Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-12T15:28:04Z

Frederick: /* Jewkes Book(s) */

Who coined the term "New Ordeal?"--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 10:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge. Who coined the term, "Contract ''on'' Amercia"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it is not common knowledge. As for the "Contract on America" that was a democratic spoof of the the Republican "Contract with America" during the 1994 midterm elections--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I've never heard of the New Ordeal, and I'm not getting any quick info on it from Google. I think Franklin's question is valid - is it coined by the author of the sourced book? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Even the single reference for the page makes no mention of "New Ordeal", nor can I find any online reference to the term in this context. Is this a term that Rush has created or was it created by the author of this page? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Rational_wiki has some discussion of this likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I looked on rational_wiki. The term seems to be your creation, and the cited sources do not support your contention. The 1945 Time magazine article deals with the impending demobilization of U.S. troops at the close of World War Two, and the chart showing flucuations in the U.S. economy deals with the last few decades of the nineteenth century. If you are trying to construct some sort of argument about the New Deal (which did have its shortcomings) this is a very poor way to do it.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:35, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Contract ''on'' America was a spoof? Really? Seems common knowledge spoofed New Dealers for 70 years and they didn't even know it. Must be more evidence that they did not know everything afterall, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Is it really too much to ask to drop the sarcasam and just state who coined the phrase? I'm not sure what rational_wiki has to do with this site, either. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been common knowledge for decades. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The phrase may be common knowledge in certain circles, but I think it is not as widely spread as you believe it to be. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hardly common knowledge. Where did the phrase come from? Can you cite that? Was it in Hayek's book that you cited (although I cannot imagine Hayek being so crass)?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the [[Fairness Doctrine]] for 50 years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, you are not being censored or oppressed. I have asked you to forthrightly provide your sources, and you have directed us to rational_wiki, where the cites did not support your contention. So, I ask again, what is your evidence for this term? Is it in Hayek or another source?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I beleive I've answered several times. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:27, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, you have not. You have have been asked several times and you respond that the term is common knowledge. Show a little bit of intellectual honesty my friend.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It also survives in oral histories. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wonderful! Many oral histories have been recorded and transcirbed in book or sometimes journal format. Can you cite some?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well duh, what does oral mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Why did you revert my edit and remove my comment? I repeat: many oral histories have transcribed into printed form/ Can you direct me to a few where I might see this term used?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, hit the wrong button (meant to hit mark as patrolled). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The only reference I can find is in the title of a 1948 book, reprinted in 1968. The book is referenced in Hayak's bibliography and a few other places, but I can find no usages of the term itself.previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Boomcoach]]

::'''Doh!''' Forgot the tildes. Sorry. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Where is this found? ==

I can't find any mention of this in the text at the bottom--it is totally unrelated. Can we take this out? Robs gave no answer above. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:30, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:After looking around, I can find no source for this except conservapedia. Now that means either conservapedia is that good, or the whole thing is a <s>lie</s> a fiction. I think it is the latter. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::Like all CP articles, it's a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Yeah, the problem is, it is still not a real thing. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:27, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::::If you could find even ONE source for this, aside from that book that doesn't mention it, we could work together. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:28, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==Can't find it, either==
A Google Books search on [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22new+ordeal%22+roosevelt&btnG=Search+Books "New Ordeal" Roosevelt] turns up thirteen hits, none relevant.

The closest thing to a relevant hit is [http://books.google.com/books?id=DW4eAAAAMAAJ&q=%22new+ordeal%22&dq=%22new+ordeal%22&pgis=1 The New Ordeal by Planning: The Experience of the Forties and the Sixties], by John Jewkes, which is an update to his 1948 book "Ordeal by Planning." A search in this book for "Roosevelt" turns up no hits, nor does a search for "New Deal," meaning that whatever he means by this, it is not a satirical takeoff on "New Deal."

