Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Draco

2008-03-27T14:16:03Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

'''Draco''' was an [[Athens|Athenian]] judge living around the 7th century B.C. He was a reformer who wrote such strict laws that the term '''Draconian Code''' is still used to describe overly rigid rules, and yet, it transformed Athens into the premiere city state in [[Greece]] for hundreds of years.

It is unclear how much he created the laws as much as just put in writing what was already orally passed on. There is also some question as to whether or not he was a real individual, or a legend to describe how the laws came to be.
== See also ==

*[[Consignment]]
*[[Artistic work]]

[[category:law]]
[[category:Ancient Greece]]

Athenian democracy

2008-03-27T14:15:50Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

The world's first democracy, '''Athenian democracy''' consisted of an assembly open to all non-enslaved land-owning males in [[Athens]] over the age of 18. All members could speak out at the assembly (the ''[[agora]]'') and it decided policy issues for Athens, and passed legislation. [[Cleisthenes]], who died in 508 B.C., established this [[democracy]].

Democracy as a word derives from the Greek Demokratia, meaning ‘rule by the people’. It is formed by Demos (The People) and Kratos (Rule, or power).

Guinness

2008-03-27T14:15:40Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Aquitaine

2008-03-27T14:15:33Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Development Aid

2008-03-27T14:15:24Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Phillip Augustus

2008-03-27T14:15:16Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

British Liberalism

2008-03-27T14:15:09Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Bilateral Aid

2008-03-27T14:15:01Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Multilateral Aid

2008-03-27T14:14:54Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Emergency Aid

2008-03-27T14:14:28Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Concern

2008-03-27T14:14:20Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Thatcherite

2008-03-27T14:14:11Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

Economic planning

2008-03-27T14:14:01Z

LeaningRight: I don't want my work used in a hate site.

2008-03-26T12:55:11Z

LeaningRight:

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-26T01:53:15Z

LeaningRight: /* Closing Arguments */

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Still no cites, Andy? ==

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on [[user:PhoenixWright|my user page]], in this [[tabula rasa]] environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I'd love to see some cites myself. [[User:kitefox|kitefox]]

As would I. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think a good example of this is [[Bill Maher]] and [[Ann Coulter]] :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Misleading terminology==

The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Where is the evidence? ==

The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:

:'''Conservatives''' often make approval of [[conservative]] values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[conservative]] values.

:A '''conservative friendship''' can occur wherever [[conservatives]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

:In contrast, [[liberals]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[liberal]] principles as a condition of friendship.

Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:We know [[Liberals]] all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your [[Liberal tricks]]. Reflect and improve! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a ''reflection'' of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ostracize a republican ==

This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?

My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: No one is claiming anything about ''all liberals''. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Untrue, and I ought to block you for saying it - but I'm enjoying the delicious irony here too much. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that ''Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about ''all conservatives''. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:" But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance"

:Free advice, and worth every penny - Conservapedia has its own, internal logic. You're making an intuitive leap here without considering where it is you're talking, imo. "...but I'm not going to look" puts you within spitting distance of what is considered a typical liberal tactic. Go find the cites and present them, seriously. You may feel like you're wasting time, but no more so than the time you spent typing the above, because it's not going to get you anywhere without evidence. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks, and yes, I take the point. When I have time I will look, as you suggest - but my contention is actually that whatever I find by way of anecdote and blog will prove ''nothing whatever'' about the generality that this article claims to establish. I cannot prove my alternative contention by such methods, any more than [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] can prove his orginal claim in this way. I have been looking for research on any correlations between (a) political beliefs / religious outlook / worldview and (b) style of friendship, and I find nothing. Without such research, I submit, it's all mere speculation and hearsay. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Since it's been a while now... ==

...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the ''imprimatur'' of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:I agree. Using the same sort of "sources" we can write: ''Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values.'' and it would be just as "true". You know, [[Michael Moore]]'s book "Dude, Where's my country" has a "guideline": 'How to talk to your conservative brother-in-law', in the chapter he writes among other things to concede to the good points conservatives have. On the other hand in [[Ann Coulter]]'s "How to talk to a liberal, if you must", she writes to '''never''' concede '''anything''' to a liberal. Just some food for thought. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Don't fall into the tit for tat trap. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Huh? I was just saying that it should be an essay like Phoenix did, what do you mean tit-for-tat trap? [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is anyone saying the entry has only two anecdotes? It has much more than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:There are 2 anecdotes and a website. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "much more". [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Plus a detailed article that cites that overwhelming evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Overwhelming evidence" of what? That there have been a few instances of people whining about the behavior of "liberals", '''yes'''. That there is any distinct pattern to the way that liberals form friendships, '''no'''. Maybe the correct conclusion is not that liberals are characterized by a particular set of friendship-related behaviors, but that conservatives are especially prone to whine and moan when they are dumped or feel put down. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I have responded to everyone of your so-called pieces of evidence, it doesn't show that liberals harass their '''friends''', (after all, that is the title of the article).
[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 09:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== No evidence for this article period ==

Your "reference" to Ronald Coase does not prove your case '''whatsoever''': ''They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system.'' Wow. That's harsh, sounds a lot like "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values." Furthermore, you have no evidence that the remark came from a liberal! For all we know it could have come from a conservative whose views were different then Coase.

Your second "reference" I already discussed it's absurdity.

Your third "reference" is from an Op-Ed! Right, that's good unbiased scientific evidence. It's from someone whining about peer pressure! She complains that she got comments for sporting a Bush-Cheney pin on her backpack; if someone had a Kerry-Edwards pin on their backpack at [[Bob Jones University]] you don't think they'd get flack?!

For sanity's sake Andy, I implore you, move this to an essay page! I have shot down every "proof" you've given, it's time for you to act! [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The David Brooks article doesn't prove your case for this article, it's about liberal bias in '''university's''', it doesn't have anything to do person-to-person friendship, so, once again you have no evidence. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: I'm happy to add more evidence, and continue to do so. I just added another example. Instead of complaining, you might contribute to this effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::If it were up to me this would be an essay, (one which I no-doubt would find offensive). Your latest gem (from '''opinion'''journal.com), doesn't provide any proof for '''this''' article. Why? It doesn't show that his friends threatened him with "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.". It's speaks about his standing in the African-American community.
::Andy, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on many issues. I'm Liberal, you're Conservative. I'm Jewish, you're Christian etc. But I've never tried to censor anybodies opinion on this site, and that's all this article is '''opinion'''. Have there been falling-outs among friends due to political differences? Without a doubt. But to say that "Liberals '''''often''''' make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship", is hearsay. [Just before I sign out: You haven't given any proof that "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.")
::I'm not whining for the sake of whining, I have a suggestion: Change it to a essay. Or, at the very least put it up for a vote. As always, I am [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 10:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the point is that liberals all too frequently '''do try''' to censor people's opinions, and one tactic is to threaten people with the withdrawal of friendship; see [[conditional love]]; compare [[unconditional love]].

:::Unless your are trying to censor [[Liberals and friendship|this opinion]], you would do well to examine the evidence for and against it. So far, you have been advocating that the idea not be included as an article; that's no help, other than providing an example of what the article describes (wry grin).

:::To participate as an equal in this project, you must regularly provide trustworthy information. This includes information that casts doubt on "conservative opinion". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment number 5:'Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: DLerner, there is no reason to convert an entry about observable social behavior to an essay. Such behavior is observable fact. Now, you may feel the facts are wrong or incomplete in the entry, in which case you can supplement the entry with your own evidence. But this entry is not opinion. It is observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: What happened to 'true and verifiable'? DLerner has explained how all your 'examples' aren't evidence, and, in addition, your 'example' of Clarence Thomas, if you actually go to the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17241-2004Aug19.html original source], is actually a review criticising a book that seemingly says pretty much the complete opposite, with no clear-cut evidence offered backing up either position (in the article, at least - I haven't read the book it's referring to). In short, you're posting an assertation, originally with zero evidence at all, then adding weak evidence, at best, then challenging people to definitively prove you wrong, even after all your 'evidence' has been dismissed, rather than actually offering hard evidence that you're right. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: And now you've added another 'example', which, if you simply read the original source, makes it clear the 'ostracization' was down to the intense friction between Dr. Teller and Dr. Oppenheimer, and, in the hearing alleging that Dr. Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy, Dr. Teller's testimony didn't exactly help that situation. Oppenheimer's colleagues chose to be loyal to Oppenheimer, which meant they turned their backs on Teller, and it was therefore nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Thanks, for correcting that, DrSandstone - I originally called Dr. Teller Dr. Turner. However, as no doubt Aschlafly will reinsert his comment, I will address it. Quite frankly, if the best you can come up with is pointing out I misread his name, then all that does is reinforce the idea that this article is pure personal opinion, and the various 'examples' you have inserted is simply you trying, and failing, to make it look like something other than that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly says: "But this entry is not opinion. It is observation." Yes indeed - bits of it are observation. But it also makes sweeping statements such as "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship," and "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." These are not observations, they are presented as general facts. And they are not in any way justified by the anecdotal observations presented as "evidence". That makes them '''opinions'''. I refer you to [[Deliberate ignorance]]: "Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions." [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: And now another example of an opinion by the film critic Michael Medved. Does he offer any proof to back up his opinion, as it relates to personal relationships? Nope. Instead, he gives a variety of examples of films being altered from the original book/film/screenplay/whatever to, as he sees it, give a liberal slant. However, even though the article is actually from Fox News, it does actually give alternative opinions and explanations from Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA, and even Medved is quoted as saying, 'Most movies are absolutely non-political'. As such, we have an opinion cited as 'fact', with the only actual evidence being somewhat arguable evidence of something only tenuously related to this article, if it is related at all. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how many of them there are. There is still no evidence. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nonsense. Observations certainly are evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::'''Evidence of what?''' ''First'', unsystematically collected anecdotal observations are subject to all sorts of biases and do not allow you to draw any conclusions about generalities. ''Second'', any evidence you have presented in the article could just as easily be evidence that '''conservatives have a tendency to whine and complain when they feel dumped or let down'''. There is certainly evidence (of a sort) there, but it does not support the conclusions, which remain unsubstantiated (and hurtful) opinion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:02, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== The summary ==

This seems to sum up to the entirely non-controversial, "shocking" observation that people with different ideological beliefs often disagree, and sometimes tensions flare. ...is there evidence that conservatives ''don't'' do that?-[[User:HankS|HankS]] 16:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Closing Arguments ==

The premise of this article is “Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of '''friendship'''. My previous arguments haven’t been on the premise, I have instead focused on the '''references''' which to the best of my understanding, do not bolster Andy’s case. They do (perhaps) show bias from liberals in other areas, but they don’t show any '''friendships''' lost due to politics.

Now, it’s a '''fact''' that many friendships have been diminished, damaged, strained, weakened, tested, or even destroyed because of politics, religion, associations with various characters, marriage, and yes, because of voting. I’m sure that there are many stories out there that will bolster Andy’s argument.

'''However''', the conclusion/Parthian shot of the article states: “In contrast, conservatives '''virtually never''' require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.” It’s '''impossible''' to prove this; it’s a classic example of [http://www.safalra.com/philosophy/fallacies/negativeproof/ negative proof,] or “proving a negative”, a '''logical fallacy'''.

But just for fun, I’ll bring some sources to show that might '''disprove''' it:
*[http://liberal-debutante.com/religion/why-religion-must-change-or-die.html Katie Kish writes:] “Not only have I lost friends over being an atheist - I’ve lost jobs, been told I can’t listen to some musicians because they’re “Godly” and I’m not...”
*[http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/article.html Bruce Bartlett] was fired from his job at the National Center for Policy Analysis, because he spoke ill of President Bush.

I can go on, but it won’t prove anything.

In conclusion: To your surprise I agree with your premise! Yes! People have falling out’s over politics/religion. My problem is with your '''closing'''. There is no way to '''prove''' that Conservatives aren’t just as guilty; and to say “prove it” is a logical fallacy. (We see X but we don’t see Y, obviously Y doesn’t exist etc.)

I’ll conclude with a prayer: Let us hope that through discussion on real issues, we can work together to make the world a better place for all of us. Amen

God bless.

[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 05:45, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:It proves that you are unclear about the distinction between employment and friendship ([[Bruce Bartlett]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::Pray do tell what is your view of the distinction? BTW, please don't put comments in the middle of my posts. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 08:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I think you have put your finger on something useful here, DLerner. We can allow the premise, but the conclusion does not follow from it. Equally, of course, we could put it the other way around, and accept the "conclusion" but not the premise. The closing remark may well in fact be true: I for one am quite happy to believe that indeed "conservatives virtually never require acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship". What I object to, though, are the words "In contrast" - because it is surely equally true that '''''liberals''' virtually never require acceptance of '''liberal''' principles as a condition of friendship''. All the examples of liberals rejecting a friend because of his/her conservative values will do nothing to alter the fact that in general, people don't behave that badly. And finding lots of examples of conservatives dumping on their liberal friends would likewise do nothing to disprove the general truth that conservatives are on the whole pretty good to their friends. I have no problem with a Conservapedia article which displays a list of stories of liberals being mean to their friends (or any other list of alleged misdemeanors by liberals - take your pick from a large number of articles). That's all perfectly fine, and indeed, collecting such stuff seems to be the main function of Conservapedia these days. What I object to, however, is the pretense that collecting anecdotes like this can prove anything about "liberal" behavior in general. That is simply nonsense. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Closing argument needed==

Frankly this shouldn't even be a debate. If this is an encyclopedia this tabloid rubbish shouldn't be here. If it is a blog it belongs. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 21:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Professor values

2008-03-26T00:42:06Z

LeaningRight: /* Professor Values on Wikipedia */

...does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.
== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are about 250,000 professors currently active in the US, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.0052% of that population. Given that some examples are from earlier times, the total population of professors is more like 500,000 or 750,000 (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Spin-off Effect

2008-03-26T00:39:55Z

LeaningRight: Just a stub, could do with an economists help!

In relation to [[Economics]], a '''Spin-off Effect''' is the reaction to a new injection of capital in an economy. For example, if a [[Multinational Company]] builds a plant in a mid sized town that employs five hundred people, not only will demand for general consumer goods, property etc. increase as a result (Causing more employment) but smaller, local firms will inevitably set up to sell goods that needed to be used in the plant.

[[Category:Economics]]

India

2008-03-26T00:36:59Z

LeaningRight: /* Agriculture */ Added Industry

{{Country
|name =''भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaharājya''
|map =India rel01.jpg
|flag =Flag of India svg.png
|arms =Emblem of India.png
|capital =New Delhi
|capital-raw =
|government =Federal Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Hindi
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Pratibha Patil
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Manmohan Singh
|pm-raw =
|area =3,287,590 sq mi
|pop =1,129,866,154 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$4.2 trillion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$3,800 (2006)
|currency =rupee
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''Republic of India''' is a nation located in [[South Asia]]. It spans from the [[Himalayas]] in the north to the [[Indian Ocean]]. It borders [[China]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Nepal]], [[Bhutan]] and [[Myanmar]]. India is the 7th largest country in the world in terms of area and second most populous country (standing at around 1.1 billion according to 2006 estimate), only behind China. Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, the history, culture and tradition of India is more than 3000 years old. Though India is the world's fourth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, it has high levels of [[poverty]], [[illiteracy]], [[corruption]] and [[crime]].

==Etymology==
The name "India" came from the word 'Indus', which derives from the Persian word "Hindu" which was used to describe the Sindhu river (now known as the Indus).

==People==
Although India occupies only 2.4% of the world's land area, it supports over 15% of the world's population. Only China has a larger population. India's median age is 25, one of the youngest among large economies. About 70% live in more than 550,000 villages, and the remainder in more than 200 towns and cities. Over the thousands of years of its history, India has been invaded from the Iranian plateau, Central Asia, Arabia, Afghanistan, and the West; Indian people and culture have absorbed and modified these influences to produce a remarkable racial and cultural synthesis.

Religion, caste, and language are major determinants of social and political organization in India today. However, with more job opportunities in the private sector and better chances of upward social mobility, India has begun a quiet social transformation in this area. The government has recognized 18 official languages; Hindi, the national language, is the most widely spoken, although English is a national lingua franca. Although 81% of its people are Hindu, India also is the home of more than 138 million Muslims--one of the world's largest Muslim populations. The population also includes Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Parsis.

The Hindu caste system reflects Indian occupational and socially defined hierarchies. Ancient Sanskrit sources divide society into four major categories, priests (Brahmin), warriors (Kshatriya), traders (Vaishya) and farmers/laborers (Shudra). Although these categories are understood throughout India, they describe reality only in the most general terms. They omit, for example, the tribes and those once known as "untouchables." In reality, Indian society is divided into thousands of jatis--local, endogamous groups based on occupation--and organized hierarchically according to complex ideas of purity and pollution. Discrimination based on caste is officially illegal, but remains prevalent, especially in rural areas. Nevertheless, the government has made strong efforts to minimize the importance of caste through active affirmative action and social policies. Moreover, caste has been diluted if not subsumed in the economically prosperous and heterogeneous cities, where an increasing percentage of India's population lives. In the countryside, expanding education, land reform and economic opportunity through access to information, communication, transport, and credit have lessened the harshest elements of the caste system.

===Religions===

India is the region where four of the major world religions were founded:
*[[Hinduism]]
*[[Buddhism]]
*[[Jainism]]
*[[Sikhism]]
Although over 80% of Indians identify themselves as Hindu, India has large vibrant communities of [[Muslims]], [[Sikhs]], [[Christians]], [[Jains]], [[Bahaii]] and [[Buddhists]]. Hinduism as it is identified today has existed in India for over 4000 years; in the past it had spread to the rest of South-East Asia and Indonesia, although Hinduism is practiced outside India today only in the island of Bali. Buddhism originated in Eastern India in the 6th century B.C. and spread to the rest of Asia through individual and organized missionaries, although there are few practicing Buddhists left in India today. Jainism originated in Eastern India in the 6th century B.C. and spread to the rest of India; today they are mostly concentrated in the Southern and Western parts of the country. Sikhism is a monotheistic religion that originated in India in the 16th century A.D. Christianity and Islam have well-established traditions in India. The first identifiably Jewish migrants arrived in India as the Bene Israel group. There is some debate as to the Jewishness of a possibly older group of Indians in the Northeastern part of the country called the Bnei Menashe. Christianity arrived in India in the first century A.D., possibly through the travels of the [[Apostle Thomas]], whose tomb in the Indian city of Chennai is a major pilgrimage site for Christians in India. Islam arrived partly through the implementation of holy war or "[[Jihad]]" by Arab militants led by [[Muhammad bin-Qasim]] in the latter half of the 8th century A.D., and partly through the efforts of Arab traders in South India. It continued to spread with invasions, wars and forced conversions by Afghans and Turkic Mongols. Eventually, peace settled and they slowly integrated into the society and formed India's Islamic tradition. The [[Taj Mahal]], India's national monument, was built by a Muslim emperor named Shah Jahan.
[[Image:Taj Mahal.jpg|thumb|Taj Mahal]]

==Government==
According to its Constitution, India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic." Like the United States, India has a federal form of government. However, the central government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and has adopted a British-style parliamentary system.

The government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the president, whose duties are largely ceremonial. A special electoral college elects the president and vice president indirectly for 5-year terms. Their terms are staggered, and the vice president does not automatically become president following the death or removal from office of the president.

Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers (Cabinet), led by the prime minister. The president appoints the prime minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority in the Lok Sabha (lower house). The president then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the prime minister.

India's bicameral Parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Council of Ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha.

The legislatures of the states and union territories elect 233 members to the Rajya Sabha, and the president appoints another 12. The members of the Rajya Sabha serve 6-year terms, with one-third up for election every 2 years. The Lok Sabha consists of 545 members, who serve 5-year terms; 543 are directly elected, and two are appointed.

India's independent judicial system began under the British, and its concepts and procedures resemble those of Anglo-Saxon countries. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and 25 other justices, all appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister.

India has 28 states* and 7 union territories. At the state level, some legislatures are bicameral, patterned after the two houses of the national parliament. The states' chief ministers are responsible to the legislatures in the same way the prime minister is responsible to Parliament.

Each state also has a presidentially appointed governor, who may assume certain broad powers when directed by the central government. The central government exerts greater control over the union territories than over the states, although some territories have gained more power to administer their own affairs. Local governments in India have less autonomy than their counterparts in the United States. Some states are trying to revitalize the traditional village councils, or panchayats, to promote popular democratic participation at the village level, where much of the population still lives. Over half a million panchayats exist throughout India.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Pratibha Patil
*Vice President--Mohammed Hamid Ansari
*Prime Minister--Dr. Manmohan Singh
*Home Minister--Shivraj Patil
*Minister of External Affairs--Pranab Mukherjee
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Ronen Sen
*Ambassador to the UN--Nirupam Sen

===Political Conditions===
Emerging as the nation's single largest party in the April/May 2004 Lok Sabha election, Congress currently leads a coalition government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Party President Sonia Gandhi was re-elected by the Party National Executive in May 2005. Also a Member of Parliament, she heads the Congress Lok Sabha delegation. Congress prides itself as a secular, left of center party, with a long history of political dominance. Although its performance in national elections had steadily declined during the last 12 years, its surprise victory in 2004 was a result of recruiting strong allies into the UPA, the anti-incumbency factor among voters, and its courtship of India's many poor, rural and Muslim voters. Congress political fortunes suffered badly in the 1990s, as many traditional supporters were lost to emerging regional and caste-based parties, such as the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party, but have rebounded since its May 2004 ascension to power. It currently rules either directly or in coalition with its allies in 9 states. In November 2005, the Congress regained the Chief Ministership of Jammu and Kashmir state, under a power-sharing agreement.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Rajnath Singh, holds the second-largest number of seats in the Lok Sabha. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee serves as Chairman of the BJP Parliamentary Party, and former Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani is Leader of the Opposition. The Hindu-nationalist BJP draws its political strength mainly from the "Hindi Belt" in the northern and western regions of India.

The party holds power in the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Orissa--in coalition with the Biju Janata Dal. Popularly viewed as the party of the northern upper caste and trading communities, the BJP made strong inroads into lower castes in recent national and state assembly elections. The party must balance the competing interests of Hindu nationalists, (who advocate construction of a temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya, and other primarily religious issues), and center-right modernizers who see the BJP as a party of economic and political reform.

