Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Pennsylvania

2007-06-12T13:13:32Z

Oldring: New page: I restored some of what the previous poster entered here (as well as sdding a few changes of my own). I am preplexed as to why his or her edits were reverted. They were factual and by no s...

I restored some of what the previous poster entered here (as well as sdding a few changes of my own). I am preplexed as to why his or her edits were reverted. They were factual and by no strech of the imagination could they be considered offensive. --[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 09:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Pennsylvania

2007-06-12T13:10:55Z

Oldring:

[[Image:Pennsylvania_State_Flag.gif|thumb|right|The state flag of Pennsylvania.]]

'''Pennsylvania''' was one of the original thirteen colonies. It was founded by [[William Penn]],who wanted a place where Quakers and other denominations could worship freely without persecution (being a Quaker was illegal in England at the time. Pennsylvania is now a US state. Its capital is [[Harrisburg]] and it borders Ohio, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and West Virginia. Its first Colonial Legislative Act, the Great Law of Pennsylvania, December 7, 1682, mandated: "That no person ... who shall confess and acknowledge one Almighty God
to be the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World ... shall in any case be molested or prejudiced for his, or her Conscientious persuasion or practice."

The [[Continental Congress]] met in Philadelphia, the largest city in Pennsylvania, and at the time, the largest city in any of the colonies. The [[Declaration of Independence]] was signed there, the [[Liberty Bell]] is there, and the [[Continental Army]] spent the winter of 1777 at Valley Forge in Pennsylvania. The [[American Constitution]] was written in [[Philadelphia]], and the United States Capitol was once there. Pennsylvania was the 2nd State to join [[United States of America|the Union]] on December 12, 1787.

[[Benjamin Franklin]] helped write Pennsylvania's 1776 Constitution. In Frame of Government, Chapter 2, Section 10, it states: "Each member of the legislature, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration: 'I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.'"

==Miscellaneous==

Pennsylvania is known as the "Keystone State".

==Sports==

Pennsylvania is home to the [[NBA]]'s Philadelphia 76ers, the NHL's Philadelphia Flyers and Pittsburgh Penguins, Major League Baseball's Philadelphia Phillies and Pittsburgh Pirates, and the [[NFL]]'s Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles. Additionally, Pennsylvania State University is a traditional college football powerhouse, and Villanova University has had great success in college basketball as of late.

[[Category:US state]]

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-12T12:22:42Z

Oldring: /* Proposal */

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.<small>previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Boomcoach]]</small>

::'''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 <i>slightest</i> 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)

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

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-12T12:19:33Z

Oldring: