Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: New Ordeal"

Revision as of 15:24, June 12, 2007

Who coined the term "New Ordeal?"--Franklin 10:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It's common knowledge. Who coined the term, "Contract on Amercia"? 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--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? --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? Boomcoach 11:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Rational_wiki has some discussion of this likewise. 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.--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? 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. --Colest 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It's been common knowledge for decades. 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. --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)?--Franklin 11:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the Fairness Doctrine for 50 years. 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?--Franklin 12:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I beleive I've answered several times. 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.--Franklin 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It also survives in oral histories. 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?--Franklin 12:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well duh, what does oral mean? 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?--Franklin 12:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, hit the wrong button (meant to hit mark as patrolled). 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. 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. 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 lie a fiction. I think it is the latter. FredK 15:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Like all CP articles, it's a work in progress. RobS 16:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, the problem is, it is still not a real thing. 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. FredK 16:28, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Can't find it, either

A Google Books search on "New Ordeal" Roosevelt turns up thirteen hits, none relevant.

The closest thing to a relevant hit is 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?" Dpbsmith 16:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I concur, thanks for your help and honesty. 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... --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. [1] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [2] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. 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! Boomcoach 17:22, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Please feel free to improve the article. 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. 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. 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? DoggedPersistence 18:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

What? this article or trolls trashing it? 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. DoggedPersistence 18:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I took your advice above and improved on the article. Thanks for the advice.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?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?PaulP 00:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was quite obvious and to the point. 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.PaulP 23:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

See the souricing on it. 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? PaulP 00:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Frankly you have me confused; are you sure you have the right discussion page? 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. 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.--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. 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?--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 U. S. population looks pretty smooth, as does 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. 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. 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.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. 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. Dpbsmith 11:21, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

• The New Ordeal by Planning, John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. 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... 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. 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. 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?Frederick 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)