Talk:Foundation for Economic Education/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The History Footnoes

The foot notes do not RS cwho found Fee, they just tell where foundlers workd like'of du pont' etc 166.172.63.139 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

Incorrect. Abel (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

" White 2012 "The oldest free-market American think tank is the foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946..."; Skousen 2015 "In his eighties, he continued to lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education in IrvingtononHudson, New York (the oldest freemarket think tank, founded in 1946 by Leonard Read), and ..."; Hazlitt 2006 "The original officers were David M. Goodrich, chairman of the Board (he was then also chairman of the board of the B. F. Goodrich Company); Leonard Read, president; myself, vice-president; Fred R. Fairchild, professor of economics at Yale University, secretary; and Claude Robinson, president of the Opinion Research Institute, treasurer. [The] sixteen [original] trustees ... included H. W. Luhnow, president of William Volker & Company; A. C. Mattei, president of Honolulu Oil Corporation; William A. Paton of the University of Michigan; Charles White, president of the Republic Steel Corporation; Leo Wolman, professor of economics at Columbia; Donaldson Brown, former vice-president of General Motors; Jasper Crane, former vice-president of Du Pont; B. E. Hutchinson, chairman of the finance committee of Chrysler Corporation; Bill Matthews, publisher of the Arizona Star; W. C. Mullendore, president of the Southern California Edison Company."; Dochuk 2010, p. 114 "The job of economic education must be undertaken now while those who appreciate the value of liberty are still in a position to support it."; Schneider 2009, p. 47; Mirowski & Plehwe 2009, p. 387; Backhouse 2005; Backhouse 2009; Kashyap & Wilcox 1993, p. 384; Farrell 2011."Abel (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

there should not be editor's footnotes after every name that do not give source, but just employer names. After thinktank war and hillside, now another one. Better to fix the problem like mr/ms srich32977, not argue. Thankyou. 166.171.184.70 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are saying things that are not true, probably because you do not know where to look. That isn't an argument, that is instruction. Given that I have seen you tell administrators that they are wrong over and over again, I fully realize that my attempt is pointless, I do not see that as absolving the duty to notify. Like how I should tell you that your tinkering with my name in your last edit is also not helpful. Abel (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Accidental damage to your name should be fixed not aacused. Please do not make personal attacks at other users here. Please remove your attacking and please talk footnotes as I state my worry footnotes should not be for comments but should be RS . 107.107.60.250 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I do not think your actions are malicious, just not competent. If you would stop calling everything a personal attack and just learn what you clearly do not know, all of this could be easy, but have it your way.Abel (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk section is to talk about the article, not personal remarks. No more personal remarks here! Zero. Thank you. The foot notes should not have info about employer etc but should give RS. If employers are on topic, they go in the article other-wise not, but not in little footnote remarks. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.62.44 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is just more ignorance that could easily be fixed. No one can use your talk page because you change IP addresses constantly and do not register, leaving this as the only option to communicate with you. Which is not helping as you continue to tell people what they must and must not do when it is abundantly obvious that your expertise is near zero. You are making all this vastly more difficult on everyone. Abel (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Skousen

I put info RE Prof Skousen2001-2002 but it was removed with no reason explained so I will put more info back with Ref's and link to RS. Please do not war this, and explain if anybody does not want this then why or fix problems. Thank you. 107.107.63.251 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"See talk." does not equal "no reason." It means "see talk," as in this has been discussed before and yet again you are ignoring talk page consensus. Abel (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk has said a good RS is needed so I have put 3 refs a book an Prof'sown words,etc. Therefore you are mistaken. The senior editor who Ok'd my protected edit has verified. So Abel4, please reverse that delete of my good rs information. Thank you. @JayJasper: please help 107.107.61.138 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC).

Your lone opinion is not a consensus. Post it here, wait for people to agree with your option, poof -- new consensus. Abel (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Poof! I agree with Abel. New consensus established. – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, I do not understand this. Srich32977 is the RS no good or what is the poof meaning. Thank you. If there is a consensus to delete, can you say why and what is the consensus saying? Thank you. 107.107.61.47 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You do understand. The consensus was to delete, which you already know, "The talk has said a good RS is needed." To change the consensus from delete to include: 1. post your idea for what you think the new version should be here on the talk page, 2. wait for people to agree with your option, 3. once you have a new consensus then, and only then, edit the article according to the new consensus. Abel (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be polite. User Abel4 stated'consensus' -before- Srich32977 spoke. But when i looked it up the only talk previous said 'use RS refs' so I found 3 good refs and so what you have stated is not true therefor I ask mr/ms Srich32977 to state what consensus and anyway why take away Prof.s own info with others backin up tthe same?? @H.dryad: @JayJasper: 107.107.61.61 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC).

Again, stop with the victim olympics, nothing in that comment was anything but polite. What was "and anyway why take away Prof.s own info with others backin up tthe same" supposed to mean? Abel (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Foundation for Economic Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2048&Itemid=245
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://medicaltuesday.net/archives/Dec0704.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/127.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar

Some of your disruptive editing seems likely due to a limited grasp of the language. The article English grammar may be a good place to start. Abel (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Think Tank # 47 per RS

Editor Abel has put 'fee is 47 of 60' with footnote citation. Then abel remove many times from intro section that Fee is a thin tank. Then he says the footnote does not rank Fee #47 and takes it outagain. This is called 'edit war' and is not allowed here. I checked and I think Abel4 put the wrong page number for his RS but I found #47 on page 71 or 74 i forget which, so heshould fix his pagemistake, not erase importantinfo. THANK YOU. 107.107.58.176 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

