Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Rcgallup

2010-06-23T01:25:46Z

Rcgallup: /* India City Names.... */

== India City Names.... ==

Perhaps for western sensibilities, we should keep the old names in (---) alongside the newer names, like was done for China for several years? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:20, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

I do remember years ago hearing about Peking, China, but was not old enough to recall the switch occuring.
As far as Mumbai goes, we no longer hear about the terror attacks in Bombay, but Mumbai. Kolkata is sufficiently similar to my ears and the third I hadn't really heard of. Moreover, I think we ought to respect India's decisions as they move forward and become more economically important as the years go by, rather than reminding our readers that the English had them under their dominion for years.

India

2010-06-23T01:12:54Z

Rcgallup: Changed the names of the cities to reflect what they are today rather than the colonial names.

{{Country
|name =''भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaharājya''
|map =India rel01.jpg
|map2 =India location.png
|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 major democratic nation located in [[South Asia]] with a population of 1.1 billion people. 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==
[[File:Indians.jpg|right]]
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==

===Overview===

India has over 900 million [[Hindu]]s, 150 millions [[Muslim]]s, 25 million [[Christian]]s and 20 million [[Sikh]]s among the many religious groups that make up the country<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html</ref> including communities of [[Jain]]s, [[Buddhist]]s, and [[Bahai]].

India is the region where four major world religions were founded:
*[[Hinduism]]
*[[Buddhism]]
*[[Jainism]]
*[[Sikhism]]

Today, Hinduism and Buddhism are the world's third- and fourth-largest religions respectively, after Christianity and Islam, with a collective 1.4 billion followers.

===Hinduism in India===
[[Image:Krishna a la flute.gif|right|180px]]
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]].

The beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era (1500–500BC) are called the "historical Vedic religion". Modern Hinduism grew out of the [[Vedas]],a large corpus of texts originating in Ancient India. They form the oldest layer of [[Sanskrit]] literature and the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism.[, the oldest of which is the [[Rigveda]], dated to 1700–1100BC. The Vedas center on worship of deities such as [[Indra]], Varuna and Agni, and on the Soma ritual. They performed fire-sacrifices, called yajña and chanted Vedic mantras but did not build temples or icons. The oldest Vedic traditions exhibit strong similarities to [[Zoroastrian]]ism and with other Indo-European religions. During the Epic and Puranic periods, the earliest versions of the epic poems [[Ramayana]] and [[Mahabharata]] were written roughly from 500–100BC, although these were orally transmitted for centuries prior to this period. The epics contain mythological stories about the rulers and wars of ancient India, and are interspersed with religious and philosophical treatises. The later Puranas recount tales about devas and devis, their interactions with humans and their battles against demons.

===Buddhism in India===

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 in India===

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 in India===

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion that originated in India in the 16th century A.D.

===Other Religions in India===

[[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 in the latter half of the 8th century A.D. as a consequence of both war and trade. It continued to spread with invasions, wars and forced conversions by Afghans and Turkic Mongols. 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. Islam is practiced by around 13.4% of all Indians.
[[Image:Taj Mahal.jpg|thumb|Taj Mahal]]

Although small in number, India does have a Jewish community. The first identifiably [[Judaism|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.

===Religious Persecution===

While for many years India has been known as an area of the world where a melting pot of religions could be practiced freely, troubling and persistent persecution against [[Christian]]s by the [[Hindu]] majority arose in the 1990s and has continued since that time. In October 2008, 38 Christians were killed and 30,000 fled from efforts of Hindu militants to force them to convert to Hinduism<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27380721</ref>

==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.
[[File:Delhi Tomb of Imam Zamin Qutub Minar Complex.jpg|thumb|left|Tomb of Imam Zamin Qutub, Delhi.]]
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

===Politics ===
The governing coalition led by the Indian National Congress sailed to a decisive victory in India’s parliamentary elections in May 2009, adding 57 seats. The election gave a second term to prime minister Manmohan Singh, age 77, a soft-spoken economic reformer, and ended the prospect of political instability in the world’s most populous democracy. The election confirmed that Sonia Gandhi, age 62, dominates the Congress Party. She is the the Italian-born widow of the assassinated former prime minister [[Rajiv Gandhi]] and the daughter-in-law of the prime minister before him, [[Indira Gandhi]], who was also assasinated. The Congress-led coalition built its near-majority with an appeal to the rural poor. During its first term, buoyed by robust economic growth, it used record government revenues to increase social spending, not just raising health and education budgets, but also starting an ambitious public works program in the countryside and a costly loan repayment waiver for farmers. Mrs. Gandhi won support by casting herself as a leader who relinquished power, turning down her party’s appeals to become prime minister, first in 2004 and again this time. Instead, she chose the soft-spoken economist, Mr. Singh, and between them, they controlled the party and the government. She took care of the politics of keeping the coalition together, while he served as the chief executive who followed her advice.

[[File:India-14.jpg|thumb|390px]]
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.
[[Image:Haveli in Mandawa, India.jpg|240px|right|Haveli in Mandawa.]]

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==

===Tense relations with 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.

===South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (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.

===Relations with 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.

===Russia===

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.

===Indian Army===

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.

===Indian Navy===

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.

===Indian Air Force===

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==

===General overview===
[[File:India...jpg|right|340px]]

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 [[tariff]]s 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]], [[fertilizer]]s, ferrous waste/scrap metal, and computer hardware. Major U.S. imports from India include [[textile]]s 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.

===Agriculture===
[[Image:Varma Lady Carrying Fruits.jpg|thumb|Lady Carrying Fruits by Ravi Varma.]]
India has a cultivated area of 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; [[Mumbai]], [[Kolkata]] and [[Chennai]]. 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.
===Education===
[[File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple in Amritsar India.jpg|thumb|300px|Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple in Amritsar.]]
India has a large number of universities, but the quality ranges from poor to medicore. The best students head to the U.S. or Britain. To cover this weakness, the government in July 2009 announced plans to expand the higher education budget by 40%, to $3.1-billion, for 2009-10.

The government in 2009 allotted an extra $435-million to the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology and the National Institutes of Technology, and $170.5-million more to open 16 central universities in states that lack one. In keeping with its agenda of inclusive economic growth, the government has also announced interest-free loans for disadvantaged students to take technical and professional courses.

To increase India’s college-going rate to 21% by 2017, Prime Minister Singh has announced plans to start five new Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, eight new Indian Institutes of Technology, seven new Indian Institutes of Management, and 20 new Indian Institutes of Information Technology — thus doubling the number of top-tier institutions in the country. He also wants to set up 16 central universities, 14 “world class” universities, and almost 400 colleges.

==History==
See [[History of India]]

==Further reading==
* Cohen, Stephen P. ''India: Emerging Power'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0815715013/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Guha, Ramachandra. ''India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/India-After-Gandhi-History-Democracy/dp/0060958588/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242545228&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Nilekani, Nandan. ''Imagining India: The Idea of a Renewed Nation'' (2009) business in India [http://www.amazon.com/Imagining-India-Idea-Renewed-Nation/dp/1594202044/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242545602&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Panagariya, Arvind. ''India: The Emerging Giant'' (2008) 544 pp., The major recent history; for advanced readers. [http://www.amazon.com/India-Emerging-Giant-Arvind/dp/0195315030/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222697254&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wolpert, Stanley. ''India'' (4th ed. 2009), 264pp; excellent overview and introduction [http://www.amazon.com/India-Stanley-Wolpert/dp/0520260325/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255296028&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
===Guides===
* ''India'' (Lonely Planet Guide) by Sarina Singh et al. (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/India-Country-Guide-Sarina-Singh/dp/1741043085/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242545228&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* '' India'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides by DK Publishing (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/India-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0789483955/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242545500&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
* ''India - Culture Smart!: a quick guide to customs and etiquette'' by Nicki Grihault (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/India-Culture-Smart-customs-etiquette/dp/1857333055/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242545228&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to India'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-India-Travel-Guides/dp/1858289947/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242545228&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]

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

== See also ==
*[[World History Lecture Three]] for more information on Ancient India.
*[[Anti-conversion legislation in India]]
*[[Oriental art]]
*[[Indian Painting]]

----

{{Copyright Details (US Government)|source=[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm]}}

[[Category:Asian Countries]]
[[Category:India]]
[[Category:Indian History]]

Superpower

2010-06-02T06:04:05Z

Rcgallup:

'''Superpower''' refers to a very powerful [[country]] in the global spectrum, often the head of a diplomatic or military [[alliance]]. The term '''hegemon''' is also sometimes used.

In modern times, the [[British Empire]] was the world's first superpower, ruling a quarter of the world during a period of 150 years. It declined in power after the [[Second World War]], during which it expended much of its resources to fight the [[Axis Powers]]. Another contributing factor was the loss of overseas colonies as they gradually gained their independence in the years leading up to and following the Second World War.

Throughout the [[Cold War]], the [[United States]] and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] were considered the only two superpowers. After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, America emerged as the world's lone superpower, and is to this day the only country to fulfill the criteria of that definition; [[China]], [[India]], [[Brazil]], [[Russia]] are however considered to possess the ''potential'' of obtaining superpower status in the course of the 21st Century. At this time, strong antipathies between some its members and the lack of a common foreign policy, let alone a real political unity prevents the [[European Union]] from achieving anything close to Superpower status.

[[category:Cold War]]

Talk:Superpower

2010-06-02T06:03:02Z

Rcgallup: /* British Empire */

== British Empire ==

Rcgallup, didn't the U.K. keep preferential trade agreements with most of its former colonies? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:34, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm sure they did, but I figured calling it preferential trade was better than calling it siphoning money from their colonial outposts. I just wanted to capture the idea that Europe's losing of overseas holdings to independence also bolstered their decline.

Superpower

2010-06-02T05:11:27Z

Rcgallup:

'''Superpower''' refers to a very powerful [[country]] in the global spectrum, often the head of a diplomatic or military [[alliance]]. The term '''hegemon''' is also sometimes used.

In modern times, the [[British Empire]] was the world's first superpower, ruling a quarter of the world during a period of 150 years. It declined in power after the [[Second World War]], during which it expended much of its resources to fight the [[Axis Powers]]. Another contributing factor was the loss of preferential trade with overseas colonies as they gradually gained their independence around the same time as the Second World War.