Four Communist and Marxist parties are united in a bloc called the "Left Front," which controls 57 parliamentary seats. The Left Front rules the states of West Bengal and Kerala. Although it has not joined the government, Left Front support provides the crucial seats necessary for the UPA to retain power in New Delhi; without its support, the UPA government would fall. It advocates a secular and Communist ideology and opposes many aspects of economic liberalization and globalization, resulting in dissonance with Prime Minister Singh's liberal economic approach.

===Foreign Relations===
India's size, population, and strategic location give it a prominent voice in international affairs, and its growing economic strength, military prowess, and scientific and technical capacity give it added weight. The end of the Cold War dramatically affected Indian foreign policy. India remains a leader of the developing world and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). India is now strengthening its political and commercial ties with the United States, Japan, the European Union, Iran, China, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. India is an active member of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Always an active member of the United Nations, India now seeks a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. India has a long tradition of participating in UN peacekeeping operations.

====Bilateral and Regional Relations====
'''Pakistan'''. India and Pakistan have been locked in a tense rivalry since the partition of the subcontinent upon achieving independence from Great Britain in 1947. The principal source of contention has been Kashmir, whose Hindu Maharaja at that time chose to join India, although a majority of his subjects were Muslim. India maintains that his decision and subsequent elections in Kashmir have made it an integral part of India. This dispute triggered wars between the two countries in 1947 and 1965 and provoked the Kargil conflict in 1999.

Pakistan and India fought a war in December 1971 following a political crisis in what was then East Pakistan and the flight of millions of Bengali refugees to India. The brief conflict left the situation largely unchanged in the west, where the two armies reached an impasse, but a decisive Indian victory in the east resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.

Since the 1971 war, Pakistan and India have made slow progress toward normalization of relations. In July 1972, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto met in the Indian hill station of Simla. They signed an agreement by which India would return all personnel and captured territory in the west and the two countries would "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations." Diplomatic and trade relations were re-established in 1976.

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan caused new strains between India and Pakistan. Pakistan supported the Afghan resistance, while India implicitly supported the Soviet occupation. In the following eight years, India voiced increasing concern over Pakistani arms purchases, U.S. military aid to Pakistan, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. In an effort to curtail tensions, the two countries formed a joint commission. In December 1988, Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto concluded a pact not to attack each other's nuclear facilities and initiated agreements on cultural exchanges and civil aviation.

In 1997, high-level Indo-Pakistani talks resumed after a three-year pause. The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met twice, and the foreign secretaries conducted three rounds of talks. In June 1997 at Lahore, the foreign secretaries identified eight "outstanding issues" around which continuing talks would be focused. The dispute over the status of Jammu and Kashmir, an issue since partition, remains the major stumbling block in their dialogue. India maintains that the entire former princely state is an integral part of the Indian union, while Pakistan insists upon the implementation of UN resolutions calling for self-determination for the people of the state.

In September 1997, the talks broke down over the structure of how to deal with the issues of Kashmir and peace and security. Pakistan advocated that separate working groups treat each issue. India responded that the two issues be taken up along with six others on a simultaneous basis. In May 1998 India, and then Pakistan, conducted nuclear tests. Attempts to restart dialogue between the two nations were given a major boost by the February 1999 meeting of both Prime Ministers in Lahore and their signing of three agreements. These efforts were stalled by the intrusion of Pakistani-backed forces into Indian-held territory near Kargil in May 1999 (that nearly turned into full scale war), and by the military coup in Pakistan that overturned the Nawaz Sharif government in October the same year. In July 2001, Mr. Vajpayee and General Pervez Musharraf, leader of Pakistan after the coup, met in Agra, but talks ended after two days without result.

After an attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001, India-Pakistan relations cooled further as India accused Pakistan of involvement. Tensions increased, fueled by killings in Jammu and Kashmir, peaking in a troop buildup by both sides in early 2002.

Prime Minister Vajpayee's April 18, 2003 speech in Srinagar (Kashmir) revived bilateral efforts to normalize relations. In November 2003, Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf agreed to a ceasefire, which still holds, along the Line-of-Control in Jammu and Kashmir. After a series of confidence building measures, Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf met on the sidelines of the January 2004 SAARC summit in Islamabad and agreed to commence a Composite Dialogue addressing outstanding issues between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. The UPA government has continued the Composite Dialogue with Pakistan.

In February 2004, India and Pakistan agreed to restart the "2+6" Composite Dialogue formula, which provides for talks on Peace and Security and Jammu and Kashmir, followed by technical and Secretary-level discussions on six other bilateral disputes: Siachen Glacier, Wuller Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, Sir Creek estuary, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and Commercial cooperation, and the Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in various fields. The Foreign Secretary talks resumed in November 2006, after a three-month delay following the July 11, 2006 terrorist bombings in Mumbai. The meeting generated modest progress, with the two sides agreeing to establish a joint mechanism on counter-terrorism and agreeing to a follow-on meeting in February 2007. The restart of the Composite Dialogue process is especially significant, given the almost six years that transpired since the two sides agreed to this formula in 1997-98.

Following the October 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, the two governments coordinated relief efforts and opened access points along the Line-of-Control to allow relief supplies to flow from India to Pakistan and to allow Kashmiris from both sides to visit one another.

'''SAARC'''. Certain aspects of India's relations within the subcontinent are conducted through the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Its members are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, with the People's Republic of China, Iran, Japan, European Union, Republic of Korea, and the U.S. as observers. Established in 1985, SAARC encourages cooperation in agriculture, rural development, science and technology, culture, health, population control, narcotics, and terrorism.

SAARC has intentionally stressed these "core issues" and avoided those which could prove divisive, although political dialogue is often conducted on the margins of SAARC meetings. In 1993, India and its SAARC partners signed an agreement gradually to lower tariffs within the region. Forward movement in SAARC had slowed because of tension between India and Pakistan, and the SAARC summit scheduled for 1999 was not held until January 2002. In addition, to boost the process of normalizing India's relationship with Pakistan, the January 2004 SAARC summit in Islamabad produced an agreement to establish a South Asia Free Trade Area (SAFTA). All the member governments have ratified SAFTA, which was slated to come into force on January 1, 2006, with a series of graduated tariff cuts through 2015. As of December 2006, however, the FTA partners were still negotiating sensitive product lists, rules of origin, and technical assistance. India hosted the 2007 SAARC summit, which called for greater regional cooperation on trade, environmental, social, and counterterrorism issues.

'''China'''. Despite suspicions remaining from a 1962 border conflict between India and China and continuing territorial/boundary disputes, Sino-Indian relations have improved gradually since 1988. Both countries have sought to reduce tensions along the frontier, expand trade and cultural ties, and normalize relations. Their bilateral trade reached $24 billion in 2006. China is India's second-largest trading partner behind the U.S.

A series of high-level visits between the two nations has improved relations. In December 1996, Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited India on a tour of South Asia. While in New Delhi, he and the Indian Prime Minister signed a series of confidence-building measures along the disputed border, including troop reductions and weapons limitations.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao invited Prime Minister Vajpayee to visit China in June 2003. They recognized the common goals of both countries and made the commitment to build a "long-term constructive and cooperative partnership" to peacefully promote their mutual political and economic goals without encroaching upon their good relations with other countries. In Beijing, Prime Minister Vajpayee proposed the designation of special representatives to discuss the border dispute at the political level, a process that is still under way.

In November 2006, President Hu Jintao made an official state visit to India, further cementing Sino-Indian relations. India and China are building on growing economic ties to improve other aspects of their relationship such as counter-terrorism, energy, and trade. In another symbol of improved ties, the two countries opened the Nathu La Pass to bilateral trade in July 2006 for the first time in 40 years. Though it is the first direct land trade route in decades, trade is expected to be local and small since the pass is open only four months a year.

'''Former Soviet Union'''. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) had major repercussions for Indian foreign policy. India's substantial trade with the region plummeted after the Soviet collapse and has yet to recover. Longstanding military supply relationships were similarly disrupted due to questions over financing. Russia nonetheless remains India's largest supplier of military systems and spare parts.

Russia and India have not renewed the 1971 Indo-Soviet Peace and Friendship Treaty and follow what both describe as a more pragmatic, less ideological relationship. The visit of Russian President Boris Yeltsin to India in January 1993 helped cement this new relationship. The pace of high-level visits has since increased, as has discussion of major defense purchases. UPA leader Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Singh visited Russia in July 2005. President Vladimir Putin traveled to India in January 2007 to attend an Indo-Russia Summit and was the guest of honor at India's Republic Day celebrations.

==Defense==
The supreme command of the Indian armed forces is vested in the President of India. Policies concerning India's defense, and the armed forces as a whole, are formulated and confirmed by the Cabinet.

The Indian Army numbers over 1.1 million strong and fields 34 divisions. Its primary task is to safeguard the territorial integrity of the country against external threats. The Army has been heavily committed in the recent past to counterterrorism operations in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the in the Northeast. Its current modernization program focuses on obtaining equipment to be used in combating terror. The Army often provides aid to civil authorities and assists the government in organizing relief operations.

The Indian Navy is by far the most capable navy in the region. The Navy's primary missions are the defense of India and of India's vital sea lines of communication. India relies on the sea for 90% of its oil and natural gas and over 90% of its foreign trade. The Navy currently operates one aircraft carrier with two on order, 14 submarines, and 15 major surface combatants. It is capable of projecting power within the Indian Ocean basin and occasionally operates in the South China Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Fleet introduction of the Brahmos cruise missile and the possible lease of nuclear submarines from Russia will add significantly to the Indian Navy's flexibility and striking power.

Although small, the Indian Coast Guard has been expanding rapidly in recent years. Indian Navy officers typically fill top Coast Guard positions to ensure coordination between the two services. India's Coast Guard is responsible for control of India's huge exclusive economic zone.

The Indian Air Force is becoming a 21st century force through modernization, new tactics and the acquisition of modern aircraft, such as the SU-30MKI, a new advanced jet trainer (BAE Hawk) and the indigenously produced advanced light [[helicopter]] (Dhruv). In June 2007, the Indian Government announced intentions to release a request for proposals for 126 multi-role combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force.

==Economy==

===Agriculture===

India has a cultivated area if 138 million hectares which almost equals that of the [[European Union]]. A lot of the land has good agriculture potential especially where water supplies are available. Arable farming, especially cereals is the main kind of farming. India, which has two thirds of its working population relying on the land to earn a living, desperately needs to improve agriculture production in order to develop its economy.

When India became independent from [[Britain]] in 1947 the Indian government recognized agriculture as a key area for economic development. Despite this there has been limited modernization of the sector. There hasn’t been an effective land reform package introduced to redistribute land from wealthy landlords to landless peasants. In the 1990’s almost half of rural families had plots of 0.5 hectares or no land at all, but a quarter of India’s agricultural land was owned by five percent of rich landowning families. This has made it nearly impossible to mechanize and introduce modern farm practices.

The dominant type of farming throughout India is intensive [[Subsistence farming]]. It is used especially in rural areas with high population density, where people depend on being able to feed themselves. [[Rice]] is very important for this type of farming, especially in the Indus and Ganges flood plains. Other crops such as wheat and millet are grown in drier parts of peninsular India. Farming is a family affair, with all planting, flooding and harvesting done by hand. One of the reasons rural Indians have such large families is to provide free labour to help harvest crops. This adds to the pressure on India’s service sector and India’s agriculture sector to meet the demands of India’s ever-growing population.

