Conservapedia talk:Featured articles/Archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed for Featuring

The following articles will be considered for featuring by the committee, who will cast the final vote on whether to feature the article.
New suggestions can be added at the end of this list.

  • Agree. Well-written article. JY23 21:31, 3 March 2009 (EST)
  • Disagree, not nearly long enough. JY23 21:31, 3 March 2009 (EST)
One image says more that a thousand words. --Joaquín Martínez 10:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
  • Agree. --JY23 12:44, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Neutral. Short but informative. A player bio template should fix all problems. --JY23 18:22, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Agree. Well written, informed, and educational. --JY23 18:22, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Agree (I wrote about 90% of it). --JY23 16:34, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Agree. I have contributed much. Was an fa a long time ago. Renewed interest and over-the-time updated material


My friend are these articles that we wish to see improved or articles that we wish to have displayed as examples of articles that capture the spirit of Conservapedia? Thank you. Learn together 12:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

This is the list of articles that are proposed for the Main page's section "Featured articles". Please add as many as you wish. You can also object one or more of them or improve any as I did with I Have a Dream. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:28, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Articles should show the spirit of Conservapedia but also represent the best we have and be attractive for users of CP. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:40, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Is Bible good? I new at this so I'll have to learn a little! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 17:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)


Could we have some indication of what order the articles will be made feature articles?

I assumed that Genesis would be the next one, as it was next on the list, so made some improvements to it (well, I thought they were improvements!). I didn't go beyond that. Of course, being an Aussie with little knowledge or nor interest in American politics, I wouldn't have done anything to the Republican Party article, so I don't feel cheated in that sense, but some advance notice on what will be next would be a good idea.

Philip J. Rayment 02:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

There's been no response to this query at all. And now an article that wasn't even on the list has been added to the main page. This prevented any of us from reviewing that article to see if it could do with any improvements before being posted.
Could we please stick to posting the articles in the order listed. If someone thinks that the order should be changed prior to an article being posted on the main page, then fine, but the list should be reordered so that we still all know what will be next.
Philip J. Rayment 08:23, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Dear Philip. In this article as in many of CP any one can edit, but there is an special team for this one. From my point of view, there is not a rule for order in the list. Dates in the year or events could have some significance to select one article. You may join the team if you like and have the duty to update it. Thank you for your interest. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
I didn't know there was a team. DanH 15:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
I'd like to be part of the team. Philip J. Rayment 01:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Great! Welcome aboard. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

As I have been "encouraged"...

... to get involved constructively in the site (I will save a 90/10 debate for the debate pages) I thought I might offer to help here in whatever capacity is needed (copy-editing future articles of note, etc...). However, I'm curious who's running this show? I liked the methodology described on the main page (a list of upcoming featured articles with plenty of advance notice, etc...), but Conservative has brought his google crusade to this project and pushed his atheism article to the front of the line.

Without making personal remarks, it's safe to say that I don't agree, philosophically, with how he goes about his business. Please let me know if a)you'd like any help here at all, and b)if so, what role he plays, if any? Thanks, Aziraphale 16:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

What happened to the funny little lines you would always write after your comments? HenryS 16:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Having arrows that point at my non-standard user name seems to be "asking for it" in the current climate. ;) Aziraphale 16:25, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
The Featured Article is "run" by a committee comprising Joaquín Martínez‎, Learn together, DeanS, and me (the late-comer. There was another person, but he has since been banned). Anybody can add featured articles to the list as suggestions, anybody can review and try and improve those articles, and anybody can suggest that any given article should not be used or can propose a change of order. But it is that committee that makes the final decisions on what is used and when (barring being overridden by someone higher up, such as Andy, of course).
Some senior sysops have also had some discussion about setting specific criteria that featured articles should meet, but nothing much has come of that yet.
You are welcome to help in any of those ways I've mentioned. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunate timing or fate? I'm going to have to look elsewhere on the site, Philip, sorry. Aziraphale 19:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
May I join the committee? --Ed Poor Talk 21:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)


I think it would be important to consider this for next update:


15:00, 1 May 2008 Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (I believe a major online conservative christian newspaper is going to do a story on conservapedia's atheism article)