Throughout the [[Cold War]], the [[United States]] and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] were considered the only two superpowers. After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, America emerged as the world's lone superpower, and is to this day the only country to fulfill the criteria of that definition; [[China]], [[India]], [[Brazil]], [[Russia]] are however considered to possess the ''potential'' of obtaining superpower status in the course of the 21st Century. At this time, strong antipathies between some its members and the lack of a common foreign policy, let alone a real political unity prevents the [[European Union]] from achieving anything close to Superpower status.

[[category:Cold War]]

Talk:Essay:Why Recall Elections Are Essential

2010-03-24T15:09:51Z

Rcgallup: /* Seventeenth Amendment */

==Thanks for writing this==

It clarified the issue quite a bit. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 21:20, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

==U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton==

Wouldn't a state recall ability violate US Term Limits V Thornton, because it's establishing an additional qualification for membership in Congress, as well as Powell v. McCormack, because it would "result in a patchwork that would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States." In other words, allowing such a recall election would let voters in New Jersey recall its senators early, while the voters of New York wouldn't have that power. It would make Senate qualifications non-uniform throughout the various states. This, of course, doesn't limit the power to recall state officials, just ones whose election qualifications are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 00:03, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

:Your point is well-taken, Whizkid, except that a recall does not alter the qualifications. Menendez can even run for the same seat again as he is being recalled!

:But thanks for the Powell v. McCormack citation, which I do need to look at (and build an entry here for!).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

== Seventeenth Amendment ==

To the best of my knowledge (which is, admittedly, limited in this area,) there's simply no legal grounds for arguing that the recall of Senators is a federal, rather than a state, issue. As I understand it, until the Seventeenth Amendment, the means by which Senators were chosen was left to the individual states, with some gradually moving away from appointment and towards direct election. The Seventeenth Amendment standardizes this process; well and good. However, nothing in the Seventeenth Amendment touches on the issue of whether a state has the right to recall its Senators, nor the mechanisms by which this may be accomplished. That being the case, it seems obvious that Andy is correct, and the issue clearly falls under the provisions of the Tenth Amendment--it is a power that is neither specifically granted to the Congress nor prohibited to the several states.

That being the case, why is there controversy about this at all? What legal justification is there for mounting such a challenge? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:03, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you completely, Ben, and particularly appreciate your historical knowledge of this. In fact, I may incorporate your historical point about states "gradually moving away from appointment and towards direct election" into a future brief on this. Further migration towards recall fits perfectly into the historical parttern!

:In response to your question, even the [[WSJ]] claims a recall is unconstitutional, and others (especially Menendez!) claim likewise. I expect this issue will be appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::I'm genuinely curious, couldn't the legislative body of NJ just pass a law that makes it clear that this is a legal procedure. It seems that in moving away from appointment they must have passed laws that defined how an election works and looks. Isn't this a more preferable option to what could be called activism on the part of judges? Unless, it isn't an option, because of the particular feelings of the people of New Jersey.

== Essay? ==

This article is as encyclopedic as any within Conservapedia, and it represents a conservative POV, which is our mission. Why then is it placed in the Essay name space? I suggest it be moved to Main Space. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:22, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

:I believe Andy was correct in categorizing this as an essay because it represents a structured, formal argument in support of a position, rather than a collection of facts describing a person, place, event, etc. That does not mean it shouldn't be prominently featured, though. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 18:37, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Logic

2010-01-15T05:56:35Z

Rcgallup: /* Religion and Logic */

"Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Logic and religion ==

I think there should be a section on logic and how it is used (or not) in a religious context, but I don't know how to start a passage on it--[[User:Falconcomeon|Falconcomeon]] 18:00, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==[[Modern logic]]==

I know of only two kinds of logic:
* the propositional calculus (If A then B; but not B; hence not A)
* the syllogism (All men are mortal; Socrates is a men; hence Socrates is mortal)

We need to tighten up our terminology:
*[[formal logic]]
*[[classical logic]]
*[[symbolic logic]]
*[[propositional calculus]]

*[[syllogism]]

What does everything redirect to? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:24, 8 December 2008 (EST)

== Religion and Logic ==
I've got some beef with the notion that Theology relies heavily upon logic. While Aquinas and St. Anselm both use arguments to prove the existence of God, Aquinas is more focused upon what these arguments can do for his development of a theology centred upon the human person. The use of logic fades quickly as one enters the modern period, and is largely absent in the majority of protestant theologians in the twentieth century. It is largely replaced with a doctrine that is much more tenable to the position of a person of faith, namely an absolute faith in the radical existence and revelation of JC--a doctrine clearly present in HR Niebuhr, Barth, and Bonhoeffer to name a few.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 00:56, 15 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Logic

2010-01-15T05:56:01Z

Rcgallup:

Deduction

2010-01-15T05:47:22Z

Rcgallup:

A '''deduction''' in [[formal logic]] is a way of proving a proposition. It is used most often in geometry, but also has its place in philosophy and law. It is often unused in science as it requires that one have certainty of truth of both the major and minor premises--something science is unwilling to make claims about.

When a conclusion is inferred from premises or facts, it is said to "follow" from previously stated propositions via certain logical rules.

The most famous rule goes as follows:

#A is true.
#If A is true, then B is true.
#Therefore, B is true.

Another type of deduction, known as "[[proof by contradiction]]", is:

#If Q is true, then R is true.
#R is not true.
#Therefore, Q is not true.

== Truth Values in Sentential Logic ==
T implies T, True
T implies F, False
F implies F, True
F implies T, True

The final two are rooted in the fact that the consequent following from an antecedent that is not true says nothing about the truth or falsity of the statement, it must be assumed to be true.

Aristotle codified the rules of syllogistic deduction two millenia ago in [[Ancient Greece]]. He created 256 forms of syllogisms relating to groups of things. For example, an AAA1 syllogism:

#All men are mortal.
#Socrates is a man.
#Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

[[category:logic]]

See also:
* [[induction]]
* [[proof by contradiction]]

Talk:Best of the public

2009-12-18T04:09:00Z

Rcgallup:

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Ethics

2009-12-12T04:53:41Z

Rcgallup: I'm going to hit this harder later, and more fully develop the article.

'''Ethics''' is the branch of philosophy that seeks to determine how one ought to act in a particular situation. That is to say, if focuses on how one might be able to determine right or good action in any given situation.

Different schools of ethical thought arise from different areas. [[Religion]] often plays a central role in ethics. The ethics of most people come directly from their religious upbringing, or lack thereof. Many people believe that the best forms are at the very least derived from [[religion]], if not identical to the teachings of the religion they subscribe to.

People also derive codes of ethics from several other sources, among them being personal values, personal gain, and what things harm other people. There are many philosophical schools of ethics. Some meta-ethicists deny the objectivity of right and wrong, but more rational schools of thought generally prevail.

In [[legal]] terminology, ethics means relating to [[moral]] action and conduct; professionally right; conforming to professional standards.

== See also ==

*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Ethics]]

Ludwig Wittgenstein

2009-12-11T00:03:36Z

Rcgallup:

[[Image:Ludwig Wittgenstein.jpg|thumb|Ludwig Wittgenstein]]
''' Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein''' (Vienna, 1889 - 1951) was an Austrian [[philosopher]], the most influential of the twentieth century. He was pupil of [[Bertrand Russell]] and received the influence of [[Arthur Schopenhauer]] and [[Gottlob Frege]].

<blockquote>
Raised in a prominent Viennese family, Ludwig Wittgenstein studied engineering in Germany and England, but became interested in the foundations of mathematics and pursued philosophical studies with Moore at Cambridge before entering the Austrian army during World War I... Wittgenstein had a lifelong interest in religion and claimed to see every problem from a religious point of view, but never committed himself to any formal religion. [http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/witt.htm]
</blockquote>

==Two "Wittgenstein"s==

Wittgenstein wrote the ''Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'' (1922) and ''Philosophical Investigations'' (1953) amongst other things; both concerned with the intersection of [[logic]] and [[language]] (Analytic philosophy).

Philosophers often refer to an "early" and "late" Wittgenstein as a result of the dichotomy between the views presented in the two works. The ''Tractatus'' put forward a view akin to [[Logical Positivism]] of complex propostions being constructed from basic "atomic" facts by the operation of logic. The Wittgenstein in the ''Tractatus'' attempted to get people to stop doing philosophy as such. He felt that since one cannot properly discuss the disciplines of metaphysics, theology, or anything predicated upon them, in the language of atomic facts and logical operators, one ought not discuss them at all. He concludes his ''Tractatus,'' thusly, " 6.54, My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. 7, Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."<ref>http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html</ref>

In contrast in the ''Investigations'' Wittgenstein denied the simplicity of the ''Tractatus'' and explored the complexities of language and meaning.

== See also ==

*[[Philosophy]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm Ludwig Wittgenstein]
*[http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/witt.htm Ludwig Wittgenstein]

[[Category:Philosophers|Wittgenstein, Ludwig]]

H. Richard Niebuhr

2009-12-10T23:55:45Z

Rcgallup: Figured you should at least have a stub on this man.

H. Richard Niebuhr was the less prominent younger brother of Reinhold Niebuhr.

He lived from September 3, 1894-July 5, 1962, and authored several books on history, revelation and ethics.

The Meaning of Revelation (1941)
The Responsible Self (1962)

Martin Heidegger

2009-12-10T23:39:17Z

Rcgallup:

'''Martin Heidegger''' (1889 - 1976) is acknowledged as one of the most important [[philosopher]]s of the twentieth century. He wrote on a variety of subjects such as [[postmodernism]], [[psychology]], [[hermeneutics]], [[political theory]], [[existentialism]], [[theology]] and [[phenomenology]]. He was also a member of the [[Nazi Party]] insofar as he was the rector at Freiburg University during the Nazi rule of Germany; something he later referred to as his 'political error'.

His major work was ''Being and Time'' (1927) which was fundamental in the development of existentialism - and many other strands of twentieth century thought - although Heidegger himself denied he was an existentialist.

Heidegger believed that a person's sense of self was dependent on a sense of time and his impending death.

==Source==

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

{{DEFAULTSORT:Heideggar, Martin}}

[[Category:German Philosophers]]

Immanuel Kant

2009-12-10T23:34:31Z

Rcgallup:

[[Image:Gfdyre.jpg|right|thumb|Immanuel Kant]]
'''Immanuel Kant''' (1724-1804) was a [[German]] [[philosopher]]. Kant was among the last of the major [[Enlightenment]] thinkers, and was one of the most influential intellectuals in world history. His ideas are still studied in depth.

