true that Klement Gottwald and his Communist Party won a plurality in the 1946 Czechoslovak election, which was relatively free and fair. Once in power, though, the Communists quickly turned the country into a totalitarian state. -- Mwalcoff 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Giorgio Napolitano of Italy count? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Jpgordon: Do you really consider Mugabe to be an elected leader of a democratic country? He's been intimidating opponents since the early 80s. Picaroon9288 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly the case. However, he was democratically elected, regardless of what he's turned into since (and, for that matter, regardless of what he was then.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to the asker: socialists and communists in San Marino, a microstate surrounded by Italy, were democratically elected and held a majority for a total of more than 12 years, from 1945 to 1957 (see History_of_San_Marino and San Marinese Communist Party). Picaroon9288 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting question, and I am sure there will be lots of answers, depending if government is defined at a municipal, district, regional or national basis. But one example that tends to be consistently overlooked is the Democratic Republic of Georgia, set up in the wake of-and in opposition to-the the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. It was led Noe Zhordania of the Menshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party, Marxists but not Communists, at a time when it was still possible to draw a distinction between the two. In the elections of February 1919 the Georgian Mensheviks obtained over 80% of the popular vote, and Zhordania remained in power until his government was overthrown by the invasion of the Red Army in February 1921. Clio the Muse 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1916
Why did the rebels, take over a biscuit factory, a post office, a mill & a court building while leaving not attacking Army strongholds? did they want to loose?


 * Have a look at the Easter Rising. The aim was to hold important strategic locations for as long as possible, places that could be taken initially without a major struggle.  It was a grand gesture, intended to give fresh life to the nationalist cause in Ireland.  There was never any expectation that the Dublin Rising in itself would be victorious-A terrible beauty is born.  Clio the Muse 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. From what I know, the Easter Rising was meant as a gesture, not as any sort of successful military action. This is the birth of the revolutionary movement, really, and at this point they really weren't militaristic at all. That all came later. Moreover, even when the IRA did pick up and start seriously violent tactics, they rarely, if ever, attacked "army strongholds." In a terrorist movement, it is simply not intelligent to go where the enemy is strongest. Sun Tzu makes a point about this (and then another, and another) in his The Art of War. It's why terrorists in Iraq today bomb civilians at mosques or, if they're attacking troops, will attack them when isolated. The British sent in some of their most brutal troops, well armed and violently led, (see Black and Tans) to suppress the Irish revolutionaries, who were relatively few in number, untrained, somewhat badly armed, and operated in isolated cells. They had to use evasionary and careful tactics. All of which is to say that, to read into your question further than you asked, even when the revolution was really violent later on, the IRA did not seek out open, man-to-man confrontation. The Easter Rising of 1916 was a desperate act not intended as a violent move. Michael Collins, James Connolly, Padraig Pearse, and the rest were merely seeking to draw attention to the British presence in Ireland. In the years directly before this, many Irish seeking independence from Britain had gone into WWI on the British side as a gesture in the hope that the British would repay them. This was not to be the case, and these early Sinn Fein precursors taking the buildings in Dublin wanted to call attention from a largely apathetic populace and international audience to the Irish Republican situation. So they took one of the country's most notable and poorly defended landmarks (The Post Office), and tried to hold it for as long as possible to get the most attention. Ironically, it was the British response (the killing of the insurrectionists) that, far more than the actual rising, turned the revolutionaries into martyrs and birthed the popular support of their cause.
 * Sashafklein 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking, a little bit, about the Black and Tans, you might enjoy listening to this. . I love that clip. Sashafklein 02:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sashafklein; that was a very useful and interesting amplification. I have really only one small point to make by way of clarification.  The Black and Tans were not formed until 1920, and were therefore not used against the nationalists in Dublin in 1916.  Now, I realize that you were looking at the broad sweep of the conflict, bringing in later dimensions, and I understand that it was not your intention that this inference should be made.  I just want to avoid any possible misreading by people who may be a little less knowledgeable than you and I.


 * On the wider point about war, yes, it is a classic principle that weaker forces should only attack a stronger opponent where they are most vulnerable, concentrating and dispersing as necessary. This does not just apply to guerilla warfare.  It was used by Stonewall Jackson in the Valley Campaign, arguably the most brilliant exposition of the tactic in all of military history.  For an alternative approach one could do no better than look at the early career of Fidel Castro, who at the Moncada Barracks attacked the enemy at just the point where he was strongest!  But for circumstances the world may have heard nothing more of El Commandante after that fiasco.  Clio the Muse 08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