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps there should be a concerted effort to create the red-linked pages in the article? As a shop-window, so to speak. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Fox, thank you for your very practical suggestion. Conservative 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Secondly, google has a measure how popular a webpage is through something called PageRank. The higher your pagerank the more popular your webpage. Conservapedia's main page has a pagerank of 5. Eagle Forum's main page has a pagerank of 5. The mainpage has Page rank of 7. The NY Times website main page has a pagerank of 9. The conservative Christian news organization who has a reporter that is interested in the Conservapedia atheism story has a very respectable page rank and it is better than conservapedia's main page. Also, some Christian apologists with PHDs and websites are going to support conservapedia's atheism article. An award winning Christian author who has multiple web sites is going to endorse conservapedia's atheism article vis a vis his websites. A conservative organization with a website having a page rank of 4 has promised to feature conservapedia's atheism article. There is also other things going on as well. For example, a christian organization who's leader spoke before the National Religious broadcasters convention and whose websites had 100,000 plus people become Christians after going to the organization's websites recently linked to conservapedia's atheism article. I do think a good case can be made for keeping the Conservapedia atheism article the article of the month. It seems to be getting good endorsements and a case can be made that it could attract good editors of conservapedia. My gut tells me that it could become the next homosexuality/theory of evolution article in terms of web traffic that it brings to conservapedia. Conservative 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

How long is the atheism article going to be featured? Jallen 22:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I hope for the month of May. I can do some of the promotional work and I would appreciate it if some people helped out in terms of the red links in the atheism article as user Fox mentioned. It does help in regards to people linking to you if you have an article with no red links. Conservative 00:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)


Do we have an agreement? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:39, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 00:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Till now, we have 3 of 4 votes; 3 for "yes". --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
You have my support as well. ;-) Learn together 12:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
We have 4, lets restart. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:00, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Even further downgrade?

I'm quite sad to see Conservative disrupting this project so badly. I didn't even realize we had a new Featured Article! Why? Because it's now on the middle of the second page, under the "Masterpiece of the Week", under the "Article of the Year", under the "Popular Articles" list, without its own headline and filed under "Suggested article". Really, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to notice. Stop pretending that people will scroll past non-CP content (painting), that article section that will not change for the next half year and the mostly static list of "popular articles"... only to check out the tiny paragraph where the actual Featured Article is.

My suggestion: Be bold, restore the Featured Article in its old glory - above the "Article of the Year". I don't care that Conservative wants his article to be in the page-1 spotlight all year long, but this site isn't just about him and his Search Engine Optimization "Operations". It's about people who come to Conservapedia and who will be bored once they see the same "featured article" all the time. --JBrown 09:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree...though not with such vehemence. :P I always used to look forward to the article of the month - not year!! A year is a really long time for one article that most people have probably already read since it is number four on search engines. I think we should change it back to article of the month. ~BCSTalk2ME 09:16, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I'm a very excitable guy with ideals, so sue me! :P And I fear the "Article of the Year" will remain on the Main Page for the rest of the year simply because Conservative wants to boost the Google ranks. It's all about gaming the system, and I have moral issues with exploiting Google's algorithms by means of linkspam, but that's an issue for another article... For now, the realistic goal is to work around Conservative's promotional campaigns, and that's why I'd suggest restoring the more current "Month" feature above the "Year" one. It would work much better at raising interest and awareness about the site as a whole instead of just a single article. --JBrown 09:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Featured Article: Wikipedia?

Why do we feature "Wikipedia"? That article screams "activism", "bias" and maybe "grudge/jealousy" and doesn't reflect well on this "encyclopedia". Anything that can be phrased negatively will be phrased negatively, anything bad that is remotely connected to Wikipedia made its way into it, and after the "Quality" section (one of the few sections that actually point out a few good properties between all the criticism), the article can be summed up as "scandal scandal scandal hoax scandal bias scandal". Which is a bit weird, considering how most of those things are fairly obscure to the everyday guy and have little impact to the site as a whole. And don't even get me started on the "Two wikifascists find someone without a biography" or "The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!" images.

I do acknowledge that the article is unlikely to change because it appears to be written mostly by sysops, so I won't even bother posting this on the appropriate talk page, but I think it's a bad choice for the Featured Article project... even if it has been disrupted to the point of being completely non-notable (see section above). --JBrown 09:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)


Is fine for me. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:12, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama and McCain

I think we should probably run these articles shortly after the Democratic and Republican conventions. Learn together 15:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Also they should be protected. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
When are the respective Conventions? Philip J. Rayment 23:23, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
GOP, 9/1-9/4, Dems, 8/25-8/28 --Jareddr 23:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for that, Jareddr. I'll just point out, if you don't mind, that the reason that I didn't know that is because I'm not an American, and for the same reason, "9/1-9/4" means 9th January to 9th April to me. Anyway, I agree with featuring these articles then. Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
If you were American, I wouldn't have expected you to know it. In fact, I would've suspected you weren't American if you had known. --Jareddr 09:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
So true ;-) Learn together 12:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

No way are these articles fit to be "featured". Daphnea 13:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. I will take special effort personally to ensure better verifiability on both. It is very important that these articles be competent, well-written pieces that present information about the two.