Born in Konigsberg, the starting point for Kant's life work in philosophy was the works of [[David Hume]] who awakened Kant from his "dogmatic slumber" and led him to make his "Copernican revolution in philosophy"<ref>The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989</ref>
==Pure reason==
In his ''A Critique of Pure Reason'' Kant examined pure [[reason]] as a basis of knowledge. The problem Hume had left Kant was a sharp divide between the ''a priori'' (things that can be known without experience) and the ''a posteori'' (things that could only be known with experience) together with a devastating critique of induction. Hume insisted that ''a priori'' knowledge was entirely ''analytic'' (did not speak of the world) and that the sense data of our experience could never support a proposition that went beyond that experience. Such a position leads to a radical and absolute skepticism about even the possibility of knowledge. "A Critique of Pure Reason" seeks to counteract that skepticism by establishing the existence of ''synthetic a priori'' truths, truths that speak of the world but that are known logically prior to looking at the world. To establish those truths Kant looked at the way reason picture the world. No reasoning being can have an experience other than one that involves ''time'' and ''space''. In common language in order to see something it has to be somewhere (i.e. in space) and it has to be there at sometime (i.e. in time). Time and space are necessary conditions of all experience and, thus, we can know of their existence logically prior to any particular experience.

Having established time and space as necessary preconditions of experience Kant proceeded to question how reason must operate on the experiences presented to it. In this part of the work Kant establishes several "categories" through which reason operates, categories that effect the conclusions that reason must come to.

Kant also suggested a material origin for the solar system (prior to Kant, the origin of the solar system was considered to be immaterial and possibly even a priori). Kant's own suggestion for a moral daily life was the [[categorical imperative]]: ''Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law''. It does not mean that an act is moral only if it works as a rule for everyone as that is consequentialist. Kant uses the example of suicide out of self-love being wrong in that it is contradictory to love oneself and want to commit suicide. Thus, the maxim is contradictory and cannot be a universal law. A problem does exist regarding the potential situation where duties would conflict. If a murderer asks you where someone is hiding, one is bound by duty to both tell them where the other is hiding, and to not tell them as the other would surely die. In this instance, not lying is a maxim as is not doing harm to others. The Categorical Imperative gives no instruction on what to do in this situation. One must look to the freedom of the will Kant predicates upon all rational creatures. The freedom of the will is key to possessing the ability to understand and act in accord with the moral law that Kant offers a secondary rule--never act in a way that would abridge or disrespect the freedom of the will in the other. To solve the dilemma above, one would lie to the murderer, as to not would be both to violate the freedom of the will in the other, and the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative can be contrasted with the [[hypothetical imperative]], which says that you should act according to any maxim which might possibly be willed. He remained single throughout his life, though he said, toward the end of it, that he could not afford a wife in his youth and did not need one in his old age. Kant's aim was to make philosophy truly scientific.
==Philosopher of Protestantism==
Kant was raised and died a Lutheran but questioned and analyzed his own faith. Kant transformed Protestantism from a dependence on a literal interpretation of the Bible into a dependence on each person’s own mind as the ultimate religious authority. He shifted the [[faith]] away from the Bible and towards a dogmatic voluntarism and sentimentalism. Phenomena "are nothing but ideas, and cannot exist at all beyond our minds." He concluded that revelation and churches can at best be "adventitious aids."

==Writings==

Books

*Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787)
*Metaphysic of Morals
*Critique of Practical Reason (1788)
*Metaphysical Elements of Ethics
*General Intro to Metaphysic of Morals
*Science of Right
*Critique of Judgement (1790)

::''"Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."'' Critique of Practical Reason, 1799.

Articles (published in the 1780s and 1790s)

*An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?
*What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?
*On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy
*Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason

:::::''“What can I know? What ought I do? For what may I hope?”''

== See also ==

*[[Philosophy]]

==External Links==
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/ Kant's Philosophy of Science]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/ Kant's Critique of Metaphysics]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/ Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/ Kant's Aesthetics and Teleology]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/ Kant's Philosophy of Religion]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/ Kant's Philosophical Development]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ Kant's Moral Philosophy]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/ Kant and Leibniz]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-judgment/ Kant's Theory of Judgment]

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kant, Immanuel}}

[[Category:German Philosophers]]
[[Category:Enlightenment]]
[[Category:Theology]]

Enrico Fermi

2009-12-06T17:55:21Z

Rcgallup:

[[Image:Fermi.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Enrico Fermi''' (1901-1954) was perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century. He was a professor in [[Italy]] until the late 1930s, when he fled to America in order to escape [[Benito Mussolini|Mussolini]]. Fermi was unique in being extraordinary in both experimental and theoretical physics. He was a devout Catholic.

In 1926, Fermi discovered the statistical laws known as Fermi statistics, which govern particles (fermions) subject to Pauli's exclusion principle. These particles are different from bosons, which obey Bose-Einstein statistics.

In the mid-1930s, Fermi discovered that one can achieve nuclear transformation by bombarding the element with neutrons. This discovery led to [[nuclear fission]] and also the production of new elements beyond the existing Periodic Table. Fermi won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938 for his work on the artificial radioactivity produced by neutrons and for nuclear reactions caused by slow neutrons.

After Hahn and Strassmann discovered nuclear fission early in 1939, Fermi discovered the possibility of emission of secondary neutrons and of a chain reaction. He devised a classical series of experiments that generated the first controlled nuclear chain reaction, on a [[squash]] court beneath the stands at the [[University of Chicago]]'s Stagg Field on Dec. 2, 1942. Fermi then played a key role in developing the first [[atomic bomb]].
{{DEFAULTSORT:Fermi, Enrico}}
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists]]

World War I

2009-11-30T15:39:39Z

Rcgallup: /* Russia */ grammar edit

'''World War I''', also known as the '''First World War''' and '''The Great War''', was waged primarily in [[Europe]] from 1914 to 1918, but spilled over into Africa, the Middle East, and the Atlantic Ocean.

On one side of the war were the [[Central Powers]]: [[Austria-Hungary]], [[Germany]], [[Bulgaria]], and the [[Ottoman Empire]]. The major [[Allies]] consisted of the [[Britain|British]] and [[France|French Empires]], the Tsarist [[Russian Empire]](until 1917), [[Italy]], [[Japan]], and after 1917 the [[United States]].

World War I saw the first use of [[poison gas]], large [[artillery]], armored [[tank|tanks]], and [[airplane]]s. It was a "total war" because the governments involved took control over the economy and factories, giving first priority to the goods needed for war. Wage and price controls were imposed, there was rationing of goods for civilians, and free speech was limited. The governments put out [[propaganda]] to maximize support for the war and dislike of the enemy. Many of the techniques of population manipulation and central government control which we see today were first pioneered by European powers during World War I.

Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to this one: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."<ref>http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html</ref>

=== A Spark Leads to a Fire ===
----
''Main article: [[Causes of World War I]]''

On June 28, 1914, a team of Serbian nationalist assassins killed the [[Austrian]] [[Archduke Franz Ferdinand]] and his wife Sophie in [[Sarajevo]]. This action led to Austria-Hungary giving an ultimatum <ref>http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/mmontgomery/world_history/world_war1/ultimatum.htm</ref> to Serbia. Serbia agreed to comply with all of the demands, except the ones which violated their sovereignty, and, due to a number of military alliances throughout Europe, a full scale war was soon in progress. Serbia requested support from its ally, [[Russia]], which mobilized its military forces. This mobilization led to [[Germany]] invading both Russia and [[France]] (which had an existing alliance with Russia), which was a part of Germany's [[Schlieffen Plan]] of war on two fronts. En route to France, German forces passed through neutral [[Belgium]]. The violation of this [[neutrality]] led [[Britain]] to declare war on Germany. [[Italy]] had an alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary, but refused to join the war.

Alternative theories cite the building of the Berlin-Baghdad railway and the problems it would have created for England. <ref>http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA138432</ref>

=== Great Battles of World War I ===
----
World War I consisted mostly of [[trench warfare]]. This method of waging war was very slow and messy. Soldiers might wait in their trenches for weeks, only to advance a few feet and wait in a new trench. There were four important battles which were fought before America joined the war.

'''Gallipoli Campaign'''

In 1915, [[Winston Churchill]], then First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed a daring plan to attack the [[Dardanelles]], a narrow section of ocean south of what is now [[Turkey]], in order to open a supply route to Russia. Unfortunately, he made his plans based of bad intelligence.
A preliminary attack was launched in February of 1915, bombarding artillery of the Ottoman Empire. However, in March, a fleet of British and French warships attempted to navigate the Dardanelles and ran into mines at its narrowest point (which is only a mile wide).
The British and Churchill, not wanting to admit defeat, diverted British, Australian, New Zealander and French troops from training in [[Egypt]] to their campaign in Turkey. Putting together an amphibious Allied force, a plan was put together to land on the Turkish peninsula of Gallipoli on April 25. Although the Allies greatly outnumbered the Turks, poor counter-intelligence efforts by the Allies allowed the Ottoman Empire to resupply and reinforce the Gallipoli peninsula. Additionally, the Allies did not understand the terrain adequately and suffered from limited knowledge of their enemy. The Turkish soldiers were also very tenacious and very able fighters.
However, the bloody-mindedness of the British commanders led to nine months wasted on the peninsula, with 44,000 deaths among over 100,000 casualties.

'''[[Battle of Verdun]]'''

In 1916, the Battle of Verdun between the French and Germans may have been the most demanding battle in world history. The struggle started when the Germans attacked [[Verdun]], France, a city surrounded by a ring of underground forts. At least 220,000 soldiers died, and at least 480,000 were wounded in this 10-month struggle that accomplished nothing. At the end the front lines were in nearly the same locations as at the beginning.

''' Brusilov Offensive '''

The Brusilov Offensive began on 4 June 1916 in spectacular fashion, demolishing the Austrian Fourth and Seventh Armies. The Austrians lost a staggering 1.5 million men (including 400,000 taken prisoner) and ceded some 25,000 square kilometres of ground. <ref>http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/brusilov.htm</ref>

With the launch of the Brusilov Offensive any hopes the Austrians harboured of bringing about victory in the east were extinguished. Austrian attacks in Italy ceased; and Romania finally entered the war with the Allies.