India is a country that has benefited from the Green revolution. This refers to the development and introduction of genetically modified, high yield varieties of staple crops, such as rice and wheat. These ‘miracle’ crops produce high yields and are resistant to disease and pests. Due to the Green revolution, India has managed to become a net exporter of food.

There is however some problems linked to the Green revolution. It depends on large inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that may be costly and harmful to the soil in the long run. Labour is often replaced with machinery, so rural unemployment goes up and more people leave the land and go to towns, increasing rural-urban migration. A well-educated farm population and capital investment are needed. It only really benefits comparatively few, large-scale farmers; large numbers of small-scale farmers may not be able to benefit from the process.

For a large number of Indian farmers a better solution would be the introduction of more intermediate technology and a more effective programme of land reform. While the Green revolution has brought some positive results, the vast majority of India’s rice farmers use traditional farm practices that depend heavily on the natural environment. The need to match food production to match India’s growing population is a major concern for government.

===Industry===

When India became independent in 1947 it had a largely underdeveloped Industrial system, with textiles and food processing been the key industries in the country. Only two percent of the working population had been employed in industry, which was concentrated in the major cities; [[Bombay]], [[Calcutta]] and [[Madras]]. On gaining independence the new government was determined to reduce India’s dependence on imported goods and to promote greater wealth and employment throughout the country.

The size of India’s population provided it a large home market and the country had some natural resources (coal and Iron) a large and cheap labour force and outputs from agriculture (cotton, Jute) Mineral resources encouraged the government to develop heavy industries, such as Iron and steel, shipbuilding and chemicals. Despite these advantages development was relatively slow and only benefited a few growth centers. In addition, by the 1980’s, many heavy industries were in decline, Industrial policy has changed to emphasize Agri-industries, consumer goods industries and small craft industries, rural development (community based development and self-help schemes) and high technology industries.

Agri-industries would be advantageous to India in that it already employs a large number of people in the agricultural sector. The development of fertilizers, machinery and food processing benefits rural communities and helps in the modernization of India’s agricultural system.

[[Consumer goods]] industries are more labour intensive than large-scale heavy industries, so more jobs are created as a result. They also benefit from low labour costs and traditional skills, which make them more competitive in, export markets. E.g. jewellary, clothing, leather goods etc.

With more than 70% of India’s population living in rural areas, jobs need to be taken to these people rather than encouraging migration to urban areas. This involves support for community development projects and self-help schemes that improve skills levels among the workforce.

High technology (Hi-tech) industries are attracted to India by the growing number of India’s skilled workers (Which produces more university graduates than USA and Canada combined) low costs and improved communication systems. These high value industries add a modern face to Indian industry. Many major multinationals, such as [[IBM]] and [[Texas instruments]], have located in India. Large numbers of locally owned companies have also set up to supply software components to western markets. (See [[Spin-off Effect]])

Although the government has tried to spread industry across the country, this growing sector remains concentrated in a growing number of city regions. The most important are [[Calcutta]], [[Bombay]] and [[Bangalore]]. Bangalore is known as ‘India’s silicon valley’ as a result of all the high-tech industries which have set up there.

===General overview===

India's population is estimated at more than 1.1 billion and is growing at 1.3% a year. It has the world's 12th largest economy--and the third largest in Asia behind Japan and China--with total GDP of around $1 trillion ($1,000 billion). Services, industry, and agriculture account for 55%, 27%, and 18% of GDP respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the population depends on agriculture for its livelihood. 700 million Indians live on $2 per day or less, but there is a large and growing middle class of 325-350 million with disposable income for consumer goods.

India is continuing to move forward with market-oriented economic reforms that began in 1991. Recent reforms include liberalized foreign investment and exchange regimes, industrial decontrol, significant reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers, reform and modernization of the financial sector, significant adjustments in government monetary and fiscal policies, and safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Real GDP growth for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 was 9.4%, up from 9.0% growth in the previous year. Growth for the year ending March 31, 2008 is expected to be between 8.5-9.0%. Foreign portfolio and direct investment inflows have risen significantly in recent years. They have contributed to $255 billion in foreign exchange reserves by June 2007. Government receipts from privatization were about $3 billion in fiscal year 2003-2004, but the privatization program has stalled since then.

Economic growth is constrained by inadequate infrastructure, a cumbersome bureaucracy, corruption, labor market rigidities, regulatory and foreign investment controls, the "reservation" of key products for small-scale industries, and high (although declining) fiscal deficits. The outlook for further trade liberalization is mixed. India eliminated quotas on 1,420 consumer imports in 2002 and has incrementally lowered non-agricultural customs duties in recent successive budgets. However, the tax structure is complex, with compounding effects of various taxes.

The United States is India's largest trading partner. Bilateral trade in 2006 was $32 billion. Principal U.S. exports are diagnostic or lab reagents, aircraft and parts, advanced machinery, cotton, fertilizers, ferrous waste/scrap metal, and computer hardware. Major U.S. imports from India include textiles and ready-made garments, Internet-enabled services, agricultural and related products, gems and jewelry, leather products, and chemicals.

The rapidly growing software sector is boosting service exports and modernizing India's economy. Software exports crossed $28 billion in FY 2006-2007, while business process outsourcing (BPO) revenues hit $8.3 billion in 2006-2007. Personal computer penetration is 14 per 1,000 persons. The cellular/mobile market surged to 140 million subscribers by November 2006. The country has 54 million cable TV customers.

The United States is India's largest investment partner, with a 13% share. India's total inflow of U.S. direct investment is estimated at more than $9 billion through 2006. Proposals for direct foreign investment are considered by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board and generally receive government approval. Automatic approvals are available for investments involving up to 100% foreign equity, depending on the kind of industry. Foreign investment is particularly sought after in power generation, telecommunications, ports, roads, petroleum exploration/processing, and mining.

India's external debt was $155 billion in 2006-2007, up from $126 billion in 2005-2006. Foreign assistance was approximately $3 billion in 2006-2007, with the United States providing about $126 million in development assistance. The World Bank plans to double aid to India to almost $3 billion a year, with focus on infrastructure, education, health, and rural livelihoods.

==History==
The people of India have had a continuous civilization since 2500 B.C., when the inhabitants of the Indus River valley developed an urban culture based on commerce and sustained by agricultural trade. This civilization declined around 1500 B.C., probably due to ecological changes.

During the second millennium B.C., pastoral, Aryan-speaking tribes migrated from the northwest into the subcontinent, settled in the middle Ganges River valley, and adapted to antecedent cultures.

The political map of ancient and medieval India was made up of myriad kingdoms with fluctuating boundaries. In the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., northern India was unified under the Gupta Dynasty. During this period, known as India's Golden Age, Hindu culture and political administration reached new heights.

Islam spread across the subcontinent over a period of 700 years. In the 10th and 11th centuries, Turks and Afghans invaded India and established sultanates in Delhi. In the early 16th century, Babur, a Turkish adventurer and distant relative of Timurlane, established the Mughal Dynasty, which lasted for 200 years. South India followed an independent path, but by the 17th century large areas of South India came under the direct rule or influence of the expanding Mughal Empire. While most of Indian society in its thousands of villages remained untouched by the political struggles going on around them, Indian courtly culture evolved into a unique blend of Hindu and Muslim traditions.

The first British outpost in South Asia was established by the English East India Company in 1619 at Surat on the northwestern coast. Later in the century, the Company opened permanent trading stations at Madras (now Chennai), Bombay (now Mumbai), and Calcutta (now Kolkata), each under the protection of native rulers.

The British expanded their influence from these footholds until, by the 1850s, they controlled most of present-day India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. In 1857, an unsuccessful rebellion in north India led by Indian soldiers seeking the restoration of the Mughal Emperor caused the British Parliament to transfer political power from the East India Company to the Crown. Great Britain began administering most of India directly, while controlling the rest through treaties with local rulers.

In the late 1800s, the first steps were taken toward self-government in British India with the appointment of Indian councilors to advise the British Viceroy and the establishment of Provincial Councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in Legislative Councils. Beginning in 1920, Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi transformed the Indian National Congress political party into a mass movement to campaign against British colonial rule. The party used both parliamentary and nonviolent resistance and non-cooperation to agitate for independence. During this period, however, millions of Indians served with honor and distinction in the British armed forces, including service in both World Wars and countless other overseas actions in service of the Empire.

With Indians increasingly united in their quest for independence, a war-weary Britain led by Labor Prime Minister Clement Attlee began in earnest to plan for the end of its suzerainty in India. On August 15, 1947, India became a dominion within the Commonwealth, with Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister. Strategic colonial considerations, as well as political tensions between Hindus and Muslims, led the British to partition British India into two separate states: India, with a Hindu majority; and Pakistan, which consisted of two "wings," East and West Pakistan--currently Bangladesh and Pakistan--with Muslim majorities. India became a republic within the Commonwealth after promulgating its Constitution on January 26, 1950.

After independence, the Indian National Congress, the party of Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, ruled India under the leadership first of Nehru and then his daughter (Indira Gandhi) and grandson (Rajiv Gandhi), with the exception of brief periods in the 1970s and 1980s, during a short period in 1996, and the period from 1998-2004, when a coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party governed.

Prime Minister Nehru governed the nation until his death in 1964. Nehru was succeeded by Lal Bahadur Shastri, who also died in office. In 1966, power passed to Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977. In 1975, beset with deepening political and economic problems, Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency and suspended many civil liberties. Seeking a mandate at the polls for her policies, she called for elections in 1977, only to be defeated by Morarji Desai, who headed the Janata Party, an amalgam of five opposition parties.

In 1979, Desai's Government crumbled. Charan Singh formed an interim government, which was followed by Mrs. Gandhi's return to power in January 1980. On October 31, 1984, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated, and her son, Rajiv, was chosen by the Congress (I)--for "Indira"--Party to take her place. His Congress government was plagued with allegations of corruption resulting in an early call for national elections in 1989.

Although Rajiv Gandhi's Congress Party won more seats than any other single party in the 1989 elections, he was unable to form a government with a clear majority. The Janata Dal, a union of opposition parties, then joined with the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the right and the Communists on the left to form the government. This loose coalition collapsed in November 1990, and the Janata Dal, supported by the Congress (I), came to power for a short period, with Chandra Shekhar as Prime Minister. That alliance also collapsed, resulting in national elections in June 1991.

While campaigning in Tamil Nadu on behalf of Congress (I), Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 27, 1991, apparently by Tamil extremists from Sri Lanka, unhappy with India's armed intervention to try to stop the civil war there. In the elections, Congress (I) won 213 parliamentary seats and returned to power at the head of a coalition, under the leadership of P.V. Narasimha Rao. This Congress-led government, which served a full 5-year term, initiated a gradual process of economic liberalization and reform, which opened the Indian economy to global trade and investment. India's domestic politics also took new shape, as the nationalist appeal of the Congress Party gave way to traditional caste, creed, regional, and ethnic alignments, leading to the founding of a plethora of small, regionally based political parties.