CTrooper 22:26, 13 July 2008 (EDT)


I noticed an editor gave his input into agreeing or disagreeing on articles and it was removed. How should we handle this? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having people give input. As the committee, we vote upon it, but getting input from others may help us to form our opinions. Learn together 15:56, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Users that want to give an opinion are welcome. They may use the talk page. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I didn't make it clear when I put those comments on the project page, but my intention was that any user could add their input exactly where TonyT did, and I still favour that, as I think it is more practicable. Philip J. Rayment 23:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
This list has an special importance. It gives material for the Main Page, which is our face. We have four members that have a responsibility; this should not be shared. Users, as I have said may give their opinion but in the talk page. There is not real progress in anarchy and I feel authority has to be exercised or have the risk to see it lost. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
But we're not talking about sharing the responsibility. As Learn together said and as I put on the project page, the committee retains the right to the final decision. Other editors putting their comments on the project page keeps everything in one place rather than us having to potentially look in several places on the talk page as well as on the project page itself. (By the way, it doesn't matter, but I considered that the two articles listed under "Future Articles" to already be "accepted" and we therefore did not need to add our comments to them.) Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Fine, D'accord. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, I take that as agreement. I'll reinstate TonyT's comments. Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

KAL 007 Feature article (proposed)

Dear Philip and other members of the Feature article Committee (Can you pass it on to them, Philip?), I have an unusual request. I have proposed Korean Airlines Flight 007 as a feature article and there is 1 agreement to it so far. My request is this; If accepted, could it be put up for an extended time, and that beginning soon? the reason for this request- Sept. 1, will be the 25th year of the shootdown. It is a particularly important year as the U.S. government will be releasing classified material - if it deems it not to endanger National Security. Very soon there will be increased research and media interest in locating sources. I think that many will turn to Conservapedia, or shall I say, many of the right type of people to pursue it. I think that the word of mouth factor will be operating well from Conservapedia users to the non Conservapedia users and there will be an infux of readers at this time. Thank you for considering thisBert Schlossberg 09:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

You should post this on the Featured articles talk page. However, although I would support timing it to coincide with an anniversary, I'm not clear if you are suggesting posting it before the anniversary, and if so, why. And personally I'd also be hesitant to post it for an extended period, so I suggest that you try and make a clearer case for why that should be so, and for how long. Keep up the good work, though! Philip J. Rayment 10:04, 20 June 2008 (EDT) Retrieved from ""

O.K. First of all, thanks for the consideration. Here is the further info and explanation. Its very hard to know with exactitude, but I think that media will be involved with research and production from July on till the 25th anniversary of the shootdown on Sept 1st. For this reason, I request that the KAL 007 article be featured the latest in July. Media will also have something of an effect on Government release of classified info and all this will help the cause. I expect from my contacts with the more conservatively oriented groups and organizations that they will be featuring KAL 007 in some way, and so I believe there will be an increased viewership for the article. I know that my request for an extended showing of the article as a featured article is a little off the wall - to say the least, but I make it anyway, in the hopes that it is acceptable. Thanks, all!Bert Schlossberg 05:47, 21 June 2008 (EDT)


To be considered (urgent):

Declaration of Independence


American Revolutionary War

Because of JULY 4.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:51, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd go with Declaration of Independence. Learn together 12:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Need another?

Need another Committee member? Geoff PlourdeComplain! 19:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Selection for 4th July

Some history of the process:

I'd go with Declaration of Independence. Learn together 12:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

To be considered (urgent) Because of JULY 4:

  • Declaration of Independence or American Revolutionary War (Improved Jun 25)
    • Disagree on the Declaration, as the article is rather brief if you exclude the text of the Declaration and the list of signatories. Agree, however, on the War one, although it is currently very short of internal links. Disagree on both; Declaration for previous reason, War for the amount of copying. Philip J. Rayment
    • Disagree on both, Declaration per Philip, Revolution because of copying and lack of information. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 16:50, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
    • I prefer the American Revolutionary War article. --DeanStalk 10:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Monthly Featured Articles