'''[[Battle of the Somme]]'''

Also in 1916, and also in France, the British and French armies met at the Somme River and began a massive attack on the Germans in order to distract them from [[Verdun]]. This became the Battle of the Somme, and the fighting was even heard across the British channel in England. First the Allies shelled the Germans to weaken them, and then 100,000 British soldiers charged the enemy. But the shelling did not have its intended effect, as the Germans were dug in too deeply to be affected by it. On July 1, 1916, the Germans killed 20,000 of the British soldiers and wounded over 40,000, making it the single worst day in British military history. This battle, which did not succeed in moving trench lines, eventually involved over 2 million men along a 30-mile front. The British and French lost nearly 750,000 men.

'''[[Third Battle of Ypres]]'''

For 18 months the British hid 19 huge land mines underneath the German lines southeast of Ypres, Belgium, a location that had already seen battles in 1914 and 1915. The British then detonated those massive mines, and charged the German positions in July 1917. At first the strategy worked, as the Germans were confused and disorganized. But the British did not pursue the Germans as quickly as they should have. Rain began to drench the area in one of the wettest fall seasons there in years. Soon the British forces were stuck in a mountain of mud, and this Allied plan was yet another failure.

=== The United States Joins the War ===
----
For the first three years of World War I, the [[United States]] attempted to stay out of the war, but try to act as a mediator. Mediation failed. When the Germans used a [[U-boat]] to sink the British ocean liner ''[[Lusitania]]'' in 1915, killing over one thousand civlians including some prominent Americans, the Americans were outraged. Badly hurt by the British naval blockade of Germany, which cut off food supplies, the germans wanted to retailiate. In early 1917 they decided they could defeat Britain and France by cutting off all supplies. They could only do this by sinking merchant ships without warning, which violated international law and theur repeated promises to the U.S. Berlin knew it meant war with the U.S. but moved anyway. At the same time Berlin invited Mexico to form a military allaince and fight the U.S. Publication of the [[Zimmerman Telegram]] was a ''casus bellum" (cause of war). The Mexicans wisely ignored the proposal but American pubic opinion was outraged.

German U-boats now began sinking American ships on sight. On April 2, 1917, President [[Woodrow Wilson]] spoke in favor of declaring war on Germany in an address to the joint houses of Congress. Congress then formally declared war on April 6, 1917, with opposition votes coming mostly from areas with large German ethnic populations.<ref>http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usofficialawardeclaration.htm</ref>

The Army was expanded by a factor of 100 to 4 million soldiers (all men), and a major expeditionary force was sent to Europe called the [[American Expeditionary Forces]], under command of General [[John J. Pershing]]. Officially the U.S. did not join the Allies and there was no treaty or formal agreement with Britain or France, so Perhaps was practically independent. He was also largely independent of Washington, and allowed to make his own strategic and command decisions.

=== Russia ===
In 1917 Russia suffered two successive internal Revolutions which would later caused it to withdraw from the side of the Allies and leave the war altogether. The [[February Revolution]] overthrew the centuries-old monarchy of the Tsar; the [[October Revolution]] installed the [[communist]] [[Bolshevik Party]] under [[V.I. Lenin]]. The lack of success against the German and Austrian Empires, and the hyperinflation caused by unsustainable military spending by the Russian government led to much internal discontent and economic chaos.

Losses and hardship of the war had weakened Russian [[Czar Nicholas II]]. He abdicated the throne in March 1917 in favor of a provisional government headed by [[Alexander Kerensky]]. Hopes for a democratic revolution still existed at this time. But in October 1917, [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]], and the [[Communist Party]], which was never strong enough to challenge the Czar, overthrew the fledgling provisional government. The Communists later executed every member of the Czar's family including the children.

Lenin became the founder of the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] state. He was both a writer and a revolutionary, a rare combination. He was the brother of the "bomb thrower" [[Alexander Ulyanov]] who was hanged for his involvement in terrorist activity and an assassination attempt on Czar Alexander III in 1887. An atheist, he became a [[Marxism|Marxist]] in 1889. He obtained a law degree shortly afterwards, and by 1895 was a subversive who was arrested and sent to the Tsarist gulag along the Lena River in frigid [[Siberia]] where he adopted the name Lenin after the place of his internment. Once he served his time he left for [[Zurich]], where he developed his ideas further and became a leader of the [[Bolsheviks]]. He was returned to Russia by the Germans in the wake of chaos during the [[Kerensky]] regime with the hope to led the Bolsheviks to power and negotiate a peace settlement with the Germans. After the [[Treaty of Versailles]] failed to recognize the settlement between Germany and the Soviet Union in the [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]], he then ruled the Soviet Union and imposed a system of [[Marxism-Leninism]] (communism) that remained in force there until [[Stalin]]'s rise to power.

=== The Western Front ===
----
The exit of Russia allowed Germany to shift a majority of their troops from the [[Eastern Front (World War I)|eastern front]] to the [[Western Front (World War I)|western front]]. This gave them a final chance to try and break the Allies before the Americans arrived. Known as [[Operation Michael]], the German offensive began in March of 1918.

The Germans launched five major campaigns in a four month period in 1918 on the [[Western Front]]. The Germans had technology and lots of energy. They had elite storm-troopers with [[automatic rifle]]s, light [[machine gun]]s, [[flame-thrower]]s and [[artillery]] fire. They used poisonous [[mustard gas]] lavishly. They easily defeated the British Fifth Army. The Germans were advancing and taking property.

But fresh American troops entered the scene. In the [[Second Battle of the Marne]] in July 1918, the Allies started winning. Nine American divisions fought in this battle about 75 miles northeast of [[Paris]]. The Germans started this battle on another one of their offensives, but the Americans valiantly turned the tables and enabled the Allies to win it. Casualties were enormous for everyone, including the Americans. Former President [[Teddy Roosevelt]]’s son Quentin was killed in this battle.

American Capt. [[Jesse Woolridge]], 38th Inf., 3rd Division described the battle as follows: “It’s [[God]]’s truth that one Company of American soldiers beat and routed a full regiment of picked shock troops of the German Army ... At ten o’clock ... the Germans were carrying back wounded and dead [from] the river bank and we in our exhaustion let them do it - they carried back all but six hundred which we counted later and fifty-two machine guns... We had started with 251 men and 5 lieutenants...I had left 51 men and 2 second lieutenants."

=== The War Ends ===
In January 1918, Wilson proclained the [[Fourteen Points]], which an idealistic vision of world peace that strengthened the peace movement inside germany and Austria and promised ana alternative to the increasingly despised monarchies.

As the Americans and the Allies advanced toward Germany, the [[Ottoman Turks]] and [[Bulgarian]]s surrendered. There was a [[revolution]] in Austria-Hungary that overthrew its government, and Germany would not recognize that new government. [[Kaiser Wilhelm II]] abdicated his throne in Germany on November 1918, and the Germans formed a new republic. Members of the German republic signed an [[Armistice]] (agreement to stop fighting), which was tantamount to surrender. The Armistice took effect at 11:11 on November 11, 1918. The "war to end all wars", was over.

=== Aftermath ===
----
Austria-Hungary was dismantled, mostly along ethnic lines. The Ottoman Empire was also dismantled. For the first time in over 1000 years [[Palestine]] was not under Muslim control, as Britain assumed control of the area as a colony. Germany was forced to sign the [[Treaty of Versailles]] accepting full responsibility for the war and had to pay for the entire cost of the war. This led Germany into economic collapse and sowed the seeds for anyone who could get them out of this collapse and restore their pride to be view as almost a savior. Italy felt they were shortchanged in their portion of the spoils and led to a bitterness that would cause them to side with Germany in the years ahead. The initial causes of the war, alliances and imperialism, were not dealt with. Only 20 years after the Treaty of Versailles, [[World War II]] would start.
====Cultural effects====
On the cultural level, World War I represented the end of the Enlightenment movement in Europe, opening the doorway for cultural movements such as avante-garde, absurdism, and other artistic forms questioning moral absolutes. These movements justified their relativistic stance by pointing out the horrors of war, which caused them to question the concepts of human goodness within the world. The currents set in motion by this continue to the present day.

== Chronology of World War I ==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
|-
== '''1914''' ==
|-
| June 28 || In [[Sarajevo]], [[Serbia]], [[Austria]]-[[Hungary]] Archduke [[Franz Ferdinand]] is murdered, and somebody is responsible.
|-
| July 28 || War is declared on [[Serbia]] by [[Austria]]-[[Hungary]]
|-
| August 1 || War is declared on [[Russia]] by [[Germany]]
|-
| August 3 || War on [[France]] is declared by [[Germany]]; [[Italy]] remains neutral
|-
| August 4 || [[Belgium]] is invaded by [[Germany]]; War is declared on [[Germany]] by [[Britain]]
|-
| August 5-6 || War is declared on [[Russia]] by [[Austria]]-[[Hungary]]; War is declared on [[Germany]] by [[Serbia]]
|-
| August 12 || [[Serbia]] is invaded by [[Austria]]-[[Hungary]]
|-
| August 17 || [[East Prussia]] is invaded by [[Russia]]
|-
| August 23 || War is declared on [[Germany]] by [[Japan]]
|-
| August 26-29 || [[Russia]] is defeated by [[Germany]] at [[Tannenburg]], [[East Prussia]]
|-
| September 6-10 || Battle of the [[Marne]], [[France]]- [[Germany]] is defeated by [[France]]
|-
| October 19-November 22 || First Battle of [[Ypres]], [[Belgium]]; [[Germany]] is stopped by [[Britain]]
|-
| October 29 || Attacking the [[Russian Black Sea Fleet]], [[Turkey]] enters the war.
|-
| November 5 || War is declared on [[Turkey]] by [[Britain]] and [[France]]
|-
| November 11-25 || [[Russia]] is defeated by [[Germany]] in [[Lodz]], [[Poland]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
|-

== '''1915''' ==
|-
| February 23 || Off coast of [[Britain]], first [[German]] [[submarine]] attacks occur
|-
| April 22-May 25 || [[Britain]] holds [[Germany]] at [[Second Battle of Ypres]]; [[poison]] [[gas]] is first used by [[Germany|Germans]]
|-
| April 25 || [[Allies]] land at Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkey
|-
| May 7 || [[''Lusitania'']] is sunk by [[German]] [[U-boat]]
|-
| May 23 || The [[Allies]] are joined by [[Italy]]
|-
| August 5 || [[Warsaw]], [[Poland]] is captured by [[Germany|Germans]]
|-
| August 6 || [[British]] land at [[Suvla Bay]], [[Gallipoli Peninsula]]
|-
| August 20 || War is declared on [[Turkey]] by [[Italy]]
|-
| September 25 || Western Front ([[Artois]], [[Champagne]], and [[Loos]] in France) is attacked by [[Allies]]
|-
| December 8 || [[Evacuation]] of [[Gallipoli]] is begun by [[Allies]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
|-