I believe this should be retitled as an essay and "signed" by RobS and co-contributors. It is '''not''' an exposition of a well-established conservative locution (like "Death tax"); I think it's a personal essay and that RobS hopes to ''promote'' the use of an original or at least poorly-known coinage.

If a home-schooled student were asked, as a fill-in-the-blanks exam question, "What name is used to refer to the period of economic decline between the crash of 1929 and the Second World War," do you think he or she would get credit for "New Ordeal?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I concur, thanks for your help and honesty. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Why this kind jokes are kept here?! ==

If this is some kind of encyclopedia, please, delete. Refering to nothing... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:34, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==WP:New Deal==
I think we're having an impact. Look what WP's been doing to its New Deal entry, they expanded the size of the chart. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=next&oldid=135791974] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=134729442&oldid=134669058] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==New Cites==
The two new "citations" have no apparent link to the article, any more than the first one does. The Time magazine article is about US troops coming back from WWII, and the book is part of an autobiography of FRD, and a fairly early colume of it (2 of 4). RobS, it loks like you are just grabbing anything from the 40's or 50's that has the word "Ordeal" in it. You appear to have created an article out of whole cloth. I don't know if this is a term a favorite prof once used, but to pretend that it is of any common usage outside of yourself is comepletely unsubstantiated. It has no place in any sort of encylopedia, unless you can show some relavent citations, not simply things that have a common word. You might as well se a citation about "New York in the 50's" because it has the word "New" init! [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:22, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Please feel free to improve the article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:23, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::It is an article about something that has no apparent existence. There is no evidence that there is anything to write an article about. It is just a name that you appear to have conjured out of thin air. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:46, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Well we can do a redirect from [[Great Bear Market]] to here, but Great Bear Market only goes to 1942, it doesn't include the [[Malthusian catastrophe]] that followed, and the Recovery period. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::This is the only incidence of this term, used in this context, I can find anywhere. Unless there's evidence otherwise, it can only be considered a personal essay. Which is fine, but it can't be allowed in an encyclopedia, surely? [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:::What? this article or trolls trashing it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Neither. You've concocted a clever phrase (do you work as a copywriter?! :-) ), more power to you, but it's just that - you wrote it, and there's no evidence whatsoever anyone other than you uses it. Therefore it can't really be allowed in an Encyclopedia. If there is evidence of its use that we're missing, just go ahead and provide it, and no-one will have the slightest problem with the article. [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, I took your advice above and improved on the article. Thanks for the advice.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 19:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Proposal ==

Since no one other than the author seems to be familiar with the term "New Ordeal", I propose an opening paragraph explaining the coinage of the term, for clarity's sake. Reasonable? Unreasonable?[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 23:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like some guidance on an opening paragraph to explain the origin of New Ordeal. Could you provide an example maybe?[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 00:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::I thought it was quite obvious and to the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:33, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This article's discussion page is locked. It is a somewhat bizarre article. I would humbly ask that if it is stay as a mainspace (non-essay) article, the primary author should, in one or two short sentences, explain the thesis of his piece. As it is, I have no idea what it is about. I certainly don't like the implication that right-wing extremist groups are Christian, but I'm sure I must be misreading that. Thanks.[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 23:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:See the souricing on it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for responding. I did look at the article, the discussion, and the sources, but nothing pointed to a known usage of "New Ordeal". This make me think perhaps it was a creative, clever coinage of yours or of someone you know. It did go thru the citations in great detail. Perhaps this could be explained? [[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 00:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Frankly you have me confused; are you sure you have the right discussion page? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:::How about changing this from a mainspace page to something like Essay: The New Ordeal, because it appears to be just that. It is an essay by RobS about a period to which he has given a cutesy name, either of his own creation, or an obscure reference earlier in life. It reminds me of going to college and using words that had become common in our home, but were euphamisms created by my mother or father. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:37, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This should be an essay and not an article. If you look at the discussion above that RobS had with Franklin, there is no source for the article. It is not of encyclopedic quality and should be removed.--[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 08:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well you need to show some edit history to show you have an interest in this subject or qualified to criticize other than just responding to troll bait right now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Malthusian catastrophe that was World War II"==