Dear People, We have weekly featured articles and an Annual feature article, How about Monthly Feature Articles? If so, I would like to propose Korean Airlines Flight 007 for the month of August (in time for the 25th anniversary of the shootdown)Bert Schlossberg 09:52, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you!Bert Schlossberg 15:10, 16 August 2008 (EDT)


Articles does not have to be large to be good enough. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:28, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. However, it depends on the article. A one-paragraph article on Palin's home town might be appropriate (that's why I wasn't concerned with the length of Sausage). A one-paragraph article on the United States would not be. It's not the size itself that matters, but whether it does the subject justice. "Too short" is a euphemism for "not covering the topic adequately". Philip J. Rayment 08:57, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
OK, I AGREE. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:01, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Featured articles should be our own

Several articles have been mentioned here as being nominated for featured status, but these articles have all or nearly all of their material from the public domain, i.e the U.S. government, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, etc. As it stands they cannot be considered "our own" unless someone does a re-write, includes new material, makes corrections where short making it original and unique to this site.

I propose we include, for now, only those articles that we have written completely for this site as featured articles. As to PD articles, we should have standards in place as to how they are to be treated first prior to acceptance as featured aticles. Any thoughts? Karajou 01:19, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree that we should only feature articles that have been written here, and in fact we've followed that principle before. I will write something along that line on the project page if there is no objection. Philip J. Rayment 07:26, 28 September 2008 (EDT)


Can someone change the main page text to reflect the changes I made to the article? Jinxmchue 17:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Category:Featured Article?

Joaquin, I suggest adding a new Category:Featured Article, to the Featured articles. Even though this would involve adding this category to the many previous articles (I volunteer to help), I think it would be easy to maintain and would list all the featured articles in one place. --DeanStalk 11:55, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I think this is a good idea. There could even be a template to say that it was a featured article, when it was featured, and linking to the Featured articles page. I also volunteer to help if this is agreed.--CPalmer 11:59, 9 February 2009 (EST)
CPalmer, I like your idea of a template. --DeanStalk 12:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Most excellent idea! --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Great! --Joaquín Martínez 20:27, 9 February 2009 (EST)
I've put a basic-looking version of the kind of thing I'd envisaged at User:CPalmer/Sandbox. My template-creating skills aren't great - it could use a lot of smartening up, and a suitable image (a star, or tick, or the Conservapedia logo?).--CPalmer 11:23, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Looks nice. --Joaquín Martínez 14:05, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I made a small improvement, but otherwise it looks good. --DeanStalk 14:31, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks for the encouragement! I've added a pagename bit that would display the title of the article in question.--CPalmer 09:49, 14 February 2009 (EST)

OK, I've provisionally created the template at {{Featured}}. Could one of you please protect it?--CPalmer 11:23, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Done. It looks good - well done! --KotomiTnandeyanen? 13:44, 17 February 2009 (EST)

By the way, I believe such a category already exists, as there is a "Featured article" cat on the Civil War article. JY23 21:32, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Are we going to go ahead with this then? I do not mind adding the template, if everybody is happy with it. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 04:59, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
The template looks good and would be more eyecatching than a category. I am happy if it went ahead. -Foxtrot 07:27, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Committee members

Please confirm your interest in this project. Your participation is welcome indeed, but also necessary. --Joaquín Martínez 20:53, 1 March 2009 (EST)

I'm still interested. --DeanStalk 02:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Aye! --₮K/Admin/Talk 02:59, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Confirmed. -Foxtrot 05:03, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Proposals and Protection

Under the new reorganization and protection of this page, I'm not sure if all the desired goals of the project are being met. We still want regular editors to be able to propose articles (though on the Talk page now), but I thought the issue that prompted the reorganization was that only committee members should be able to vote and decide which articles get featured. The way the proposals section of the talk page currently stands, it allows regular users to propose and vote on the proposals. Will this feature remain here? If so, will there be an official voting method for the committee members?

A second issue raised with these changes is that the project page was protected to be edited only by sysops. Since not all the committee members (e.g. myself, AlanE should he accept Joaquín's invite, and perhaps others) are sysops, this limits our capabilities in the project. One potential solution to this is to create a new user rights group for the featured articles project, adding all the committee members (and all sysops, I assume), and then changing the protection level to that group.