== '''1916''' ==
|-
| February 21 || In [[France]], the Battle of [[Verdun]] begins by [[Germany]] attacking [[France]]
|-
| March 9 || War is declared on [[Portugal]] by [[Germany]]
|-
| May 31 || [[North Sea]], [[Battle of Jutland]]
|-
| June 4 || [[Russia]], The Brusilov Offensive begins
|-
| July 1 || Battle of [[Somme]], [[France]] begins
|-
| August 28 || War is declared on [[Romania]] by [[Germany]]
|-
| September 2-3 || [[Britain]] shoots down first [[Zeppelin]] [[German]] [[airships]]
|-
| September 15 || [[Tanks]] used for the first time in war by [[Britain]]
|-
| November 18 || Battle of [[Somme]] ends- [[Britain]] and [[France]] hold the [[Somme River]]
|-
| December 18 || [[France]] defeats [[Germany]], Battle of [[Verdun]] ends
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
|-

== '''1917''' ==
|-
| January || [[Palestine]] is entered by [[Britain]]
|-
| February || [[Germany]] declares unrestricted [[U-boat]] warfare and sinks five [[American]] ships
|-
| March 12 || [[Russian Revolution]] begins
|-
| April 6 || War is declared on [[Germany]] by the [[United States]]
|-
| April 9 || Battle of [[Arras]], [[France]]
|-
| April 10 || [[Vimy Ridge]], [[France]] is captured by [[Canadians]]
|-
| April 16-May 9 || [[French]] attack on Second Battle of [[Aisne River]], [[France]]
|-
| May 25 || In [[Britain]], daylight [[bombing]] raids begin
|-
| June 7 || [[Messines Ridge]], [[Belgium]] is attacked by [[British]]
|-
| July 31-November 6 || [[British]] against [[Germans]]- third Battle of [[Ypres]]
|-
| November 6-7 || [[Passchendaele]] is captured by [[Canadians]], ending Battle of [[Ypres]]; [[Bolshevik revolution]] begins in [[Russia]]
|-
| November 20 || [[British]] use large number of [[tanks]] to win Battle of [[Cambrai]]
|-
| December 9 || [[Jerusalem]] in [[Middle East]] is captured by [[British]]; [[Romania]] and [[Central Powers]] make [[Armistice]] (a cease-fire before signing a peace treaty)
|-
| December 15 || [[Armistice]] between [[Russia]] and [[Central Powers]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
|-

== '''1918''' ==
|-
| January 18 || [[Fourteen-point Peace Plan]] is proposed by [[Woodrow Wilson|President Woodrow Wilson]]
|-
| April 9 || [[Germans]] begin attack in northern [[France]]
|-
| May 27-30 || [[Allies|Allied]] line on the [[Marne River]] is broken by [[Germans]]
|-
| August 8 || [[Germans]] are routed by [[Allies]] at Battle of [[Amiens]]
|-
| September 26 || Final [[Allies|Allied]] attack begins
|-
| October 1 || [[Damascus]], [[Syria]] is captured by [[British]]
|-
| October 30 || [[Italy]] defeats [[Austria]]-[[Hungary]] at Battle of [[Vittorio Veneto]]; [[Armistice]] is signed by [[Turkey]]
|-
| November 3 || [[Armistice]] is signed by [[Austria]]-[[Hungary]]
|-
| November 9 || Revolution in [[Berlin]], [[Germany]]; throne is given up by [[Kaiser Wilhelm II]], [[Germany]] becomes a republic
|-
| November 11 || [[Armistice]] is signed by [[Germany]]; War on [[Western Front]] ends
|}

==Further reading ==
===Short popular histories===
* ''American Heritage History of WWI''. (1964). heavily illustrated
* Barnett, Correlli. ''The Great War,'' (2003), 224pp, illustrated
* Carver, Michael, Field Marshal Sir. ''War Lords''. (1976) Includes brief bios of Hamilton, Foch, Haig, von Falkenhayn
* Cawood, Ian, and David Mckinnon-Bell. ''The First World War.'' (2001), 174pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109316843 online edition]
* Cruttwell, C. R. M. F. ''A History of the Great War, 1914-1918'' (1934), general military history
* Esposito, Vincent J. ''The West Point Atlas of American Wars: 1900-1918'' (1997) despite the title covers entire war; [http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/great%20war/great%20war%20index.htm online maps from this atlas]
* Evans, David. ''Teach yourself— the First World War''. (2004)
* Falls, Cyril. ''The Great War'' (1960), general military history
* Gilbert, Martin. ''Atlas of World War I'' (1995), very clear schematic maps
* Gilbert, Martin. ''The Routledge Atlas of the First World War: The Complete History'' (2002)
* Henig, Ruth ''The Origins of the First World War'' (2002) 76pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103326769 online edition]
* Hurley, Alfred F. ''Billy Mitchell, Crusader for Air Power'' (1975)
* Jeffers, H. Paul. ''Ace of Aces: The Life of Captain Eddie Rickenbacker'' (2003). 352 pgs.
* Keegan, John. ''An Illustrated History of the First World War'' (1999). by a leading British scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-History-First-World-War/dp/B0001FZGNU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205528338&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Livesey, Anthony, and H. P. Willmott. ''The Historical Atlas of World War I'' (1994)
* Lyons, Michael J. ''World War I: A Short History'' (2nd Edition), 1999.
* Neiberg, Michael S. ''Fighting the Great War: A Global History.'' (2005). 416 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Great-War-Global-History/dp/0674022513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201531862&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pope, Stephen and Wheal, Elizabeth-Anne, eds. ''The Macmillan Dictionary of the First World War'' (1995)
* Robbins, Keith. ''The First World War'' (1993), very short overview [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14754381 online edition]
* Stevenson, David L. ''1914 - 1918: The History of the First World War'', 2004
* Stone, Norman. ''World War One: A Short History'' (2008), 208pp
* Stokesbury, James L. '' A Short History of World War I'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-World-War-I/dp/0688001297/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205527619&sr=1-11 excerpt and text search]
* Strachan, Hew, ed. ''The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-First-World/dp/0192893254/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205528053&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Strachan, Hew. ''The First World War'' (2004): a 385pp version of his multivolume history [http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-Hew-Strachan/dp/B000F4LMQC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205528053&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Taylor, A. J. P. ''The First World War: An Illustrated History'', (1963) [http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-J-P-Taylor/dp/0399502602/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205537432&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Toland, John. ''No Man's Land. 1918 - The Last Year of the Great War'' (1980)
* Tuchman, Barbara. ''The Guns of August'', best-seller and Pulitzer Prize book tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres in August 1914 [http://www.amazon.com/Guns-August-Barbara-W-Tuchman/dp/0345476093/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205537159&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Tucker, Spencer. ''The Great War 1914-18'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-War-1914-18-Spencer-Tucker/dp/0253211719/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205528478&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Willmott, H. P. ''World War I'' (2007) 296pp
* Winter, J. M. ''The Experience of World War I'' (2nd ed 2005), topical essays; well illustrated; strongest on behind-the-lines

===Advanded books===
* Bakeless, John Edwin. ''The Economic Causes of Modern War: A Study of the Period: 1878-1918'' (1919) [http://books.google.com/books?id=5wgAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=toc&dq=intitle:war+date:1919-1921&num=30&as_brr=1&sig=LZcIMpEGmzqwkIldzuhfH5Muveg#PPR3,M1 online edition]
* Fay, Sidney. ''The Origins of the World War'' (1930); classic scholarly study; argues every nation shared guilt for starting the war [http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/fay/origin_index.html online edition]
* Ferguson, Niall ''The Pity of War'' (1999), 563pp; much on death and casualties [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100769957 online edition]
* Gray, Edwyn A. ''The U-Boat War, 1914-1918'' (1994)
* Halpern, Paul G. ''A Naval History of World War I''(1995)
* Herwig, Holger H. ''The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918'' (1996)
* [http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/publications/pdf/herwig_operation-michael_nov2001.pdf Herwig, Holger H. ''Operation Michael: The “Last Card”'' 2001], German spring offensive in 1918
* Haber, L. F. ''The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War'' (1986); the standard history
* Higham, Robin and Dennis E. Showalter, eds. ''Researching World War I: A Handbook'' (2003), 475pp; highly detailed historiography, stressing military themes; annotates over 1000 books; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107066504 online edition]
* Horne, Alistair. ''The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916'' (2nd ed 1994), very well written narrative
* Joll, James. ''The Origins of the First World War''. (3rd ed 2006).
* Kennett, Lee. ''First Air War, 1914-1918'' (1999). 288 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/First-Air-War-1914-1918/dp/0684871203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205528300&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Miller, Steven E. (ed.) ''Military Strategy and the Origins of the First World War: an International Security Reader'', (1985)
* Passingham, Ian. ''All the Kaiser's Men: The Life & Death of the German Army on the Western Front 1914-1918,'' (2nd ed 2006) 288pp
* Sheldon, Jack. ''German Army on the Somme, 1914-1916,'' (2005) 352pp
* Showalter, Dennis. ''Tannenberg: Clash of Empires,'' 1991
* Stevenson, David. ''The First World War and International Politics'' (2005)
* Stone, Norman. ''The Eastern Front, 1914–1917.'' 1975.
* Strachan, Hew. ''The First World War: Volume I: To Arms'' (2004): the major scholarly synthesis. Thorough coverage of 1914 in 1248 pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0199261911/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&p=S00M#reader-link excerpt online]
* Tooley, Hunt. ''The Western Front: Battle Ground and Home Front in the First World War.'' (2003), 305pp, social history, does not emphasize battles
* Travers, Tim. ''How the War Was Won: Command and Technology in the British Army on the Western Front, 1917-1918,''. London:Routledge (1992) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103449849 online edition]
* Tuchman, Barbara W. ''The Zimmermann Telegram'' (1966)
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of World War I: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (5 vol 2005); the most detailed reference source; articles by specialists cover all aspects of the war
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia'' (1999)
* Tucker, Spencer C. ''Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact.'' ABC-CLIO, 2004. 379 pp.
===USA and Canada===
* Bassett, John Spencer. ''Our War with Germany: A History'' (1919) [http://books.google.com/books?id=76UTAAAAIAAJ&printsec=toc&dq=intitle:war+date:1919-1921&num=30&as_brr=1&sig=4Vx3GGygya6F24ozaNJyLzMI694#PPP10,M1 online edition]
* Chambers, John W., II. ''To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America'' (1987)
* Coffman, Edward M. ''The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I'' (1998) [http://books.google.com/books?id=px_1JGtbeIAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=COFFMAN+The+War+to+End+All+Wars:&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&ei=0RdYSJKmKJyMjAG04JWFDA&sig=s-w6Np6drA_a-MzUxR0UnsQcORc excerpt and text search]
* Kennedy, David M. ''Over Here: The First World War and American Society'' (1979) [http://www.amazon.com/Over-Here-First-American-Society/dp/0195173996 excerpt and text search]
* May, Ernest R. ''The World War and American isolation, 1914-1917'' (1959[http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00283 online at ACLS e-books]
* Morton, Desmond, and Jack Granatstein. ''Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War 1914-1919'' (1989)
* Scott, Emmett Jay. ''Scott's Official History of the American Negro in the World War'' (1919) 511 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=obUHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA10&dq=intitle:world+intitle:war+date:1919-2007&num=30&as_brr=1 online edition]
[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24640205 online edition]
* Venzon, Anne ed. ''The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia'' (1995)
* Wilson, Dale E. ''Treat'Em Rough!: The Birth of American Armor, 1917-20'' (1989)
* Zieger, Robert H. ''America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience.'' 2000. 272 pp.