One other note: RobS mentions a "Malthusian catastrophe." Could someone explain this?--[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 08:22, 12 June 2007(EDT)

:I was wondering about that myself. It seems to be a suggestion that World War II was caused by world population outstripping resources, and brought back into balance by the war... but a graph of [http://edweb.sdsu.edu/wip/examples/gas2/idnex.htm U. S. population] looks pretty smooth, as does [http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/Contest/Results/2005/TEMIS/Population%20Design_files/image069.jpg world population]. There's a bit of a downward kink in U. S. population around World War II, but it isn't preceded by any obvious upward kink. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:53, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Since the graphs' axes aren't labeled anyway, I think we can go ahead and read into them whatever we wish. [[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 10:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, Rob, for adding more citations. I'll spend some time looking at them to see if they support your assertion. Just remember that just because a document contains the words "new" and "ordeal" does not mean they were used to refer to "The New Deal". Also, if a ref is this obscure that we still haven't settled it over several days, perhaps you should just take full credit where it is due (as you have clearly worked hard on this) and call it an original work.[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Jewkes Book(s)==
The three books you list are the only actual usage of the term "New Ordeal" that I have found. The three books you list are also only one book. It was published in 1948 and reissued in 1968. It is also the book cited in the first citation you give, so you now have 4 cites all referring to a single 1948 book. You are trying hard to show that "New Ordeal" is a term in common parlance, at some point in time, but you are just chasing your tail. A term used in the title of a single book, and never referenced again by that term, hardly constitutes a term worthy of an encyclopedia entry. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:15, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, I'm not familiar with this book, but as nearly as I can tell by references to it, it's about ''post''-World-War-II planning in ''England.'' And as Boomcoach notes, "new" refers to a new ''edition'' of an earlier book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:21, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

*''The New Ordeal by Planning'', John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Which I'm not familiar with, but, as nearly as I can tell, is about ''post'' World War II planning in ''England?'' Or have I got that wrong? Continue at [[Talk:New Ordeal]]... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Also known as "Ordeal by Planning",this essay was about econ planning in the '''UK''', not the U.S., and while, given his arguments, he prob would not have supported the New Deal, he didn't call it the New Ordeal.
::''John Jewkes (1902 - 1988) is best known for his book Ordeal by Planning which he wrote in 1946 in an attempt to show that the wartime planning system, which many people wished to maintain and develop in the post-war world, would condemn the United Kingdom to poverty and failure. If Friedrich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom provided a more celebrated philosophical treatise, it was Jewkes who produced a more down to earth and practically convincing case against central planning.'' http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Jewkes. [[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with your comment on Andy's page, Rob, that Jewkes seems to critique Keynesian economics. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the question at hand, namely '''where did the phrase "New Ordeal" come from?'''[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-12T15:24:22Z