Third minor point: the intro paragraph on the project page still has "Articles listed here will be considered for featuring by the committee" which should be removed or changed to "listed on the talk page". -Foxtrot 11:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

  • Just saw this, and sorry I didn't earlier.....we are still discussing, and not heard back from Joaquin, as I emailed him. I didn't start this project, and still sorting out what it is those who did want it to be, Foxtrot. Stay tuned! --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:11, 4 March 2009 (EST)
In my opinion the article should be unprotected. The opinion of all users would be considered but members of the team would have the last word with their vote. --Joaquín Martínez 17:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Sorry, my friend, never saw this before now! I will go along with whatever you want, Joaquín...I remember someone else, non-admin was also asked to participate, right? If unlocked make a note for non-committee members to post on this page, above? --₮K/Admin/Talk 07:47, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

feautured essay?

If I may comment here, I think that having a whole feature for "featured essay" would mean too many mainpage features. Plus, there are only a handful of sizable essays anyway. AddisonDM 13:42, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Agree. --Joaquín Martínez 19:08, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Committee member

As RJJensen is a new member, Could his past votes be reinserted? --Joaquín Martínez 09:19, 8 June 2009 (EDT)


How do you become a member here? I would at least like to participate in the vote for featured articles. AddisonDM 14:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Some members of the team have not an active role for some time. May be we will have to reconsider them and your application will be reviewed. Thank you for your interest. --Joaquín Martínez 23:10, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
Thanks! AddisonDM 23:16, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Harrison vote

I %&$##(*! the Harrsison vote somehow. sorry. RJJensen 03:34, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

 ??? --Joaquín Martínez 19:45, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
I tried to vote (no) on Harrison and did something wrong and his votes are invisible. :( RJJensen 22:36, 25 August 2009 (EDT)


It will be our next choice because of the "America's discovery date". --Joaquín Martínez 08:04, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

New Ordeal

RJJ, I've read Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression, and have a few questions. (1) On page 20 you state, "Supply-side economics was central to the New Deal" as an apparent explanation for the failure of the New Deal to reduce unemployment. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "supply side" here. (2) On page 23 in summary, you declare what was needed "was some way to subsidize employers of the structurally unemployed." The context seems to suggest government subsidies paid from the Treasury to businesses (i.e., transfer payments) for workers wages. Are these the findings of conservative historians, during the Reagan era, that you speak of? (3) On page 23 you also state, "My argument is congruent with Blanchard and Summers." While the thrashing Summers takes on CP's Barack Obama page may be somewhat controversial (Summers did serve on Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors, a fact downplayed & ignored by Clinton and Obama supporters), Summers is not an historian, as far as I know. Did you mean to say, "the work of conservative economists," rather than "conservative historians"? Thank you. Rob Smith 00:13, 19 January 2010 (EST)