===Online secondary and primary sources===
* [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/military.html#J. ''Web Sources for Military History'' by Richard Jensen]
* [http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/ WWI Document Archive], valuable collection
* [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww1.htm diplomatic primary documents, from Mt. Holyoke College]

====notes====
<references/>

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:World War I| ]]

== External links ==
* [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/military.html#J. Guide to web resources by RJJensen]
* [http://www.firstworldwar.com/index.htm Excellent British site]
* [http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/ The Great War, from PBS]
* [http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/index.html interviews with historians]
* [http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext04/shogw10.txt ''A Short History of the Great War,'' by A.F. Pollard (1920), British perspective]
* [http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Main_Page Primary documents], very thorough collection from all countries
** [http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/WWI_Biographical_Dictionary short biographies]
** [http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/imarchive.html Photographs]
** [http://www.vlib.us/medical/ medical history]
* [http://www.worldwar1.com/maproom.htm maps]
* [http://www.worldwar1.com/reflib.htm Trenches on the Web]
===Origins and political impact===
* [http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/WarFacts/wfactsTC.htm ''Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems'' (1919) sophisticated American pamphlet; anti-German; good summary of effects of war on each country involved]
* [http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/fay/origin_index.html Sidney Fay, ''The Origins of the World War'' (1930) classic scholarly study; argues many nations shared guilt for starting the war]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_wwi.html/ World War I]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1345 "American Foreign Policy: The Turning Point, 1898–1919," by Ralph Raico]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard91.html "War Collectivism in World War I," by Murray N. Rothbard]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=40&articleID=506 "The Great War Retold," by Ralph Raico]

Logic

2009-10-30T04:59:39Z

Rcgallup: /* Deduction and Induction */

[[Logic]] ([[Greek]] λογίζω I reckon, I count, from λόγος a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason.

[[Aristotle]] was the first to formalize the practice of reasoning. In particular, Aristotle developed a formalization of the [[syllogism]] and the [[Square of Opposition]]. While [[Modus ponens]] and its complement [[Modus tollens]] were known to the Medievals, it is not clear when these central laws of deduction were first formalized.{{fact}}

The next easily-identifiable major development in logic comes from [[Boole]] in 1847 with the creation of [[Boolean algebra]]. In the 1870's, Peirce introduces a logic of quantifiers, followed by [[Gottlob Frege]]'s 1879 ''Begriffsschift'', which contains the first complete formalization of the propositional calculus. Frege's work was developed in service of his [[logicism|logicist]] project, which was shown to be inconsistent by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1903 with what is famously called [[Russell's paradox]].

By the 1950's, with the work of many logicians including [[Hilbert]], [[Emile Post]], [[Alfred Tarski]] and [[Kurt Goedel]], most of the major results in first-order logic had been proved, and in the 1960's [[Saul Kripke]] added a completeness proof for [[modal logic]].

Most logical systems are [[bivalent]]; that is, they admit only two truth-values. However, there is a fair amount of work done on non-bivalent systems of logic, especially [[intuitionist logic]] and [[relevance logic]]. In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and [[Timothy Williamson]] claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

Formal logic requires, since Frege, a distinction between the [[object language]] and the [[metalanguage]]. The metalanguage is ordinarily a natural language like English or German, while the object language is a symbolic language with a limited alphabet and syntax.

== Informal Logic ==

The art of [[rhetoric]] is sometimes called "informal logic", and the classic [[logical fallacies|fallacies]] are often described as "logical fallacies", though, strictly speaking, most of them are simply emotionally effective ways to build an invalid argument. Generally speaking, "informal logic" consists of "common sense" and a collection of other rather loose rules that people employ while making most decisions and even in debate. It is unstructured, and depends largely on one's view of "the reasonable". The thresholds of what is "reasonable" and what is not, are inexact and subject to change with the receipt of sufficient contrary evidence--and again, what constitutes "sufficiency" in this context might vary from person to person.

== Deduction and Induction ==

Deductive logic is characterized by certainty: in a valid argument, when the premises are true, the conclusion '''must''' be true. The certainty, however, comes at a price. Take a classic argument of deductive logic:

'''Premises:'''
All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man
'''Conclusion:'''
Socrates is mortal

The conclusion is "contained" in the premises. In a sense the conclusion is "known" before it is elucidated. The conclusion, "Socrates is mortal" is also less informative than the premises which imply not just that Socrates is mortal but that a lot of other beings (anyone for whom the term "is a man" applies) are also mortal. As a result deductive logic is not thought to add to knowledge, merely to clarify it.

Inductive logic is ampliative, but is famously less certain. In a good inductive argument, even when the premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. A classic example of an inductive argument is:

'''Premise:'''
All the many swans obversed have been white
'''Conclusion:'''
All swans are white

Before the discovery of Australia the premise was true someone following inductive logic would have reached the conclusion. Given the existence of black swans in Australia, however, that conclusion is false. [[David Hume]]'s 18th-century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like [[science]] which are commonly held to rely on inductive reasoning.

Another example of faulty logic would be when it comes to atheism. Atheists typically use many logical fallacies in an effort to convert people to their religion.

'''Premise:'''
There is no emperical evidence for something.
'''Conclusion:'''
The object does not exist.

This logical fallacy acts as if absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This can be proven to be a faulty supposition because before America was discovered by Europeans, one could say there are only four continents based upon the evidence. This would be treated as a fact despite it being proven false later on. Also, this premise ignores the fact that there are multiple types of knowledge. There is empirical knowledge and then there is knowledge one has through faith. An example would be the knowledge that a mother loves her son. This cannot be proven to be a lie, but people have faith that is it true.

== Uses of logic in other disciplines ==
Logic is a necessary discipline in [[philosophy]], because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it. Logic and [[mathematics]] are also closely connected, and much of mathematics can be reduced to first-order logic, though Goedel's [[Incompleteness theorem]] shows that not all of mathematics can be so reduced.

In [[computer science]], logic dictates how a machine will follow a set of instructions, including how to test its "world," evaluate it, and act according to that evaluation. Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic, except that instead of establishing propositions, a computer following a program is usually choosing between and among different commands to execute.

Logic, and especially formal logic, inform the discipline of [[critical thinking]]--which, by no coincidence, takes its name from the [[Greek]] word for a judge. Indeed, judges and juries in courts of [[law]] must apply logic, both formal and informal, to arrive at their decisions. Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often ''do not'' agree on matters of fact.

== See Also ==
* [[Aristotle]], "Organon"
* [[Gottlob Frege]], "Begriffsschrift" and "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
* [[Bertrand Russell]] and [[Albert N Whitehead]], "Principia Mathematica"
* [[Bas van Fraassen]] and [[J C Beall]], "Possibility and Paradox"
* Geoffrey Hunter, "Metalogic"

[[Category:Philosophy]]

William James

2009-10-30T03:40:24Z

Rcgallup:

'''William James''' is considered the father of modern [[psychology]]. His ''The Principles of Psychology'' was published by [[Holt]] in 1890. <ref>http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/jphotos.html</ref> One of his most famous works is ''The Varieties of Religious Experience''. He was the brother of the author [[Henry James]]. He is also known as one of the great three classic American pragmatists.

==Radical empericism==
Often overlooked, radical [[empiricism]] is school of thought that is a continuation of James's ideas. Later Jamesian scholars include the [[liberal]] theologians [[Henry Nelson Wieman‎]] and [[Bernard Eugene Meland‎]].

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:James, William}}
[[Category:Psychologists]]
[[category:Authors]]

Deduction

2009-10-30T03:37:10Z

Rcgallup:

User:Rcgallup

2009-10-16T17:09:45Z

Rcgallup: Created page with 'I received my BA at Concordia College in Philosophy, Religion, and Economics, I now study Ethics and the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Chicago.'

I received my BA at Concordia College in Philosophy, Religion, and Economics, I now study Ethics and the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Chicago.