Frederick: Moved

Who coined the term "New Ordeal?"--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 10:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge. Who coined the term, "Contract ''on'' Amercia"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it is not common knowledge. As for the "Contract on America" that was a democratic spoof of the the Republican "Contract with America" during the 1994 midterm elections--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I've never heard of the New Ordeal, and I'm not getting any quick info on it from Google. I think Franklin's question is valid - is it coined by the author of the sourced book? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Even the single reference for the page makes no mention of "New Ordeal", nor can I find any online reference to the term in this context. Is this a term that Rush has created or was it created by the author of this page? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Rational_wiki has some discussion of this likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I looked on rational_wiki. The term seems to be your creation, and the cited sources do not support your contention. The 1945 Time magazine article deals with the impending demobilization of U.S. troops at the close of World War Two, and the chart showing flucuations in the U.S. economy deals with the last few decades of the nineteenth century. If you are trying to construct some sort of argument about the New Deal (which did have its shortcomings) this is a very poor way to do it.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:35, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Contract ''on'' America was a spoof? Really? Seems common knowledge spoofed New Dealers for 70 years and they didn't even know it. Must be more evidence that they did not know everything afterall, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Is it really too much to ask to drop the sarcasam and just state who coined the phrase? I'm not sure what rational_wiki has to do with this site, either. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been common knowledge for decades. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The phrase may be common knowledge in certain circles, but I think it is not as widely spread as you believe it to be. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hardly common knowledge. Where did the phrase come from? Can you cite that? Was it in Hayek's book that you cited (although I cannot imagine Hayek being so crass)?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the [[Fairness Doctrine]] for 50 years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, you are not being censored or oppressed. I have asked you to forthrightly provide your sources, and you have directed us to rational_wiki, where the cites did not support your contention. So, I ask again, what is your evidence for this term? Is it in Hayek or another source?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I beleive I've answered several times. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:27, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, you have not. You have have been asked several times and you respond that the term is common knowledge. Show a little bit of intellectual honesty my friend.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It also survives in oral histories. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wonderful! Many oral histories have been recorded and transcirbed in book or sometimes journal format. Can you cite some?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well duh, what does oral mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Why did you revert my edit and remove my comment? I repeat: many oral histories have transcribed into printed form/ Can you direct me to a few where I might see this term used?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, hit the wrong button (meant to hit mark as patrolled). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The only reference I can find is in the title of a 1948 book, reprinted in 1968. The book is referenced in Hayak's bibliography and a few other places, but I can find no usages of the term itself.previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Boomcoach]]

::'''Doh!''' Forgot the tildes. Sorry. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Where is this found? ==

I can't find any mention of this in the text at the bottom--it is totally unrelated. Can we take this out? Robs gave no answer above. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:30, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:After looking around, I can find no source for this except conservapedia. Now that means either conservapedia is that good, or the whole thing is a <s>lie</s> a fiction. I think it is the latter. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::Like all CP articles, it's a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Yeah, the problem is, it is still not a real thing. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:27, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::::If you could find even ONE source for this, aside from that book that doesn't mention it, we could work together. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:28, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==Can't find it, either==
A Google Books search on [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22new+ordeal%22+roosevelt&btnG=Search+Books "New Ordeal" Roosevelt] turns up thirteen hits, none relevant.

The closest thing to a relevant hit is [http://books.google.com/books?id=DW4eAAAAMAAJ&q=%22new+ordeal%22&dq=%22new+ordeal%22&pgis=1 The New Ordeal by Planning: The Experience of the Forties and the Sixties], by John Jewkes, which is an update to his 1948 book "Ordeal by Planning." A search in this book for "Roosevelt" turns up no hits, nor does a search for "New Deal," meaning that whatever he means by this, it is not a satirical takeoff on "New Deal."

I believe this should be retitled as an essay and "signed" by RobS and co-contributors. It is '''not''' an exposition of a well-established conservative locution (like "Death tax"); I think it's a personal essay and that RobS hopes to ''promote'' the use of an original or at least poorly-known coinage.

If a home-schooled student were asked, as a fill-in-the-blanks exam question, "What name is used to refer to the period of economic decline between the crash of 1929 and the Second World War," do you think he or she would get credit for "New Ordeal?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I concur, thanks for your help and honesty. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Why this kind jokes are kept here?! ==