For those not willing to dig though all the edits to confirm that none of that nonsense is true: the McGann ranking was added by S. Rich. In no way does the McGann ranking list the Foundation for Economic Education as the 47th largest think tank within the United States. I happen to be only one of several editors who have reverted some of the many disruptive edits by the anonymous editor who has probably used 166.172.60.242, 107.107.58.110, 107.107.62.140, 107.107.56.247, 166.171.186.247, 107.107.60.42, 107.107.60.65, 107.107.61.236, 166.171.186.88, 107.107.63.201, and 107.107.59.153 often in rapid succession. Abel (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) The table on page 75 of the Rs footnote says fee is #47 think tank. Not p 171 like Abel's footnote. It is p 75. Here is the Rs 'McGann, James (2015-03-01). 2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. University of Pennsylvania. p. 171' when user abel put 'think tank' he also put the Rs footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.58.176 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally user 4abel put think tank in the intro but witth personal opinion 'spin'that FEE doesn't call itself 'thinktank' (Personal attack removed) Thank you. 107.107.58.176 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Now think tank was erased again. It should still be put back becuase the RS still says think tank in this article 2 times. 107.107.58.84 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Think Tank

The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article. The think tank mention in the lead is longer than the think tank mention in the body.

Lead:

University of Pennsylvania researcher James McGann ranked it as 47th among the top 60 think tanks in America according to his 2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report.

Body:

According to the 2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report FEE is number 47 out of 60 in the "Top Think Tanks in the United States".

This is the opposite of what the lead is supposed to be doing. By all means leave the phrase think tank in, but how this is currently accomplished is completely wrong. Abel (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes made. Better? – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

very good, end of warfare! Thankyou.166.172.63.139 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Much.Abel (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Took care of the citation. Abel (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Now think tank was erased again. It should still be put back becuase the RS still says think tank in this article 2 times. 107.107.58.84 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Think tank was agreed to go in the Intro section but now it is removed again. The RS say thinktank in the article so it should not be erased from Intro. 166.172.60.19 (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, you are more than welcome to make such a change back to the previous text. Abel (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

my tablet is not showing the editin tab today so I ask your help please to do the thinktank edit as agreed.107.107.63.116 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Exact quotes

Removing the quotation marks from an exact quote creates plagiarism. I am sure that this was unintentional. Abel (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Controversy & Wiki Guidelines

Wiki Guidelines say that any controversy should be mentioned in the intro (lead) section. None is even suggested, throughout the entire article. As if they educate on tooth brushing. Yet the Foundation is highly controversial.

For example, a quick look at the Net yields this observation from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education:

...Like most libertarian think tanks, they occasionally run interesting articles on civil liberties[1] and influential libertarian thinkers and philosophers, but churn out the usual tripe about anti-environmentalism (e.g., DDT is awesome, global warming is a vast scientific-environmentalist-socialist conspiracy[2][3]) and how we ought to be freed from the tyranny of regulatory agencies like the FDA.[4]

I don't think all of those controversies are contained under the rubric of "Libertarian think tank." I saw no mention of the John Birch Society connection, long list. Given the mountain of criticism out there, these omissions look like bias or filtering.

The article also needs to explain which of the many libertarian flavors or ideologies it is talking about. And what flavor of think tank? It seems to talk around, not about, the subjects—that's plain bad writing.

The Guidelines make clear that "encyclopedic style" does not mean dry, boring pablum. Nor "one-sided, candy-coated."
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F406:BF51:D457:39EE (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Where is the policy/guideline that says that any controversy should be mentioned in the lead? The every article on a prominent or large scale topic would have hundreds of controversies listed in the lead. Most of which aren't even mentioned in the body of the article much less the lead. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Conservative" labeling

Describing the organization as conservative requires a reliable source that directly supports that. Listing a series of books about conservatism, without a page number or a quote does not satisfy the requirement of WP:V that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material" Inf-in MD (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have added the page numbers. Llll5032 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

thank you. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability of The Leonard E. Read Distinguished Alumni Award?

Has any third party noted The Leonard E. Read Distinguished Alumni Award? There's a whole section here and it's just primary sourced. I can't find any independent third-party RS coverage of it - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Three points: 1. WP:NOTEWORTHY (not WP:notability) is the editing guideline. 2. Primary sources are acceptable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. 3. It was easy to find LP.Org. – S. Rich (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

So, there isn't any independent third-party RS coverage of it? 'Cos it looks way too WP:BROCHURE-like in its present form - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that the current section is fine / useful/ appropriate for the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Srich and North8000, I think the current section reads well and is appropriately sourced. Squatch347 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Much of this article has been scrubbed and polished, possibly reflecting inordinate interest in this rather obscure institution by graduates of its youth programs. This "award" does not appear to have any significance except within the circle of those affiliated with FEE. Such honors are common among nonprofits as a fundraising and alumni awareness device. The effect of such content is, paradoxically, to diminish the presentation of FEE as an institution by making this page read more like a fan club narrative. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am shortening this to remove some WP:PUFF. Llll5032 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good edit. I updated it slightly to add the "demonstrated" language to include that it is a performance based award as I read it. Squatch347 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's 'information about a program/award of the institution. It includes the criteria for the award. I don't want to single out aspects of contributions to this discussion, but it's not about the 4-6 actual and conjectured other things and objectives mentioned in this discussion.

One note.....if one reads it without understanding that includes info about the criteria of award itself, then it could sound brochure-like in the voice of Wikipedia. A tweak to reinforce / clarify it might be good.North8000 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying one point (and problem with the section title) already indirectly made, wp:notability is a criteria for existence of a separate article on the topic, not a criteria for existence of material within the article. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We all know that. Nobody has applied or argued from the WP:Notability criterion. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's in the section title.North8000 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)