Talk:John 1-7 (Translated)

2009-10-16T15:39:04Z

Rcgallup: /* Logos = the Word */

== Truth or word ==
While I agree "truth" has too narrow a meaning, at first glance, it may serve the purpose well when explained properly. Sadly, many Christians believe that "word" refers to the Bible itself, rather than the deep concept of ''logos''. Is there a better term than either? Message? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 22:12, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
:I'm not a Greek scholar, but λογος, as I understand it, had an enormous range of implications in first century Greek, deeply rooted in a Greek culture which held all reality to be logical and ordered, and flowing from logic and order. While truth is being used now, I think we would be hard pressed to find a single word which encompasses all the meaning and implications of λογος. The question we must ask ourselves, is how much of the beauty of the first passage(s) of John are we willing sacrifice to give a completely accurate translation? If we don't care at all for the prose, perhaps John 1:1 might better read, "In the beginning was truth, reason, wisdom, and harmony, and all this was with God for this is what God is." A suggestion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:10, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
::Whoops, sorry for putting the comment Re 1:9 in the wrong place. Feel free to just delete it if you want. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:28, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
:::The more foundational question that needs to be decided here is whether this is going to be a dynamic paraphrase, or a strict translation. In other words, are we attempting to relate what the Greek actually SAYS, or are we attempting to explain what we believe it MEANS? If this is a strict translation, then using "truth" in John 1:1 is not an option, as the word "aletheia" does not appear in that verse. Like it or not, we are stuck with legitimate translations of logos: "word, message, reason, communication, thought, etc." If, however, this is more of a dynamic paraphrase, then we are not restricted by what the Greek actually says, and are free to use whatever words we need to "explain" what the Greek means. In that case, we can describe the force and meaning of logos in our "translation." As it stands right now, this is something of an odd cross between a translation and a paraphrase. So we need a philosophy of translation that goes beyond "conservative" and guides us in how strict or loose we are allowed to be in this re-translation. That alone would settle many of these translation disputes. [[user:Mback|Mback]]

::::We're doing a "thought-for-thought" translation. That's not a paraphrase, but that's not tied down by literalism either.

::::That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with "truth", as it has harsh connotations that are contrary to forgiveness. "Word" does have advantages, but it is so diluted. This debate may continue on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:2 ==

The entire purpose of verse two is emphasis, and some of that is lost in this translation. "All this" is not the best translation to relate the force of "houtos" in this construction. In verse 2 "houtos" is serving as an emphatic form of "autos," placing extra emphasis on "this '''SAME''' individual..." The purpose here is to emphasize the personal nature of the logos in verse one. "This same one," or even "this very same one" or something like that would be better. As it stands now, "all this" does exactly the opposite of what the Greek is attempting to relate: it DE-PERSONALIZES the logos from verse one, which is actually a more "liberal" approach to this verse. [[user:Mback|Mback]] 12:08, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're a genius, Mback! Changed as suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:09, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:3 ==

P66 has "outen" (nothing) in this verse while P75 has "oute hen" (not one thing), which is simply a more emphatic form of "outen." Our translation suggests we are going with the Greek in P75 (wise choice, given that p66 has 5 times as many copy errors as p75), and if that is the case, we should keep the emphatic nature of the words found there. "Not one thing" or "not one single thing" relates the emphatic force of the Greek much better than "no thing." The repetition of "ginomai" is also a function of emphasis, but, again, depending on how strict we are going to be, we probably can get away with dropping the last "that has been made" in this verse, as this translation does. [[user:Mback|Mback]] 12:21, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Mback, you're obviously brilliant, knowledgeable and meticulous. I made your change here but please feel free to edit any of the translations directly yourself, along with your highly informative comments!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Wow. I am humbled and honored by your words and confidence. I promise you that anything I do will be done prayerfully and with full consideration to the thoughts and ideas of everyone contributing. Thank you, sir. [[user:Mback|Mback]] 8:25, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:4 ==

I guess I need to know if we are doing a paraphrase or a strict translation, because this verse as it stands is a paraphrase. "He was the source of life" works in terms of relating what the Greek means (paraphrase), but that is NOT what the Greek actually says (strict translation). As a paraphrase, I don't see any reason why we can't do a better job of distinguishing between "dzoe" and "bios." How about something like, "He was the source of real life..." or "Real life was found only in Him, and ..."? [[user:Mback|Mback]] 12:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:5 ==

While this verse definitely has many different modern translations, "snuff it out" is an idiom, not a defined "dictionary" word. That phrase gives this a strong "Message paraphrase" feel, as opposed to a more scholarly, exacting translation. Is that what we want? I have no problem with idioms, but in a strict translation, you usually limit the use of idioms in English to places where idioms occur in the Greek (which, admittedly, is fairly common). [[user:Mback|Mback]] 12:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting point. Thanks. I'll check out your other suggestions also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:34, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:7 ==

Note that the use of "houtos" in this verse is similar to how John uses it in verse two. John uses it as a more emphatic form of "autos," emphasizing that "this SAME John who was just mentioned in the previous sentence" is the one being referenced here. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 1:16, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:9 ==

"Animates" is not a good translation of photidzo, but it is a marginally adequate paraphrase, if we are OK with the fact that it changes the flow of John's argument. Strictly speaking, in modern English "animates" references "giving life to" or "bringing to life." It could be argued that this is the effect of the light of God, making it a VERY loose paraphrase of what this verse is talking about, but it is a very poor word choice if the goal is a strict translation. The problem is that our translation takes the REVERSE meaning of verse four, which tells us that the real life He had within Him gave light to men. The current translation of this verse reverses that, and says the light from Him gives life. We could argue that this is still a true statement, but being a true statement, and being an accurate translation of the verse is not the same thing. Reversing the statement of verse four is NOT what the Greek is intending here. This verse is a follow up to the previous verses contrasting light with darkness, and photidzo specifically is "to enlighten, to bring into the light, to illuminate, to shine a light upon." The point of this verse is supposed to be that the true light brings us out of darkness, NOT that it gives us life. There is a difference between translating a verse into an English statement that just happens to be true, versus translating it into an English statement that actually relates what the verse SAYS, and is also true. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 1:55, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:1 and 1:14 ==

Using "Truth" for λογος in 1:1 but then "spirit" in 1:14 is not theologically sound. In the KJV, we have "the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh" which indisputably places Jesus as being God. Changing from "Truth" to "spirit" breaks that link between the two and can mislead readers into a sub-Arian interpretation where Jesus is the son and messenger of God rather than being God Incarnate in human form.

: I agree completely. Whatever word we use for "logos" in verse 1 HAS to be used here. John's phrasing in this verse is NOT just to make a vague comment about "the spirit" becoming flesh (which is actually a very liberal, new age way of looking at this verse), but rather, specifically that the logos of verse 1, who is both "with" God and "is" God, became flesh. It is my understanding that a conservative translation would emphasize the "incarnate God" aspect of Jesus' birth, as opposed to de-emphasizing it, which is what this translation currently does. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:16 ==

Translating "lambano" as "benefited" is certainly unusual, but can only be considered "appropriate" if our translation guidelines are "very, very loose paraphrase." This is, again, a discussion of whether or not our goal is to translate the Greek into something that "kind of relates the force and effect" of the Greek versus coming much closer to what the Greek actually SAYS. Lambano never has the meaning of "benefits" anywhere in the New Testament. Is the EFFECT of "receiving" beneficial? Absolutely. But the "effect" of the word and the "meaning" of the word are not the same thing. Even without having seen it explicitly explained, it is becoming very clear that this is some form of a paraphrase, not a strict translation . . . which is fine, as a good paraphrase does serve a purpose, but we need to be up front and clear about that right at the outset. This translation falls into the category of paraphrases currently occupied by such versions as "The Message" and "Good News for Modern Man" and "Today's New International Version" (we just have a different goal: the Conservative Paraphrase). It seems clear at this point that we are NOT attempting a strict "word for word" or even "phrase for phrase" translation, such as that found in the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other version that attempts to stick strictly to what the Greek actually SAYS. Again, that is fine so long as that is what we really WANT. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:18 ==

Using "spoken of" for "exegeomai" is a very surface translation of what this word relates, and has the effect of narrowing the force of this verse. Exegeomai is a much stronger word which is more about "unfolding" or "laying out in detail." It actually relates the idea of presenting something with great depth and breadth, a richer, fuller, more detailed explanation; it is not just "speaking about" something, but more carries the idea of "explaining" that thing. "Explained," or "unfolded" or even "thoroughly presented" would related the idea of this word better in this context. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:38, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:19 ==

"Testimony" is a MUCH, MUCH better translation of "marturia" than "record." Excellent choice here. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:49, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:21 ==

Just as a note here, this is one of the verses that Muslims use to claim that the New Testament foretells the coming of Mohamed. They believe that all references to "that prophet" or "the prophet" are prophesies about the expected FINAL prophet who would set everyone straight: Mohamed. The thing to note here is that John was not denying being a specific prophet, he was actually denying being a prophet of any kind. Whether through humility or because he had a different ministry, John chose NOT to classify himself as a prophet, something that is re-enforced in verse 25 where we render the same Greek construction as "another prophet." Since this seems to be more of a paraphrase than a strict translation, it really would relate the meaning of this verse better to say simply "another prophet" here, as we do in verse 25. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:23 ==

Euthuno means "straight, straightened out", not "clear." The idea is NOT about removing obstacles in the path, but rather, that the path have no turns or side routes. In other words, "there is only ONE path that leads to God, and it has no turns or curves" (which is very much the conservative message, is it not?). While it is true that the Hebrew uses the words "clear" and "smooth" here, this is actually from the Septuagint, which uses "euthus," the substantive form of euthuno, meaning "straight." In other words, John doesn't just quote the OT, by quoting the Septuagint, he uses a quote that actually relates the INTENT or MEANING of the Hebrew. If John believes that was a good choice, I think we should stick with his selection, and translate the Greek found in this verse, NOT the Hebrew found in Isaiah 40:3. This shows that the struggle between "strict translation" and "paraphrase" is a very old one. The translators of the Septuagint actually used a mild Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew in translating Isaiah 40:3, and John gives added authority to the wise choice of that paraphrase by choosing their wording (as opposed to a direct and stricter translation of the Hebrew) for his quotation.