If this is some kind of encyclopedia, please, delete. Refering to nothing... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:34, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==WP:New Deal==
I think we're having an impact. Look what WP's been doing to its New Deal entry, they expanded the size of the chart. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=next&oldid=135791974] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=134729442&oldid=134669058] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==New Cites==
The two new "citations" have no apparent link to the article, any more than the first one does. The Time magazine article is about US troops coming back from WWII, and the book is part of an autobiography of FRD, and a fairly early colume of it (2 of 4). RobS, it loks like you are just grabbing anything from the 40's or 50's that has the word "Ordeal" in it. You appear to have created an article out of whole cloth. I don't know if this is a term a favorite prof once used, but to pretend that it is of any common usage outside of yourself is comepletely unsubstantiated. It has no place in any sort of encylopedia, unless you can show some relavent citations, not simply things that have a common word. You might as well se a citation about "New York in the 50's" because it has the word "New" init! [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:22, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Please feel free to improve the article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:23, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::It is an article about something that has no apparent existence. There is no evidence that there is anything to write an article about. It is just a name that you appear to have conjured out of thin air. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:46, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Well we can do a redirect from [[Great Bear Market]] to here, but Great Bear Market only goes to 1942, it doesn't include the [[Malthusian catastrophe]] that followed, and the Recovery period. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::This is the only incidence of this term, used in this context, I can find anywhere. Unless there's evidence otherwise, it can only be considered a personal essay. Which is fine, but it can't be allowed in an encyclopedia, surely? [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:::What? this article or trolls trashing it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Neither. You've concocted a clever phrase (do you work as a copywriter?! :-) ), more power to you, but it's just that - you wrote it, and there's no evidence whatsoever anyone other than you uses it. Therefore it can't really be allowed in an Encyclopedia. If there is evidence of its use that we're missing, just go ahead and provide it, and no-one will have the slightest problem with the article. [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, I took your advice above and improved on the article. Thanks for the advice.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 19:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Proposal ==

Since no one other than the author seems to be familiar with the term "New Ordeal", I propose an opening paragraph explaining the coinage of the term, for clarity's sake. Reasonable? Unreasonable?[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 23:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like some guidance on an opening paragraph to explain the origin of New Ordeal. Could you provide an example maybe?[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 00:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::I thought it was quite obvious and to the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:33, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This article's discussion page is locked. It is a somewhat bizarre article. I would humbly ask that if it is stay as a mainspace (non-essay) article, the primary author should, in one or two short sentences, explain the thesis of his piece. As it is, I have no idea what it is about. I certainly don't like the implication that right-wing extremist groups are Christian, but I'm sure I must be misreading that. Thanks.[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 23:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:See the souricing on it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for responding. I did look at the article, the discussion, and the sources, but nothing pointed to a known usage of "New Ordeal". This make me think perhaps it was a creative, clever coinage of yours or of someone you know. It did go thru the citations in great detail. Perhaps this could be explained? [[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 00:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Frankly you have me confused; are you sure you have the right discussion page? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:::How about changing this from a mainspace page to something like Essay: The New Ordeal, because it appears to be just that. It is an essay by RobS about a period to which he has given a cutesy name, either of his own creation, or an obscure reference earlier in life. It reminds me of going to college and using words that had become common in our home, but were euphamisms created by my mother or father. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:37, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This should be an essay and not an article. If you look at the discussion above that RobS had with Franklin, there is no source for the article. It is not of encyclopedic quality and should be removed.--[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 08:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well you need to show some edit history to show you have an interest in this subject or qualified to criticize other than just responding to troll bait right now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Malthusian catastrophe that was World War II"==

One other note: RobS mentions a "Malthusian catastrophe." Could someone explain this?--[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 08:22, 12 June 2007(EDT)