The final months of the Rao-led government in the spring of 1996 were marred by several major corruption scandals, which contributed to the worst electoral performance by the Congress Party in its history. The Hindu-nationalist BJP emerged from the May 1996 national elections as the single-largest party in the Lok Sabha but without a parliamentary majority. Under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the subsequent BJP coalition lasted only 13 days. With all political parties wishing to avoid another round of elections, a 14-party coalition led by the Janata Dal formed a government known as the United Front, under the former Chief Minister of Karnataka, H.D. Deve Gowda. His government collapsed after less than a year, when the Congress Party withdrew its support in March 1997. Inder Kumar Gujral replaced Deve Gowda as the consensus choice for Prime Minister at the head of a 16-party United Front coalition.

In November 1997, the Congress Party again withdrew support from the United Front. In new elections in February 1998, the BJP won the largest number of seats in Parliament--182--but fell far short of a majority. On March 20, 1998, the President approved a BJP-led coalition government with Vajpayee again serving as Prime Minister. On May 11 and 13, 1998, this government conducted a series of underground nuclear tests, spurring U.S. President Clinton to impose economic sanctions on India pursuant to the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act.

In April 1999, the BJP-led coalition government fell apart, leading to fresh elections in September. The National Democratic Alliance--a new coalition led by the BJP--won a majority to form the government with Vajpayee as Prime Minister in October 1999. The NDA government was the first in many years to serve a full five year term, providing much-needed political stability.

The Kargil conflict in 1999 and an attack by terrorists on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 led to increased tensions with Pakistan.

Hindu nationalists supportive of the BJP agitated to build a temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya, destroying a 17th century mosque there in December 1992, and sparking widespread religious riots in which thousands, mostly Muslims, were killed. In February 2002, 57 Hindu volunteers returning from Ayodhya were burnt alive when their train caught fire. Alleging that the fire was caused by Muslim attackers, anti-Muslim rioters throughout the state of Gujarat killed over 900 people and left 100,000 homeless. This led to accusations that the BJP-led Gujarat state government had not done enough to contain the riots, or arrest and prosecute the rioters.

The ruling BJP-led coalition was defeated in a five-stage election held in April and May of 2004, and a Congress-led coalition, known as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), took power on May 22 with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. The UPA's victory was attributed to dissatisfaction among poorer rural voters that the prosperity of the cities had not filtered down to them, and rejection of the BJP's Hindu nationalist agenda.

The Congress-led UPA government has continued many of the BJP's foreign policies, particularly improving relations with the U.S. Prime Minister Singh and President Bush concluded a landmark U.S.-India strategic partnership framework agreement on July 18, 2005. In March 2006, President Bush visited India to further the many initiatives that underlie the new agreement. The strategic partnership is anchored by a historic civil nuclear cooperation initiative and includes cooperation in the fields of space, high-technology commerce, health issues, democracy promotion, agriculture, and trade and investment.

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==See Also==

[[World History Lecture Three]] for more information on Ancient India.

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm]}}

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

India

2008-03-26T00:32:55Z

LeaningRight: /* Economy */ Added agriculture, particularly important for a developing country like India.

{{Country
|name =''भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaharājya''
|map =India rel01.jpg
|flag =Flag of India svg.png
|arms =Emblem of India.png
|capital =New Delhi
|capital-raw =
|government =Federal Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Hindi
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Pratibha Patil
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Manmohan Singh
|pm-raw =
|area =3,287,590 sq mi
|pop =1,129,866,154 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$4.2 trillion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$3,800 (2006)
|currency =rupee
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''Republic of India''' is a nation located in [[South Asia]]. It spans from the [[Himalayas]] in the north to the [[Indian Ocean]]. It borders [[China]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Nepal]], [[Bhutan]] and [[Myanmar]]. India is the 7th largest country in the world in terms of area and second most populous country (standing at around 1.1 billion according to 2006 estimate), only behind China. Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, the history, culture and tradition of India is more than 3000 years old. Though India is the world's fourth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, it has high levels of [[poverty]], [[illiteracy]], [[corruption]] and [[crime]].

==Etymology==
The name "India" came from the word 'Indus', which derives from the Persian word "Hindu" which was used to describe the Sindhu river (now known as the Indus).

==People==
Although India occupies only 2.4% of the world's land area, it supports over 15% of the world's population. Only China has a larger population. India's median age is 25, one of the youngest among large economies. About 70% live in more than 550,000 villages, and the remainder in more than 200 towns and cities. Over the thousands of years of its history, India has been invaded from the Iranian plateau, Central Asia, Arabia, Afghanistan, and the West; Indian people and culture have absorbed and modified these influences to produce a remarkable racial and cultural synthesis.

Religion, caste, and language are major determinants of social and political organization in India today. However, with more job opportunities in the private sector and better chances of upward social mobility, India has begun a quiet social transformation in this area. The government has recognized 18 official languages; Hindi, the national language, is the most widely spoken, although English is a national lingua franca. Although 81% of its people are Hindu, India also is the home of more than 138 million Muslims--one of the world's largest Muslim populations. The population also includes Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Parsis.

The Hindu caste system reflects Indian occupational and socially defined hierarchies. Ancient Sanskrit sources divide society into four major categories, priests (Brahmin), warriors (Kshatriya), traders (Vaishya) and farmers/laborers (Shudra). Although these categories are understood throughout India, they describe reality only in the most general terms. They omit, for example, the tribes and those once known as "untouchables." In reality, Indian society is divided into thousands of jatis--local, endogamous groups based on occupation--and organized hierarchically according to complex ideas of purity and pollution. Discrimination based on caste is officially illegal, but remains prevalent, especially in rural areas. Nevertheless, the government has made strong efforts to minimize the importance of caste through active affirmative action and social policies. Moreover, caste has been diluted if not subsumed in the economically prosperous and heterogeneous cities, where an increasing percentage of India's population lives. In the countryside, expanding education, land reform and economic opportunity through access to information, communication, transport, and credit have lessened the harshest elements of the caste system.

===Religions===

India is the region where four of the major world religions were founded:
*[[Hinduism]]
*[[Buddhism]]
*[[Jainism]]
*[[Sikhism]]
Although over 80% of Indians identify themselves as Hindu, India has large vibrant communities of [[Muslims]], [[Sikhs]], [[Christians]], [[Jains]], [[Bahaii]] and [[Buddhists]]. Hinduism as it is identified today has existed in India for over 4000 years; in the past it had spread to the rest of South-East Asia and Indonesia, although Hinduism is practiced outside India today only in the island of Bali. Buddhism originated in Eastern India in the 6th century B.C. and spread to the rest of Asia through individual and organized missionaries, although there are few practicing Buddhists left in India today. Jainism originated in Eastern India in the 6th century B.C. and spread to the rest of India; today they are mostly concentrated in the Southern and Western parts of the country. Sikhism is a monotheistic religion that originated in India in the 16th century A.D. Christianity and Islam have well-established traditions in India. The first identifiably Jewish migrants arrived in India as the Bene Israel group. There is some debate as to the Jewishness of a possibly older group of Indians in the Northeastern part of the country called the Bnei Menashe. Christianity arrived in India in the first century A.D., possibly through the travels of the [[Apostle Thomas]], whose tomb in the Indian city of Chennai is a major pilgrimage site for Christians in India. Islam arrived partly through the implementation of holy war or "[[Jihad]]" by Arab militants led by [[Muhammad bin-Qasim]] in the latter half of the 8th century A.D., and partly through the efforts of Arab traders in South India. It continued to spread with invasions, wars and forced conversions by Afghans and Turkic Mongols. Eventually, peace settled and they slowly integrated into the society and formed India's Islamic tradition. The [[Taj Mahal]], India's national monument, was built by a Muslim emperor named Shah Jahan.
[[Image:Taj Mahal.jpg|thumb|Taj Mahal]]

==Government==
According to its Constitution, India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic." Like the United States, India has a federal form of government. However, the central government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and has adopted a British-style parliamentary system.

The government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the president, whose duties are largely ceremonial. A special electoral college elects the president and vice president indirectly for 5-year terms. Their terms are staggered, and the vice president does not automatically become president following the death or removal from office of the president.

Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers (Cabinet), led by the prime minister. The president appoints the prime minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority in the Lok Sabha (lower house). The president then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the prime minister.

India's bicameral Parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Council of Ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha.

The legislatures of the states and union territories elect 233 members to the Rajya Sabha, and the president appoints another 12. The members of the Rajya Sabha serve 6-year terms, with one-third up for election every 2 years. The Lok Sabha consists of 545 members, who serve 5-year terms; 543 are directly elected, and two are appointed.

India's independent judicial system began under the British, and its concepts and procedures resemble those of Anglo-Saxon countries. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and 25 other justices, all appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister.

India has 28 states* and 7 union territories. At the state level, some legislatures are bicameral, patterned after the two houses of the national parliament. The states' chief ministers are responsible to the legislatures in the same way the prime minister is responsible to Parliament.

Each state also has a presidentially appointed governor, who may assume certain broad powers when directed by the central government. The central government exerts greater control over the union territories than over the states, although some territories have gained more power to administer their own affairs. Local governments in India have less autonomy than their counterparts in the United States. Some states are trying to revitalize the traditional village councils, or panchayats, to promote popular democratic participation at the village level, where much of the population still lives. Over half a million panchayats exist throughout India.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Pratibha Patil
*Vice President--Mohammed Hamid Ansari
*Prime Minister--Dr. Manmohan Singh
*Home Minister--Shivraj Patil
*Minister of External Affairs--Pranab Mukherjee
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Ronen Sen
*Ambassador to the UN--Nirupam Sen

===Political Conditions===
Emerging as the nation's single largest party in the April/May 2004 Lok Sabha election, Congress currently leads a coalition government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Party President Sonia Gandhi was re-elected by the Party National Executive in May 2005. Also a Member of Parliament, she heads the Congress Lok Sabha delegation. Congress prides itself as a secular, left of center party, with a long history of political dominance. Although its performance in national elections had steadily declined during the last 12 years, its surprise victory in 2004 was a result of recruiting strong allies into the UPA, the anti-incumbency factor among voters, and its courtship of India's many poor, rural and Muslim voters. Congress political fortunes suffered badly in the 1990s, as many traditional supporters were lost to emerging regional and caste-based parties, such as the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party, but have rebounded since its May 2004 ascension to power. It currently rules either directly or in coalition with its allies in 9 states. In November 2005, the Congress regained the Chief Ministership of Jammu and Kashmir state, under a power-sharing agreement.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Rajnath Singh, holds the second-largest number of seats in the Lok Sabha. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee serves as Chairman of the BJP Parliamentary Party, and former Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani is Leader of the Opposition. The Hindu-nationalist BJP draws its political strength mainly from the "Hindi Belt" in the northern and western regions of India.

The party holds power in the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Orissa--in coalition with the Biju Janata Dal. Popularly viewed as the party of the northern upper caste and trading communities, the BJP made strong inroads into lower castes in recent national and state assembly elections. The party must balance the competing interests of Hindu nationalists, (who advocate construction of a temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya, and other primarily religious issues), and center-right modernizers who see the BJP as a party of economic and political reform.

Four Communist and Marxist parties are united in a bloc called the "Left Front," which controls 57 parliamentary seats. The Left Front rules the states of West Bengal and Kerala. Although it has not joined the government, Left Front support provides the crucial seats necessary for the UPA to retain power in New Delhi; without its support, the UPA government would fall. It advocates a secular and Communist ideology and opposes many aspects of economic liberalization and globalization, resulting in dissonance with Prime Minister Singh's liberal economic approach.