APUS HELP
okay..so...i really dont want to fail this class but everything i try to do to study just doesnt seem to be working. i have a really bad memory but i really need to pass this class. i have tried note cards,re-reading the chapter, outlines, and even IDIO To GUIDE TO APUS. im jusy not getting it. is there any suggestions? i just cant get into it. --Kittycat rox 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone who knows thinks it's really obvious but I've goolged and wikied it and have no clue, what's APUS? Vespine 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * AP United States History maybe? I have no idea. --Wo<b style="color:red;">o</b>ty Woot? contribs 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From reviewing the article, it looks like the test is pretty much the same as it was 25 years ago. Don't get too worked up over it:  In a multiple choice test, they give you the answer, you just have to recognize it.  In the essay parts, just do the essay by the book based on the material they give you, don't get fancy or try to do too much, and before you write the essay, plan it with a brief outline.  Are you more worried about failing the class than the test itself?  I would also talk to the teacher and express your concerns if you feel comfortable with the teacher.  Talk to some of your classmates as well.  The feelings you're having are common.  Likely you'll do better than you expect.  -THB 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Two other things. Instead of trying to remember isolated events try to make a chain of events. Like - First the British passed the Townshend acts, and then the colonists got angry, and then the British repealed the Townshend acts (I don't remember if that's the right order or not, but you see what I'm saying). Also, you can put things into rhymes. Good luck! --AstoVidatu 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A good teacher would put more emphasis on understanding the underlying trends and less on memorization. However, there are some key events and people whose names should be memorized.  I suggest flash cards for those.  StuRat 09:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The brain is a stubborn storage device. Just looking at a list of facts or things written on index cards may not get them into memory. Forced recall is required. Emphasize the things you do NOT recall and don't waste time on the things you DO recall. Here is a method for it: Take the practice tests and identify 40 facts you DON'T remember but need to. Put each one on a flash card (Q on on side, A on the other). Shuffle the deck and go through. Put the successful ones in 1 stack, the unremembered ones in the other. Reshuffle the not remembered and go through them again, separating out the successes. Keep repeating with the shrinking pile of non-remembered. Make up a special mnemonic for each of the really tough ones. Keep going until there is no non-remembered fact. The next day, reshuffle and repeat. Got them all? Then work for speed: how fast can you run the entire deck.  This helps to burn in the memorized facts so they can be recalled under time pressure in a test. Edison 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to say something like that, but the flash cards article already said it for me. StuRat 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Flash card article is vague and the method is unnecessarily complex. The method here is defined and puts 40 facts in the mind of the learner (perhaps to be retained even after the exam!)Edison 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

ya..the notecards are the same thing as flashcards. am i just studying them wrong or something. i go through them and the ones i dont knowi put in a pile and the ones i do know i put in another. Then i keep going through the non known pile eliminating them once i get them right until i have them all memorized. --Kittycat rox 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To pass the essay portion of the test, study women and minorities. The hyper-PC AP people can't resist making the essay on women or minorities every time. Just took the test last year and the whole room groaned when they saw the essay question because we'd all made jokes about what it was going to be and... it was exactly what we'd thought - women in the African American enfranchisement movement i think. At any rate, don't freak out, because the AP has really wide grade margins. I think a 5 is anything above roughly a 75 percent and a 4 reaches down fairly low. If you study consistently, you should hopefully be able to hit a four, which is accepted by most universities as sufficient to bar you from having to take the class in college. I think notecards might be a bad idea because it causes you to focus on discreet pieces of information. THe important thing here is to think of the history as a storyline. This can be made difficult by the way history texts are put together - with separate sections for "Technology in the 1800s" or "Women in the 1800s" or "Religion in the 17th Century." Just learn the storyline well - what the basic gist of the period is in the various categories given, and all you have to "memorize" is the particular names, which you can then flashcard or outline. Don't be ashamed to read this stuff to yourself outloud. Sometimes just staring at notes is completely useless, but if you, for instance, say "Eli Whitney's cotton gin, although it reduced the number of workers necessary to harvest cotton, made the industry more profitable and therefore in the long run led to increased slavery," the information will actually have to pass through your head instead of bouncing off. This goes for writing outlines as well. If you're writing an outline, make sure to use your own words, so your brain has to grapple with the subject, instead of simply memorizing a line of a textbook for a minute so you can write it down. And maybe try reading the info ahead of time, so that when your teacher talks about it, what he/she says will actually imprint somewhat on your brain instead of just sounding foreign. Good Luck. Remember. It's supposed to be a hard class, but if you stay afloat, you should do just fine on the test. Sashafklein 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. ALso. I think most history textbooks are really boring and therefore difficult to understand. You might, if you have the time, consider reading some small more narrative works on periods of US history instead. You're probably past this part by now, but Birth of a Nation, for instance, does a good job of breaking the leadup to the Revolutionary War into a nice, cohesive narrative. And it's pretty short. You can probably ask you teacher (or the wiki reference desk) for works like this for various periods. YOu can only do this really, though, if you've got the time. Sashafklein 04:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have any more questions, feel free to message me. I have pretty immediate experience with this class. Sashafklein 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)