:I was wondering about that myself. It seems to be a suggestion that World War II was caused by world population outstripping resources, and brought back into balance by the war... but a graph of [http://edweb.sdsu.edu/wip/examples/gas2/idnex.htm U. S. population] looks pretty smooth, as does [http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/Contest/Results/2005/TEMIS/Population%20Design_files/image069.jpg world population]. There's a bit of a downward kink in U. S. population around World War II, but it isn't preceded by any obvious upward kink. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:53, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Since the graphs' axes aren't labeled anyway, I think we can go ahead and read into them whatever we wish. [[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 10:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, Rob, for adding more citations. I'll spend some time looking at them to see if they support your assertion. Just remember that just because a document contains the words "new" and "ordeal" does not mean they were used to refer to "The New Deal". Also, if a ref is this obscure that we still haven't settled it over several days, perhaps you should just take full credit where it is due (as you have clearly worked hard on this) and call it an original work.[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Jewkes Book(s)==
The three books you list are the only actual usage of the term "New Ordeal" that I have found. The three books you list are also only one book. It was published in 1948 and reissued in 1968. It is also the book cited in the first citation you give, so you now have 4 cites all referring to a single 1948 book. You are trying hard to show that "New Ordeal" is a term in common parlance, at some point in time, but you are just chasing your tail. A term used in the title of a single book, and never referenced again by that term, hardly constitutes a term worthy of an encyclopedia entry. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:15, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, I'm not familiar with this book, but as nearly as I can tell by references to it, it's about ''post''-World-War-II planning in ''England.'' And as Boomcoach notes, "new" refers to a new ''edition'' of an earlier book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:21, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

*''The New Ordeal by Planning'', John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Which I'm not familiar with, but, as nearly as I can tell, is about ''post'' World War II planning in ''England?'' Or have I got that wrong? Continue at [[Talk:New Ordeal]]... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Also known as "Ordeal by Planning",this essay was about econ planning in the '''UK''', not the U.S., and while, given his arguments, he prob would not have supported the New Deal, he didn't call it the New Ordeal.
::''John Jewkes (1902 - 1988) is best known for his book Ordeal by Planning which he wrote in 1946 in an attempt to show that the wartime planning system, which many people wished to maintain and develop in the post-war world, would condemn the United Kingdom to poverty and failure. If Friedrich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom provided a more celebrated philosophical treatise, it was Jewkes who produced a more down to earth and practically convincing case against central planning.'' http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Jewkes. [[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You have to see Jewkes earlier 1948 book, ''Ordeal by Planning'', and Hayek's 1945 work, ''Road to Serfdom''. It is essentially critique of [[Keynesian]] economic theory. Some of James Burnham's 1941 ''Managerial Revolution'' can also probably fit in here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:22, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:I agree that Jewkes seems to critique Keynesian economics. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the question at hand, namely '''where did the phrase "New Ordeal" come from?'''[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-12T15:13:13Z

Frederick: /* "Malthusian catastrophe that was World War II" */

Leprosy

2007-06-12T15:05:50Z

Frederick: parasites infest, bacteria infect, thanks

'''Leprosy''' is a chronic infectious [[disease]] caused by an infection with the [[bacteria]] ''Mycobacterium leprae''. It is also known as Hansen's disease, named after its creator Gerhard Hansen. Leprosy mainly affects the [[skin]], the peripheral nerves, mucosa of the upper respiratory tract and the [[eye]]s. It can affect all ages and both sexes. Incubation can last anywhere between three months and 40 years, with the average incubation period lasting three to five years. Leprosy is transmitted from one untreated person to another via the respiratory tract or skin. Leprosy is curable and if detected early and treated with a prescribed duration of drug therapy, leprosy will not cause any permanent disability.

Leprosy is one of the world's oldest diseases, tracing back to the ancient civilizations of [[China]], [[Egypt]] and [[India]]. Leprosy was also rampant during the 13th century in [[Europe]]. Historically, it is one of the most stigmatized diseases with a reputation of being highly contagious, disfiguring and incurable. In the past leprosy sufferers were banished to ''[[leper colony|leper colonies]]''. Unfortunately, this practice still exists is some countries today, even though leprosy is now curable and is not considered highly contagious.

Worldwide there are 290,000 leprosy cases being treated as of January 2005, 75 percent arising in nine countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, according to the World Health Organization.<ref>"Doctor says he treated woman with leprosy," The Macon Telegraph (Georgia), June 7, 2007.</ref> Illegal immigration, which does not screen for disease, is significant to the [[United States]] from some of those nations.