===Foreign Relations===
India's size, population, and strategic location give it a prominent voice in international affairs, and its growing economic strength, military prowess, and scientific and technical capacity give it added weight. The end of the Cold War dramatically affected Indian foreign policy. India remains a leader of the developing world and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). India is now strengthening its political and commercial ties with the United States, Japan, the European Union, Iran, China, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. India is an active member of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Always an active member of the United Nations, India now seeks a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. India has a long tradition of participating in UN peacekeeping operations.

====Bilateral and Regional Relations====
'''Pakistan'''. India and Pakistan have been locked in a tense rivalry since the partition of the subcontinent upon achieving independence from Great Britain in 1947. The principal source of contention has been Kashmir, whose Hindu Maharaja at that time chose to join India, although a majority of his subjects were Muslim. India maintains that his decision and subsequent elections in Kashmir have made it an integral part of India. This dispute triggered wars between the two countries in 1947 and 1965 and provoked the Kargil conflict in 1999.

Pakistan and India fought a war in December 1971 following a political crisis in what was then East Pakistan and the flight of millions of Bengali refugees to India. The brief conflict left the situation largely unchanged in the west, where the two armies reached an impasse, but a decisive Indian victory in the east resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.

Since the 1971 war, Pakistan and India have made slow progress toward normalization of relations. In July 1972, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto met in the Indian hill station of Simla. They signed an agreement by which India would return all personnel and captured territory in the west and the two countries would "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations." Diplomatic and trade relations were re-established in 1976.

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan caused new strains between India and Pakistan. Pakistan supported the Afghan resistance, while India implicitly supported the Soviet occupation. In the following eight years, India voiced increasing concern over Pakistani arms purchases, U.S. military aid to Pakistan, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. In an effort to curtail tensions, the two countries formed a joint commission. In December 1988, Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto concluded a pact not to attack each other's nuclear facilities and initiated agreements on cultural exchanges and civil aviation.

In 1997, high-level Indo-Pakistani talks resumed after a three-year pause. The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met twice, and the foreign secretaries conducted three rounds of talks. In June 1997 at Lahore, the foreign secretaries identified eight "outstanding issues" around which continuing talks would be focused. The dispute over the status of Jammu and Kashmir, an issue since partition, remains the major stumbling block in their dialogue. India maintains that the entire former princely state is an integral part of the Indian union, while Pakistan insists upon the implementation of UN resolutions calling for self-determination for the people of the state.

In September 1997, the talks broke down over the structure of how to deal with the issues of Kashmir and peace and security. Pakistan advocated that separate working groups treat each issue. India responded that the two issues be taken up along with six others on a simultaneous basis. In May 1998 India, and then Pakistan, conducted nuclear tests. Attempts to restart dialogue between the two nations were given a major boost by the February 1999 meeting of both Prime Ministers in Lahore and their signing of three agreements. These efforts were stalled by the intrusion of Pakistani-backed forces into Indian-held territory near Kargil in May 1999 (that nearly turned into full scale war), and by the military coup in Pakistan that overturned the Nawaz Sharif government in October the same year. In July 2001, Mr. Vajpayee and General Pervez Musharraf, leader of Pakistan after the coup, met in Agra, but talks ended after two days without result.

After an attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001, India-Pakistan relations cooled further as India accused Pakistan of involvement. Tensions increased, fueled by killings in Jammu and Kashmir, peaking in a troop buildup by both sides in early 2002.

Prime Minister Vajpayee's April 18, 2003 speech in Srinagar (Kashmir) revived bilateral efforts to normalize relations. In November 2003, Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf agreed to a ceasefire, which still holds, along the Line-of-Control in Jammu and Kashmir. After a series of confidence building measures, Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf met on the sidelines of the January 2004 SAARC summit in Islamabad and agreed to commence a Composite Dialogue addressing outstanding issues between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. The UPA government has continued the Composite Dialogue with Pakistan.

In February 2004, India and Pakistan agreed to restart the "2+6" Composite Dialogue formula, which provides for talks on Peace and Security and Jammu and Kashmir, followed by technical and Secretary-level discussions on six other bilateral disputes: Siachen Glacier, Wuller Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, Sir Creek estuary, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and Commercial cooperation, and the Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in various fields. The Foreign Secretary talks resumed in November 2006, after a three-month delay following the July 11, 2006 terrorist bombings in Mumbai. The meeting generated modest progress, with the two sides agreeing to establish a joint mechanism on counter-terrorism and agreeing to a follow-on meeting in February 2007. The restart of the Composite Dialogue process is especially significant, given the almost six years that transpired since the two sides agreed to this formula in 1997-98.

Following the October 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, the two governments coordinated relief efforts and opened access points along the Line-of-Control to allow relief supplies to flow from India to Pakistan and to allow Kashmiris from both sides to visit one another.

'''SAARC'''. Certain aspects of India's relations within the subcontinent are conducted through the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Its members are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, with the People's Republic of China, Iran, Japan, European Union, Republic of Korea, and the U.S. as observers. Established in 1985, SAARC encourages cooperation in agriculture, rural development, science and technology, culture, health, population control, narcotics, and terrorism.

SAARC has intentionally stressed these "core issues" and avoided those which could prove divisive, although political dialogue is often conducted on the margins of SAARC meetings. In 1993, India and its SAARC partners signed an agreement gradually to lower tariffs within the region. Forward movement in SAARC had slowed because of tension between India and Pakistan, and the SAARC summit scheduled for 1999 was not held until January 2002. In addition, to boost the process of normalizing India's relationship with Pakistan, the January 2004 SAARC summit in Islamabad produced an agreement to establish a South Asia Free Trade Area (SAFTA). All the member governments have ratified SAFTA, which was slated to come into force on January 1, 2006, with a series of graduated tariff cuts through 2015. As of December 2006, however, the FTA partners were still negotiating sensitive product lists, rules of origin, and technical assistance. India hosted the 2007 SAARC summit, which called for greater regional cooperation on trade, environmental, social, and counterterrorism issues.

'''China'''. Despite suspicions remaining from a 1962 border conflict between India and China and continuing territorial/boundary disputes, Sino-Indian relations have improved gradually since 1988. Both countries have sought to reduce tensions along the frontier, expand trade and cultural ties, and normalize relations. Their bilateral trade reached $24 billion in 2006. China is India's second-largest trading partner behind the U.S.

A series of high-level visits between the two nations has improved relations. In December 1996, Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited India on a tour of South Asia. While in New Delhi, he and the Indian Prime Minister signed a series of confidence-building measures along the disputed border, including troop reductions and weapons limitations.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao invited Prime Minister Vajpayee to visit China in June 2003. They recognized the common goals of both countries and made the commitment to build a "long-term constructive and cooperative partnership" to peacefully promote their mutual political and economic goals without encroaching upon their good relations with other countries. In Beijing, Prime Minister Vajpayee proposed the designation of special representatives to discuss the border dispute at the political level, a process that is still under way.

In November 2006, President Hu Jintao made an official state visit to India, further cementing Sino-Indian relations. India and China are building on growing economic ties to improve other aspects of their relationship such as counter-terrorism, energy, and trade. In another symbol of improved ties, the two countries opened the Nathu La Pass to bilateral trade in July 2006 for the first time in 40 years. Though it is the first direct land trade route in decades, trade is expected to be local and small since the pass is open only four months a year.

'''Former Soviet Union'''. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) had major repercussions for Indian foreign policy. India's substantial trade with the region plummeted after the Soviet collapse and has yet to recover. Longstanding military supply relationships were similarly disrupted due to questions over financing. Russia nonetheless remains India's largest supplier of military systems and spare parts.

Russia and India have not renewed the 1971 Indo-Soviet Peace and Friendship Treaty and follow what both describe as a more pragmatic, less ideological relationship. The visit of Russian President Boris Yeltsin to India in January 1993 helped cement this new relationship. The pace of high-level visits has since increased, as has discussion of major defense purchases. UPA leader Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Singh visited Russia in July 2005. President Vladimir Putin traveled to India in January 2007 to attend an Indo-Russia Summit and was the guest of honor at India's Republic Day celebrations.

==Defense==
The supreme command of the Indian armed forces is vested in the President of India. Policies concerning India's defense, and the armed forces as a whole, are formulated and confirmed by the Cabinet.

The Indian Army numbers over 1.1 million strong and fields 34 divisions. Its primary task is to safeguard the territorial integrity of the country against external threats. The Army has been heavily committed in the recent past to counterterrorism operations in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the in the Northeast. Its current modernization program focuses on obtaining equipment to be used in combating terror. The Army often provides aid to civil authorities and assists the government in organizing relief operations.

The Indian Navy is by far the most capable navy in the region. The Navy's primary missions are the defense of India and of India's vital sea lines of communication. India relies on the sea for 90% of its oil and natural gas and over 90% of its foreign trade. The Navy currently operates one aircraft carrier with two on order, 14 submarines, and 15 major surface combatants. It is capable of projecting power within the Indian Ocean basin and occasionally operates in the South China Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Fleet introduction of the Brahmos cruise missile and the possible lease of nuclear submarines from Russia will add significantly to the Indian Navy's flexibility and striking power.

Although small, the Indian Coast Guard has been expanding rapidly in recent years. Indian Navy officers typically fill top Coast Guard positions to ensure coordination between the two services. India's Coast Guard is responsible for control of India's huge exclusive economic zone.

The Indian Air Force is becoming a 21st century force through modernization, new tactics and the acquisition of modern aircraft, such as the SU-30MKI, a new advanced jet trainer (BAE Hawk) and the indigenously produced advanced light [[helicopter]] (Dhruv). In June 2007, the Indian Government announced intentions to release a request for proposals for 126 multi-role combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force.

==Economy==

===Agriculture===

India has a cultivated area if 138 million hectares which almost equals that of the [[European Union]]. A lot of the land has good agriculture potential especially where water supplies are available. Arable farming, especially cereals is the main kind of farming. India, which has two thirds of its working population relying on the land to earn a living, desperately needs to improve agriculture production in order to develop its economy.

When India became independent from [[Britain]] in 1947 the Indian government recognized agriculture as a key area for economic development. Despite this there has been limited modernization of the sector. There hasn’t been an effective land reform package introduced to redistribute land from wealthy landlords to landless peasants. In the 1990’s almost half of rural families had plots of 0.5 hectares or no land at all, but a quarter of India’s agricultural land was owned by five percent of rich landowning families. This has made it nearly impossible to mechanize and introduce modern farm practices.

The dominant type of farming throughout India is intensive [[Subsistence farming]]. It is used especially in rural areas with high population density, where people depend on being able to feed themselves. [[Rice]] is very important for this type of farming, especially in the Indus and Ganges flood plains. Other crops such as wheat and millet are grown in drier parts of peninsular India. Farming is a family affair, with all planting, flooding and harvesting done by hand. One of the reasons rural Indians have such large families is to provide free labour to help harvest crops. This adds to the pressure on India’s service sector and India’s agriculture sector to meet the demands of India’s ever-growing population.

India is a country that has benefited from the Green revolution. This refers to the development and introduction of genetically modified, high yield varieties of staple crops, such as rice and wheat. These ‘miracle’ crops produce high yields and are resistant to disease and pests. Due to the Green revolution, India has managed to become a net exporter of food.