some great questions! 1) on supply side-- I meant the New Deal tried to reduce the supply of labor by taking unemployed people out of the competitive labor market (thru CWA, FERA, CCC, WPA, child labor codes, restrictions on married women, old age pension if you did not work, expelling Mexicans--and by 1940 the draft). For example, a young man on CCC would not be lined up every morning looking for a job. I am very negative on this approach (see text before footnote 25) 2) subsidies were used in WW2 with great positive effect, and are in use today -- Milton Friedman's negative income tax operates today--and it should have been tried in 1930s but were not; 3) I specifically meant the 1988 article by Blanchard and Summers, which is not historical but theoretical and extends some of Friedman's work on natural rates of unemployment. RJJensen 01:39, 19 January 2010 (EST)
Ok, so this use of the term "supply side" differs from what supply side is. Supply side refers to the importance of incentives to stimulate economic output, rather than classic Keynsian measurements of aggregate demand to determine "stimulus". Rob Smith 07:43, 19 January 2010 (EST)
I use "demand side" for Keynesian stimulus plans. The New Deal trued to reduce unemployment by REDUCING the supply of people looking for jobs. It's not the same as supply-side in 1980s (which was to EXPAND the supply).RJJensen 11:15, 19 January 2010 (EST)
So the reference is to the supply of labor. Was this a conscious effort on the part of New Deal planners, or an unintended result? Rob Smith 21:42, 19 January 2010 (EST)
(Sorry, I misread your response). Are you claiming the supply-siders of the 1980s intentionally set about to increase unemployment? That would be complete balderdash. Supply-side refers to placing an emphasis on rewards for work to increase overall aggregate demand (to use an Obama-ism, "making work pay"). Low wages lead to low output, as many would prefer to remain idle rather than labor for little or no reward.
If unemployment rocketed up in the early 80s, it was more a function of Federal Reserve tight monetary policy, rather than Administration or Legislative efforts to reduce the hich cost burden of government on employers and individuals. Rob Smith 23:50, 19 January 2010 (EST)
I was not writing about the 1980s, I was looking at the 1930s and said that FDR tried to reduce unemployment by taking millions of people out of the labor force. That is negative supply side. Reagan wanted to create new jobs--that's positive supply side. ("demand side" is when people spend more $ on X,Y,Z --they demand more goods and services--and so companies hire more workers to make more X, Y and Z.)RJJensen 00:14, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Reduce unemployment by not counting disillusioned workers who quit actively seeking work -- are you stating here this was a consious objective of FDR & New Dealers?
Demand side is the notion that falling aggregate output (i.e. a recession) is the reflection of falling aggregate demand for goods and services, hence layoffs and unemployment. Classic demand side theory claims government can "stimulate" demand by borrowing money to spend. Supply side relies on increasing incentives to stimulate aggregate output, one way being to reduce the fiscal, or tax burden on producers, that is, employers and workers, by lining thier pockets with more cash as a reward. Either way, the government takes on more debt, only in the supply side model, the debt increase is temporary, as more incentives produce more workers, who in turn produce more demand for more products and services, and more capital for an additional set of workers, etc. This is quite unlike a sinkhole of economic resources like the WPA. Rob Smith 00:56, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Can anyone tell me why the Progressives were almost always allied with the Eugenicists? Is that part of the New Deal's plan to enslave minorities again, get them on, and keep them on welfare, to capture their votes? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:33, 20 January 2010 (EST)
"Reduce unemployment by not counting disillusioned workers who quit actively seeking work". not quite. first the unemployment rate was unknown and the gov't a few years later (1940) invented new ways to measure it using the new mthods of sampling. The New Deal gave these people new jobs (in CCC, WPA, etc) in such a way they would not compete with the regular work force. What they should have done, I wrote, is teach them new skills (labor unions vetoed that, saying that in every city there are thousands of carpenters out of work, so why train new ones to make it worse.) As for increasing the output, that was indeed a challenge, because too few people were buying cars or houses. RJJensen 01:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Yes, but that is what the common use of the term, "supply side" is -- government actions to increase aggregate output. The classic Keynesian model is for government to increase debt and spending to stimulate demand; supply siders increase private incentives to stimulate aggregate output. Your use of the term, applying it to the supply of labor is, shall we say, "a novel interpretation," and would be considered Original Research under Wikipedia's editorial policies. Rob Smith 21:09, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Wikipedia has done a good job of suppressing originality. All scholars of all persuasions have long agreed that the New Deal rejected growth as a solution to economic problems. Conservatives rejected no-growth that at the time [eg Terborgh, The Bogey of Economic Maturity (1943)] and since 1960 or so liberals have also rejected no-growth policies. RJJensen 21:49, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Thank you. The text before footnote 25 reads, "The problem with the

supply-side remedies was that they cut output..." Would you agree that use of the term "supply-side" here is unorthodox, or novel, given that in 1989, supply side generally referred to incentives, not the labor pool. Rob Smith 22:45, 21 January 2010 (EST)

yes it was novel. The point is that supply side can be either positive or negative (that is, increase supply or decrease supply) and the New Deal was negative. They did that because they believed in the theory of economic maturity developed by Alvin Hansen to the effect that the economy was fully grown and would not be growing any more. Therefore pro-growth solutions, they thought, were a mistake. Conservative economists at the time opposed this idea. The most important conservative economists were Raymond Moley, Gotfried Haberler, George Terborgh, Frank Knight, Oskar Morgenstern, Henry Simons, Joseph Schumpeter, and William Fellner (Fellenr was my economics professor at Yale, where I took my PhD minor in economics). RJJensen 02:01, 22 January 2010 (EST)


With the current administration's gutting of the NASA budget, perhaps we could recap or revisit the significance of the space program as a driving force for U.S technological leadership and innovation. Rob Smith 20:31, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Plug for Homophobia

Homophobia currently enjoys No.2 ranking on Yahoo [1] and No. 19 on Bing. [2] Rob Smith 15:54, 28 February 2010 (EST)

I can't do everyone's work for them, Rob. You're on the committee, add it yourself! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:04, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Recovery Summer

Can we spruce it up as a Featured Article ontime for the election? Nearly a half million jobs were lost during Recovery Summer. Rob Smith 20:25, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Yes, I think that is a good idea, to remind people of the empty promises Obama has previously made..... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:04, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
Agree. --Joaquín Martínez 08:16, 27 October 2010 (EDT)