"According to Dr. Barbara Stryjdwska, Clinician at the National Hansen’s Disesase Programs in Louisiana, there are only approximately 150 new leprosy cases each year in the United States, and most of these are in immigrants coming from countries where Hansen’s Disease is endemic. In 2002, 96 cases were reported to the [[Center for Disease Control and Prevention]]. The incidence may be greater however, because many patients do not want to be reported because of their immigrant status. Additionally, if patients do not seek or purchase treatment, they are hard to be tracked. ... Because leprosy is such a small problem in the United States, and since 90% of cases are imported (immigrants from countries where leprosy is endemic), there is little reason for a leprosy vaccine to actually be utilized in the United States ...."<ref>http://www.stanford.edu/class/humbio103/ParaSites2006/Leprosy_vaccine/vaccineinus.htm</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Political Profiling

2007-06-12T14:58:20Z

Frederick: Summary

"A internet user's postings under either their real life identity of pseudonym may be "profiled" for their ideological convictions based upon editing patterns, interests, subject matter, common references, or declared beliefs. The profile is then pigeon-holed into predetermined character assessments..."

"James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)"

Is the above related to what you are saying? Because I am not sure I understand your article.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 23:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:Are you alleging Andy has cyberstalked, harrassed, and publicly defamed an individual with guilt by association smears, alleging someone holds partisan, extreme, or racist views that the person in reality does not? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::I make no allegation about Andy cyberstalking. I just have trouble understanding your article. Either it is a bit obscure, or I am dense, or both.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 11:09, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
==More evidence==
*Theis article was create on March 16 2007,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=83432&oldid=42538] [[Christian terrorism]], extracted,
::''Many frequently-cited examples of "Christian terrorism" are more closely tied to racist ideology promoting white supremacy, such as the Ku Klux Klan. Other groups, such as the '''Christian Identity''' movement bridge the gap between racism and religious extremism.

Review the sourcing, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=42538]

Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement University of N. Carolina Press ISBN 978-0807846384

Chip Berlet 2004 http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html
A New Face for Racism & Fascism |work = White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneology Political Research Associates.

This is evidence Conservapedia has been the target of politcal profiling since 16 March. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:13, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Also, the linking of certain off-color articles and topics, through Google search, is yet another form of poisoning the well.--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:24, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
::Im not sure what point Rob is making about Christian Identity, but they are self-avowedly racist. They certainly consider themselves Christian, although it would be easy to argue that their beliefs have little to do with Jesus.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 01:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Throughout history, there are countless men and women who have called themselves Christians, but their actions state otherwise. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
::::The point being made is, the sourcing on this material is cited to [[Chip Berlet]] and [[Political Research Associates]] (PRA)-- the source of many if not most of the defamations cited in this article against specific person and organizations. As to the merits of Christian Identity, I do not intend to discuss it, however, it ''is'' patrently obvious within Wikipedia that Berlet & PRA's intention is to link Rev. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy to racism, Christian Identity, Christian Fascism, or whatever other defamation are effective. Review this for example from WP regareding Dr. Dobson's [[Family Research Council]],
::::*''The Southern Poverty Law Center has linked the Family Research Council to racism'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#Racism_allegations]

::::This '''classic''' language of Mr. Chip Berlet. Laird Wilcox's chapter in Berlet in ''The Watchdogs'', is entitled, ''Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates, A Sutdy in Links and Ties'', pgs. 114 - 131, the link is available at my user page, User:RobS, is RW. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:35, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Summary ==

If you could, read this and let me know if I have it right. Thanks.
So, certain organizations follow the edits of particular individuals on line and record them and establish a pattern. They then use the pattern of that individual's posts to profile them into a certain category, say, neonazi, etc. If the person's edits don't add up to neonazi, they just call them one anyway, making the data collection moot. Or, if they ''do'' add up to neo-nazi,it's bad to tell others because it would smear them? Im just a little lost.[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 10:58, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-12T14:49:47Z

Frederick: /* "Malthusian catastrophe that was World War II" */