There is however some problems linked to the Green revolution. It depends on large inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that may be costly and harmful to the soil in the long run. Labour is often replaced with machinery, so rural unemployment goes up and more people leave the land and go to towns, increasing rural-urban migration. A well-educated farm population and capital investment are needed. It only really benefits comparatively few, large-scale farmers; large numbers of small-scale farmers may not be able to benefit from the process.

For a large number of Indian farmers a better solution would be the introduction of more intermediate technology and a more effective programme of land reform. While the Green revolution has brought some positive results, the vast majority of India’s rice farmers use traditional farm practices that depend heavily on the natural environment. The need to match food production to match India’s growing population is a major concern for government.

===General overview===

India's population is estimated at more than 1.1 billion and is growing at 1.3% a year. It has the world's 12th largest economy--and the third largest in Asia behind Japan and China--with total GDP of around $1 trillion ($1,000 billion). Services, industry, and agriculture account for 55%, 27%, and 18% of GDP respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the population depends on agriculture for its livelihood. 700 million Indians live on $2 per day or less, but there is a large and growing middle class of 325-350 million with disposable income for consumer goods.

India is continuing to move forward with market-oriented economic reforms that began in 1991. Recent reforms include liberalized foreign investment and exchange regimes, industrial decontrol, significant reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers, reform and modernization of the financial sector, significant adjustments in government monetary and fiscal policies, and safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Real GDP growth for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 was 9.4%, up from 9.0% growth in the previous year. Growth for the year ending March 31, 2008 is expected to be between 8.5-9.0%. Foreign portfolio and direct investment inflows have risen significantly in recent years. They have contributed to $255 billion in foreign exchange reserves by June 2007. Government receipts from privatization were about $3 billion in fiscal year 2003-2004, but the privatization program has stalled since then.

Economic growth is constrained by inadequate infrastructure, a cumbersome bureaucracy, corruption, labor market rigidities, regulatory and foreign investment controls, the "reservation" of key products for small-scale industries, and high (although declining) fiscal deficits. The outlook for further trade liberalization is mixed. India eliminated quotas on 1,420 consumer imports in 2002 and has incrementally lowered non-agricultural customs duties in recent successive budgets. However, the tax structure is complex, with compounding effects of various taxes.

The United States is India's largest trading partner. Bilateral trade in 2006 was $32 billion. Principal U.S. exports are diagnostic or lab reagents, aircraft and parts, advanced machinery, cotton, fertilizers, ferrous waste/scrap metal, and computer hardware. Major U.S. imports from India include textiles and ready-made garments, Internet-enabled services, agricultural and related products, gems and jewelry, leather products, and chemicals.

The rapidly growing software sector is boosting service exports and modernizing India's economy. Software exports crossed $28 billion in FY 2006-2007, while business process outsourcing (BPO) revenues hit $8.3 billion in 2006-2007. Personal computer penetration is 14 per 1,000 persons. The cellular/mobile market surged to 140 million subscribers by November 2006. The country has 54 million cable TV customers.

The United States is India's largest investment partner, with a 13% share. India's total inflow of U.S. direct investment is estimated at more than $9 billion through 2006. Proposals for direct foreign investment are considered by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board and generally receive government approval. Automatic approvals are available for investments involving up to 100% foreign equity, depending on the kind of industry. Foreign investment is particularly sought after in power generation, telecommunications, ports, roads, petroleum exploration/processing, and mining.

India's external debt was $155 billion in 2006-2007, up from $126 billion in 2005-2006. Foreign assistance was approximately $3 billion in 2006-2007, with the United States providing about $126 million in development assistance. The World Bank plans to double aid to India to almost $3 billion a year, with focus on infrastructure, education, health, and rural livelihoods.

==History==
The people of India have had a continuous civilization since 2500 B.C., when the inhabitants of the Indus River valley developed an urban culture based on commerce and sustained by agricultural trade. This civilization declined around 1500 B.C., probably due to ecological changes.

During the second millennium B.C., pastoral, Aryan-speaking tribes migrated from the northwest into the subcontinent, settled in the middle Ganges River valley, and adapted to antecedent cultures.

The political map of ancient and medieval India was made up of myriad kingdoms with fluctuating boundaries. In the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., northern India was unified under the Gupta Dynasty. During this period, known as India's Golden Age, Hindu culture and political administration reached new heights.

Islam spread across the subcontinent over a period of 700 years. In the 10th and 11th centuries, Turks and Afghans invaded India and established sultanates in Delhi. In the early 16th century, Babur, a Turkish adventurer and distant relative of Timurlane, established the Mughal Dynasty, which lasted for 200 years. South India followed an independent path, but by the 17th century large areas of South India came under the direct rule or influence of the expanding Mughal Empire. While most of Indian society in its thousands of villages remained untouched by the political struggles going on around them, Indian courtly culture evolved into a unique blend of Hindu and Muslim traditions.

The first British outpost in South Asia was established by the English East India Company in 1619 at Surat on the northwestern coast. Later in the century, the Company opened permanent trading stations at Madras (now Chennai), Bombay (now Mumbai), and Calcutta (now Kolkata), each under the protection of native rulers.

The British expanded their influence from these footholds until, by the 1850s, they controlled most of present-day India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. In 1857, an unsuccessful rebellion in north India led by Indian soldiers seeking the restoration of the Mughal Emperor caused the British Parliament to transfer political power from the East India Company to the Crown. Great Britain began administering most of India directly, while controlling the rest through treaties with local rulers.

In the late 1800s, the first steps were taken toward self-government in British India with the appointment of Indian councilors to advise the British Viceroy and the establishment of Provincial Councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in Legislative Councils. Beginning in 1920, Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi transformed the Indian National Congress political party into a mass movement to campaign against British colonial rule. The party used both parliamentary and nonviolent resistance and non-cooperation to agitate for independence. During this period, however, millions of Indians served with honor and distinction in the British armed forces, including service in both World Wars and countless other overseas actions in service of the Empire.

With Indians increasingly united in their quest for independence, a war-weary Britain led by Labor Prime Minister Clement Attlee began in earnest to plan for the end of its suzerainty in India. On August 15, 1947, India became a dominion within the Commonwealth, with Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister. Strategic colonial considerations, as well as political tensions between Hindus and Muslims, led the British to partition British India into two separate states: India, with a Hindu majority; and Pakistan, which consisted of two "wings," East and West Pakistan--currently Bangladesh and Pakistan--with Muslim majorities. India became a republic within the Commonwealth after promulgating its Constitution on January 26, 1950.

After independence, the Indian National Congress, the party of Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, ruled India under the leadership first of Nehru and then his daughter (Indira Gandhi) and grandson (Rajiv Gandhi), with the exception of brief periods in the 1970s and 1980s, during a short period in 1996, and the period from 1998-2004, when a coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party governed.

Prime Minister Nehru governed the nation until his death in 1964. Nehru was succeeded by Lal Bahadur Shastri, who also died in office. In 1966, power passed to Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977. In 1975, beset with deepening political and economic problems, Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency and suspended many civil liberties. Seeking a mandate at the polls for her policies, she called for elections in 1977, only to be defeated by Morarji Desai, who headed the Janata Party, an amalgam of five opposition parties.

In 1979, Desai's Government crumbled. Charan Singh formed an interim government, which was followed by Mrs. Gandhi's return to power in January 1980. On October 31, 1984, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated, and her son, Rajiv, was chosen by the Congress (I)--for "Indira"--Party to take her place. His Congress government was plagued with allegations of corruption resulting in an early call for national elections in 1989.

Although Rajiv Gandhi's Congress Party won more seats than any other single party in the 1989 elections, he was unable to form a government with a clear majority. The Janata Dal, a union of opposition parties, then joined with the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the right and the Communists on the left to form the government. This loose coalition collapsed in November 1990, and the Janata Dal, supported by the Congress (I), came to power for a short period, with Chandra Shekhar as Prime Minister. That alliance also collapsed, resulting in national elections in June 1991.

While campaigning in Tamil Nadu on behalf of Congress (I), Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 27, 1991, apparently by Tamil extremists from Sri Lanka, unhappy with India's armed intervention to try to stop the civil war there. In the elections, Congress (I) won 213 parliamentary seats and returned to power at the head of a coalition, under the leadership of P.V. Narasimha Rao. This Congress-led government, which served a full 5-year term, initiated a gradual process of economic liberalization and reform, which opened the Indian economy to global trade and investment. India's domestic politics also took new shape, as the nationalist appeal of the Congress Party gave way to traditional caste, creed, regional, and ethnic alignments, leading to the founding of a plethora of small, regionally based political parties.

The final months of the Rao-led government in the spring of 1996 were marred by several major corruption scandals, which contributed to the worst electoral performance by the Congress Party in its history. The Hindu-nationalist BJP emerged from the May 1996 national elections as the single-largest party in the Lok Sabha but without a parliamentary majority. Under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the subsequent BJP coalition lasted only 13 days. With all political parties wishing to avoid another round of elections, a 14-party coalition led by the Janata Dal formed a government known as the United Front, under the former Chief Minister of Karnataka, H.D. Deve Gowda. His government collapsed after less than a year, when the Congress Party withdrew its support in March 1997. Inder Kumar Gujral replaced Deve Gowda as the consensus choice for Prime Minister at the head of a 16-party United Front coalition.

In November 1997, the Congress Party again withdrew support from the United Front. In new elections in February 1998, the BJP won the largest number of seats in Parliament--182--but fell far short of a majority. On March 20, 1998, the President approved a BJP-led coalition government with Vajpayee again serving as Prime Minister. On May 11 and 13, 1998, this government conducted a series of underground nuclear tests, spurring U.S. President Clinton to impose economic sanctions on India pursuant to the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act.

In April 1999, the BJP-led coalition government fell apart, leading to fresh elections in September. The National Democratic Alliance--a new coalition led by the BJP--won a majority to form the government with Vajpayee as Prime Minister in October 1999. The NDA government was the first in many years to serve a full five year term, providing much-needed political stability.

The Kargil conflict in 1999 and an attack by terrorists on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 led to increased tensions with Pakistan.

Hindu nationalists supportive of the BJP agitated to build a temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya, destroying a 17th century mosque there in December 1992, and sparking widespread religious riots in which thousands, mostly Muslims, were killed. In February 2002, 57 Hindu volunteers returning from Ayodhya were burnt alive when their train caught fire. Alleging that the fire was caused by Muslim attackers, anti-Muslim rioters throughout the state of Gujarat killed over 900 people and left 100,000 homeless. This led to accusations that the BJP-led Gujarat state government had not done enough to contain the riots, or arrest and prosecute the rioters.

The ruling BJP-led coalition was defeated in a five-stage election held in April and May of 2004, and a Congress-led coalition, known as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), took power on May 22 with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. The UPA's victory was attributed to dissatisfaction among poorer rural voters that the prosperity of the cities had not filtered down to them, and rejection of the BJP's Hindu nationalist agenda.

The Congress-led UPA government has continued many of the BJP's foreign policies, particularly improving relations with the U.S. Prime Minister Singh and President Bush concluded a landmark U.S.-India strategic partnership framework agreement on July 18, 2005. In March 2006, President Bush visited India to further the many initiatives that underlie the new agreement. The strategic partnership is anchored by a historic civil nuclear cooperation initiative and includes cooperation in the fields of space, high-technology commerce, health issues, democracy promotion, agriculture, and trade and investment.