Additionally, I think the ending phrase "just as the prophet Isaiah was" is not quite as clear as it could be. This choice makes the force of the verse be: I am a voice in the wilderness . . . just like Isaiah was. This is true, but it kind of loses the point that this is not just something Isaiah did, but is, in fact, a QUOTATION from Isaiah. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 3:22, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:24 ==

This is a fairly minor point, but this verse does not say those questioning "were Pharisees," it says, εκ των φαρισαιων; that is, they were "from the Pharisees." The implication is that the pharisees themselves were too cowardly to come in person, so they sent others, probably students or servants, to do the questioning for them. I think that is a point worth preserving here. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 7:35, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:27 ==

Both this translation and the KJV lose the startling and contrasting points that John is making here. The Greek is closer to "he is the one coming after me who existed prior to me..." (ος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν). John was actually pointing toward the eternal nature of the one coming after him, kind of in line with "before Abraham was, I am." While it is obvious that God is above him, the point is that this is not just "some random guy who is above me," but rather, this person is, in fact, the eternal God in physical form. "Existed before me" or some equivalent phrase would be more accurate, and would be more in line with the startling, worldview altering point (at least to Jews) that John is making here. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 7:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:29 ==

Excellent point on the meaning of "airo." A possible solution to this would be "takes away the sinful burden..." or "takes away the burden of sin..." or maybe a more subtle "lifts and carries away the sin..." Any of these would capture at least a little of this extra force found in the Greek. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 8:16, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:30 ==

Again, John's statement here is closer to "after me comes a man who existed prior to me, because he was before me," which is a very emphatic way of pointing to the pre-existence of Christ, particularly as the last phrase uses "protos," which strictly speaking tells us that John is saying Christ "came first, before me." A strong, emphatic statement. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 8:28, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:31 ==

The tense is wrong here. It is NOT present tense ("I do not know..."), but pluperfect (past completed - "I had not known..."). The construction used here means "I had not (before this very moment) known who He was...". An acceptable translation would be, "I did not know who he was...," but placing this in the present tense completely misses what the Greek is saying. Eido is something of a surface kind of knowing and seeing, thus it is, in this context, about identity, not a deeper kind of "knowing him personally." The point here is that John was preparing the way for one who would take away our sins, but until this very moment, he did not know the exact identity of that man.

Also, in contrast with eido, phaneroo is more "revealed, unveiled, made publicly known," so translating both words with the same English word kind of misses what is going on here. The second half of this sentence is a purpose clause, showing the REASON that John came baptizing. This entire intent of this sentence is more like this: "I did not know who he was, but despite that, I have come to baptize people with water so that He could be revealed to Israel" (and yes, reversing the order of the clauses in this kind of purpose clause for clarity is completely legitimate).
[[User:Mback|Mback]] 9:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:33 ==

Same tense and construction as 1:31, but here translated in the correct tense (I did not know...). Eido used in this context really does mean "I did not know '''who''' he was..." as opposed to "I did not know him personally...", and that subtle distinction should probably be preserved in the translation. After all, John knew Jesus, His God and creator, in His spirit, which is why he recognized God in the flesh standing before him. What John did not know was the identity of the man who was God in the flesh.

Redefining the Holy Spirit as the Divine Guardian is a questionable move for several reasons. First, the Greek '''literally''' says "Holy Spirit," and I find the idea of renaming a member of the Trinity completely distasteful. Second, Holy Spirit is NOT a title that has been largely redefined by our culture, so there is no need to redefine it - everyone knows that one part of the Trinity is called the "Holy Spirit." Third, it places a narrow description (guardian) upon the Holy Spirit that simply fails to even come close to all that the Holy Spirit does. Finally, it is a phrase that sounds VERY new age, and would be gladly and wholeheartedly welcomed by the eastern religion/new age element of our culture. We should not be trying to make Christianity easier to ignore because it uses new age terminology (and thus is just "another" way to god), but rather, more distinct and separate from the ideas and titles of false religions. Calling the Holy Spirit by a different name because we are not happy with what the Bible actually says is NOT a conservative thing to do; that simply smacks of liberalism in the extreme.[[User:Mback|Mback]] 10:16, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:42 ==

I would like to suggest here that for clarity, we give BOTH the common transliteration and the translation of "petros": "...you shall be called Cephas or Peter (the Rock)." For those who are new to scripture, that would just bring some clarity as to where the name "Peter" came from. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 10:31, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== John 2:1 ==

Would 2:1 be a little clearer if it were changed to something along the lines of 'A few days later...'? I took 'third day' to mean either the third day of the week or, possibly, the 3rd day after 1:51.

: Your suggestion is a good one, but I'm reluctant to remove information that is in the Greek. But certainly the reference to the third day could be clarified in some way for the reader, and I encourage you to do so by editing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I slid this down so it falls under the heading for 2:1, and fits more chronologically. I apologize if this is not allowed by a non-administrator. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't "''the third day''" mean "'''two''' days later" instead of "'''three''' days later" because of the custom of counting inclusively?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting#Inclusive_counting for details.

: Your point is an excellent one, not because of your site, but because Christ rose on the "third day" (which was two days after Friday).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Logos = the Word ==

There really shouldn't be much of a debate over using "Truth" or "Word" in John 1:1. In the Greek text, the word logos is used, which refers to something being said. Hence "Word" is better than "Truth". Also, truth in Greek is aletheia, and that word is not in the text.
:I do not think word or truth are all that great. Both fail to capture the connotation in λόγος of that which is being spoken of, mandate, law decree. Word is one literal translation of λόγος but without the idiomatic meaning people may or may not actually derive from John 1:1 it's still just a literal translation. Truth does not even weakly refer to that which is being spoken of except to editorialize by making a judgment (calling the mandate a truth, which of course it is but this doesn't capture the meaning of the words in Greek). Word is fine if you want to be a literalist about it because that is literally what λόγος means. But if you want some poetry in a Bible that's accurate and a pleasure to read, you could refer to the λόγος being a causal necessity, mandate, law, etc. because what I take John 1:1 to be saying very beautifully is that God was always there, even at the beginning and that it couldn't have been any other way. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 11:15, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:: This is a fascinating dilemma. The unsigned first comment above fails to address how the term "word" is diluted in modern English. But the second comment above seems to downplay be the strong commonality between λόγος and the modern meaning of Truth. Still, I agree we should search for a better term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Truth doesn't seem to be an apt term here though, logos as word here is more of a ordering, rational force, which makes sense given the audience that John was writing this gospel for. To translate it as truth doesn't do justice to what logos fully means. Aletheia, a word for truth is a truth of disclosure, something 'exposes' itself to be true to one. Heidegger uses this idea to great effect in his 'Intro to Metaphysics.' Truth for the Greeks wouldn't have been logos. I prefer the translation of logos=reason or ordering force.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 11:39, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Stoicism

2009-10-16T05:23:20Z

Rcgallup:

'''Stoicism''' Hellenistic [[philosophy]], was founded by [[Zeno]] of Citium (333-264 B.C.) in the early third century B.C. in [[ancient Greece]]. It sought to find a sense of divine [[justice]] and de-emphasized emotion and feelings, teaching that both pain and pleasure should be disregarded. Instead, cool-headed reason and [[logic]] should be used at all times and self-indulgence denied. They believed that virtue is to maintain a willpower that should be in accordance with nature. This philosophy holds that self-control and fortitude are means of overcoming destructive emotions.

Main Stoic philosophers were, besides Zeno: [[Epictetus]] (55 - 135 AD), [[Marcus Aurelius]] (121 - 180 AD) and [[Seneca]] (4 BC - 65 AD). The philosophical works of Seneca had an important role in the revival of Stoic ideas in [[the Renaissance]].

:: ''"Sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy."'' Epictetus; In disgrace?, but what of it? a Stoic can still be virtuous.

Philosophy for a Stoic is an active process of constant practice, dialogs, meditation, reflection and training in abstinence, self-control and fortitude.

Justin the Martyr, an early Christian Martyr used stoic philosophy in his First Apology to defend the Christian faith. Drawing upon the stoic reliance on reason, ''Logos,'' and the idea in John's gospel that the word, ''Logos'' became flesh, he compared Christians to the wise, and sought to defend the faithful from persecution.

== See also ==

*[[Epicurus]]
*[[Greek Philosophy]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Stoicism-Zeno.htm Zeno - Stoicism - Stoic Philosophy]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ Stoicism]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/seneca/ Seneca]

[[category:philosophical systems]]
[[category:philosophers]]
[[Category:Ancient Greece]]

Neoplatonism

2009-10-16T05:08:48Z

Rcgallup:

'''Neoplatonism''' is a [[Philosophy|philosophical]] system based on [[Plato]]'s doctrines but also on Oriental religious ideas. It flourished during the first centuries of the [[Christian]] era.

''It should, however, be added that, while the philosophy that sprang from these sources was Platonic, it did not disdain to appropriate to itself elements of Aristoteleanism and even [[Epicureanism]], which it articulated into a Syncretic system.'' [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm Neo-Platonism]

This system of thought figures heavily into an Augustinian conception of both the good life and the divine. It also has important implications in the understanding of 'ascent texts' in the three Abrahamic faiths.

At the closing period of Greek philosophy Neoplatonism was founded by [[Plotinus|Plotinus of Lycopolis]].

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Hellenistic]]
*[[Enlightenment]]

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

University of Chicago

2009-10-15T17:46:45Z

Rcgallup:

{{University
|name=University of Chicago
|image=UChicago.png
|text=white
|background=rgb(139,0,0)
|type=Private
|city=Chicago, Illinois
|sports=
|colors=maroon, white
|mascot=Phoenix
|website=http://www.uchicago.edu/
}}
'''The University of Chicago''' was founded in 1890 by the American Baptist Education Society and oil magnate [[John D. Rockefeller]], who later described the University of Chicago as “the best investment I ever made.” The land for the new university, in the recently annexed suburb of [[Hyde Park-Kenwood|Hyde Park]], was donated by [[Marshall Field]], owner of the [[Chicago]] department store that bears his name.

Although the University was established by [[Baptist|Baptists]], it was non-denominational from the start. It also welcomed women and minority students at a time when many universities did not.

Since the 1950s the University is well known for hosting the [[Chicago School of Economics]], led for many years by [[Milton Friedman]] and [[George Stigler]]. The economics department has dominated the [[Nobel Prizes]] in the past few decades.

On December 2, 1942, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard assembled a rudimentary nuclear reactor under the stands of the former football stadium. What followed was the first self sustaining nuclear chain reaction, a discovery which lead to the development of the atomic bombs used later in the war. The site of this Manhattan Project milestone is now commemorated with a statue by Henry Moore titled "Nuclear Energy," it is adjacent to the Regenstein Library.

Liberal [[Robert Hutchins]], a pioneer of the Essentialist school of education, was the president and chancellor of the university in the mid 20th century. 

The first Heisman Trophy winner, Jay Berwanger, was a student at the university when he was awarded it in 1935. At the time, the school was one of the founding members of the Big Ten athletic conference. In 1939, Robert Hutchins disbanded the varsity football team, thereby leaving the conference. The school now fields a modestly successful Division III football team.

== External Links ==

*[http://www.uchicago.edu Official Website]

{{Nb_US_universities|Illinois}}