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==See Also==

[[World History Lecture Three]] for more information on Ancient India.

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm]}}

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

Economic planning

2008-03-26T00:28:54Z

LeaningRight: /* Marxist roots */ Added characteristics of a centrally planned system

'''Economic planning''' is a term used to describe the long term plans of an incumbent government to co-ordinate and develop the economy. Economic planning is commonly a feature of [[big government]] as it usually involves increased spending on things such as public work schemes and government programs.

Given the economic woes due to the collapse of international trade on a vast scale in the early 1930s caused by tariff restrictions severally among [[nation state]]s, economic planning became quite fashionable as a solution among what became the belligerent powers of [[World War II]].

Economic planning can include:

*Discussing the long term future of economic growth, and ways of achieving said growth.
*Meeting social partners such as trade Union leaders to co-ordinate government planning in relation to these partners.
*Organizing committees to create reports and offer recommendations for future economic expansion.

Critics, who generally tend to be pro Free-market argue that the only economic planning that government should engage in is providing a framework for the economy to operate, such as sufficient [[infrastructure]] and the maintenance of [[law]] and [[order]]

==Characteristics of a centrally planned economy==

A centrally planned economic model is when all aspects of the economy are organized from the state or central decision making authority. It is largely an obsolete model, with [[Cuba]], [[Vietnam]] and [[North Korea]] remaining the only committed centrally planned economies. [[China]], a so-called ‘communist’ state has opened up its economy more and more to free enterprise and away from the centrally planned model.

It is based off the doctrines of [[Karl Marx]], most notable of which being ''From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs''. Essentially this involves an equal distribution of wealth. Unlike in a free market [[Capitalism|capitalist]] country, a centrally planned economy provides services such as healthcare and education to the people free of charge. Citizens of a centrally planned economy enjoy better health and education standards than in many other countries, but often at the expense of many individualistic freedoms associated with [[Free Market]] economies of the west.

Similarly, the state would nationalize all factories and industries. In the Soviet Union’s case under Stalin, Industrial production increased by many hundred percent and at the height of its industrial production the centrally planned model had insured that the [[Soviet Union]] went from being one of the least industrialized areas of Europe to being the second most industrialized economy second only to the United States of America. However, following [[World War Two]] the global economy changed dramatically away from the old heavy industrial system to a more light, plastic orientated industrial system. The Soviet Union concentrated on continuing high levels of industrial production at the expense of producing consumer goods. The inefficient state bureaucracy failed to keep in line with consumer demands and changing consumer tastes, and this was one of the major flaws in the Centrally planned model. The centrally planned model also disagrees with individualism and focuses on collective responsibility. This more often than not coincided with repression of civil liberties and a corrupt totalitarian state. The fact that the old Soviet Union collapsed and was replaced with free market economics in the former states of the USSR is perhaps a testament to the failure of the centrally planned model.

==Marxist roots==

James Burnham, a former [[Trotskyite]], discovered in 1941 that the "workers revolution" which allegedly was to overthrow the capitalist "exploiters," was in real practice a "managerial revolution" which replaced older 19th century owners of capital with twentieth century technocrats and managers. Burnham found that "workers in this mythical 'workers' state' were, the facts showed, a subject class far more heavily exploited than the workers under capitalism," and that the new managers in a planned economy "have curbed the masses and have instituted a social structure in which they are on top, not by virtue of private property rights in the instruments of production, but through their monopoly control of a state power which has fused with the economy." <ref>''The Managerial Revolution'', James Burnham, Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966.</ref>

Prof. Carroll Quigley voiced the same sentiments as late as 1966 when he wrote in ''Tragedy and Hop'', "It is increasingly clear that in the 20th century, the expert will replace the industrial tycoon in control of the economic system even as he will replace the democratic voter in control of the political system. This is because planning will inevitably replace [[laissez-faire]] in the relationships between the two systems. <ref>''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'', Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pgs. 735 - 741. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref>

==New Deal==

From March 4, 1933 to May 15, 1936 Roosevelt spent $25 billion with an increase in the [[National Debt]] $13 billion. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) reported 12,184,000 persons still unemployed in March, 1936. Roosevelt reported 5,300,000 families and individuals still on government relief in March, 1936 in contrast to 3,908,000 in July, 1933.<ref>The President's Message to Congress, March 18, 1936; Federal Emergency Relief Administration Report.</ref>

==World War II==
[[Image:3844.JPG|right|thumb|500px|]]
===Germany===

===Great Britain===

===United States===
On the economic side of the war there was the formidable task of producing the mountains of materials necessary for the war. That was done by American industry. This was an industry of epic proportions that had been created and developed long before the [[New Deal]] ever came into existence. And it was, in fact, that very industry upon which all the engines of scorn and demonization of the New Deal had been focused, and which appointees of President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] like [[Rex Tugwell]] and [[Henry Wallace]] and their underlings wanted to liquidate. This industry was operated by entrepreneurs, financiers, and administrative leaders who had developed the resources of the nation, who had invented and perfected the technical processes, and who had built the factories and machines which turned out guns, planes, tanks, cars, ships, arms, munitions, food and all the accouterments and necessities of war. They were told what was wanted and they supplied it. New Dealers such as Rex Tugwell, [[Harry Hopkins]], [[Leon Henderson]] and Henry Wallace had nothing to do with this production. It was the hated businessman whom New Dealers spent years demonizing who produced what was necessary to win the war.

There were in truth very little war profits for honest men because the government during the war drained away in drastic taxes most of the profits. <ref>''The Roosevelt Myth'', John T. Flynn, Fox and Wilkes, 1948, Book 3, Ch. 7, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/cgi-bin/framed/2767/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Seven___The_Happiest_Yea.htm ''The Happiest Years of Their Lives''].</ref>

===Soviet Union===

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:economics]]

Talk:Professor values

2008-03-26T00:20:38Z

LeaningRight: /* Professor Values on Wikipedia */

...does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.
== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are about 250,000 professors currently active in the US, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.0052% of that population. Given that some examples are from earlier times, the total population of professors is more like 500,000 or 750,000 (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Professor values

2008-03-25T11:18:29Z

LeaningRight: /* Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" */

Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?

2008-03-25T11:16:28Z

LeaningRight: /* Humanitarian */

{{debate}}

It's been a very long time, he isn't a threat to us, do we really need to keep this going on. Cuba doesn't do so well because of our embargo, the only people that suffer are the average citizens, Isn't it time for it to end?

I'd like your thoughts for either side of this debate -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

If the embargo were lifted it would have the beneficial effect of bringing Cuba in to the mainstream. The U.S and Cuba are like two neighbours who won't talk too each other, the U.S could improve relations by making such a positive gesture. North Korea a is case in point, the World Community began to provide aid to the country, and thus North Korea became open enough to listen to the U.S and abandon its nuclear programme. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 11:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I believe anybody who still uses repression as a legitimate tactic of goverance should be shunned by the humanitarian international community. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 11:59, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::What about China? Who advocates shunning China? What about Gitmo? The international community seems to be shunning the U.S somewhat, judging by the country's popularity[[User:Angband|Angband]] 12:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Sometimes the good guys lose the plot. Such as the US after 9/11. Gitmo is the greatest travesty of justice in the US since the incarceration of the Japanese Americans during WWII. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:02, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it is true that Gitmo is a shameful stain. The point I was making was that it is not fair on Cuba with all this happening. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I actually don't understand why conservatives support an embargo that hasn't worked for 40 years. It violates free market principles. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:51, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

oppressing an entire people and not allowing freedom violates free market principles. And the embargo certainly has worked; It has prevented Cuba from becoming a threat to the US during the Cold War. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

------------
Abishua:
I agree completely, it is an idiotic and annoying to see that we continue to shun Cuba, with no real reason to keep them out of the mix. Although I doubt this will happen until a new president comes into office for a few reasons. The first reason is that he has almost no time to open relations up with Cuba again, so the chances are slim. On top of that, he decided it was time to shake the cage with Cuba and say we wouldn't let communism to stay in power in Cuba, and would stop the transfer of power from Castro to his brother. (Sorry I can't quote the article that I remember reading this.) It may have helped in the Cold War, but now it can only benefit us. If you watched Sicko (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/), you may want to check the scene where they go to Cuba to get health care. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from Cuba about fixing our broken health care system.

TL;DR version (To Long; Didn't Read) No reason not to open up to Cuba, and we can only benefit from it now.
==Humanitarian==
LeanignRight, why should the average Joe Cuba suffer because of the actions of the government? As far as Human Rights, did anyone forget Saudi Arabia? -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 18:53, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Saudi Arabia is unfortunate but unfortunately realpolitik has to play some role. Cuba, as a communist nation and at the foot of the US was always going to be a threat during the Cold War. It was important to keep it weak. However, since many other countries who are probably even worse than Cuba aren't sanctioned, maybe their is a fair argument to life the sanction. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Drochld

2008-03-25T11:11:23Z

LeaningRight: Advice.

Your edits are not encyclopedic and tend to be gossipy or tabloid-like. I'm inclined to revert all of them and your account will be blocked if your pattern of non-educational contributions continues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'll try to be less gossipy and more encyclopedic from now on. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 23:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Just create something like [[Liberals and moral bankruptcy]] and you'll be right at home here [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:11, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal redefinition

2008-03-24T18:07:56Z

Concern

2008-03-24T13:49:57Z

LeaningRight: New page: '''Concern''' is an Irish NGO. Category:Charity

'''Concern''' is an Irish [[NGO]].

[[Category:Charity]]

Emergency aid

2008-03-24T13:49:22Z

LeaningRight: Redirecting to Emergency Aid

#REDIRECT [[Emergency Aid]]

Non governmental organizations

2008-03-24T13:47:59Z

LeaningRight: Make it into a redirect, page already exists!

#REDIRECT [[NGO]]

Emergency Aid

2008-03-24T13:46:06Z

LeaningRight: New page: '''Emergency Aid''' is aid aimed at humanitarian crises, such as floods, famines or other natural disasters. See Development Aid. Category:Charity

'''Emergency Aid''' is aid aimed at humanitarian crises, such as floods, famines or other natural disasters. See [[Development Aid]].

[[Category:Charity]]

Multilateral Aid

2008-03-24T13:45:13Z

LeaningRight: New page: '''Multilateral Aid''' is aid which deals in both Development Aid and Emergency Aid. For a fuller description see Development Aid.

'''Multilateral Aid''' is aid which deals in both [[Development Aid]] and [[Emergency Aid]]. For a fuller description see [[Development Aid]].

Bilateral Aid

2008-03-24T13:44:21Z

LeaningRight:

'''Bilateral Aid''' is aid from one nation to another. See [[Development Aid]]

[[Category:Charity]][[Category:Foreign Policy]]

Bilateral Aid

2008-03-24T13:44:09Z

LeaningRight: New page: '''Bilateral Aid''' is aid from one nation to another. See Development Aid Category:CharityCategory:Government Policy

'''Bilateral Aid''' is aid from one nation to another. See [[Development Aid]]

[[Category:Charity]][[Category:Government Policy]]

Category:Charity

2008-03-24T13:43:02Z

LeaningRight: New page: All pages that deal with charity (or lack thereof) will be kept here.

All pages that deal with charity (or lack thereof) will be kept here.