Talk:Foundation for Economic Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Good article Foundation for Economic Education has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 21, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
January 30, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Organizations (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Foundation for Economic Education is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



Need help with the logic puzzle that is the history of FEE presidents. With citations would be great, but even without citations would be helpful.Abel (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

*1946-1983 = Leonard Read[1][2][3][4]
  1. ^ a b Sennholz, Mary (1993-05-01). Leonard E. Read, Philosopher of Freedom. Foundation for Economic Education, Incorporated. ISBN 9780910614856. 
  2. ^ Phillips-Fein, Kim (2009). Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 356. ISBN 978-0-393-05930-4. 
  3. ^ Olson, Wayne (Sep 28, 2009). An Inside Look at the Foundation for Economic Education FEE. Interview with Pete Eyre. Motorhome Diaires. Irvington, New York. 
  4. ^ Williams, Robert H; Miner, H Craig (1996). Joyful Trek: A Texan's Times and Travels. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-89672-356-6. 
  5. ^ a b c d Reed, Lawrence (October 07, 2012), RE: The FEE presidents (E-mail)  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Wilcox, Derk Arend (2000). The Right Guide: A Guide to Conservative, Free-Market, and Right-of-Center Organizations. Ann Arbor, MI: Economics America, Inc. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-914169-06-2. 
  7. ^ Boudreaux, Donald (October 13, 2011). "A Devalued Renminbi Makes Wealthier Americans". Debate Club (New York: U.S.News & World Report). Retrieved 2 November 2011. 
  8. ^ Huebert, J. H. (2002-07-09). "A Great Institution in Freefall". Jacob Huebert. 
  9. ^ Huebert, J. H. (2002-07-22). "A Great Institution in Freefall Seeks Quantity, Not Quality". Jacob Huebert. 
  10. ^ Skousen, Mark (2002-07-09), Re J. H. Huebert's diatribe on FEE. 
  11. ^ Shierman, Eric (October 6, 2011). "Keynesian failure: Stimulus package a national tragedy". Oregon Catalyst (Tigard, Oregon). Retrieved November 2, 2011.  More than one of |work= and |newspaper= specified (help)
  12. ^ Hursh, David (2004). "Undermining Democratic Education in the USA: the consequences of global capitalism and neo-liberal policies for education policies at the local, state and federal levels". Policy Futures in Education 2 (3 & 4): 607–620. doi:10.2304/pfie.2004.2.3.13. Retrieved 2 November 2011. 
  13. ^ Ebeling, Richard (2009-07-12). Dr. Richard Ebeling Explains Free-Market Economics, Why to Bet Against the Dollar and Own Gold. (Interview). 
  14. ^ Foley, Ridgway K. (December 1971). "Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law". Willamette Law Journal 7 (3): 396–418. Retrieved 2 November 2011. 

Removing all commons licensed images[edit]

Deleting every commons licensed image from this article depicting what the organization does, taken not by the organization but by an event participant, and not used on their copyright protected website but given freely, because the photos are supposedly "inconsistent with other articles--this looks like something you'd find on the organization's website to promote their seminars" is the thinest of excuses and completely disrespectful to the goals of Wikipedia. Abel (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the point was poorly made, but images do need to add something to the article. Two of the four pictures currently present are at least reasonable: a guest speaker with a wikilinked article, and a depiction of the interior of the foundation's physical space. The images of people sitting and playing ball don't contribute much information and do give the sense of a promotional brochure, in part because they're being used to pad some overlong prose. - toh (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The faculty panel image illustrates the interactive academic nature of the seminars while the seminar leisure activity photograph shows how the seminars are not completely made up of only academic activities. Some people are visual learners and get more out of a picture than those who prefer text, to each their own. Good articles are illustrated by images that are tagged with their copyright status, are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All of the commons licensed images currently included in the article meet all of those criteria. --Abel (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles I have seen in wikipedia[edit]

1. It has extensive footnotes and references, none of which have anything to do with the sentence being footnoted.
2. The article is nothing more than a brochure of the company that it is about.

--H.E. Hall (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest editing the article. Wikipedia works, and is constantly improving, because of editors like yourself who notice areas for improvement and dig in and fix them. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A big thank you to S. Rich for tagging the citations without URLs. Apparently the tool that I used to reformat citations into Wikipedia code cuts URLs from certain types of citations. Thanks to those vague tags I was able to easily find the citations with the missing URLs and manually paste in those links. --Abel (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article?[edit]

I'd rather not engage in the GA review for 2 reasons: 1. I've done some of the editing on it; and 2. I need to readup on the GA process and figure out how it works. That said, I do not think it meets GA standards. I must agree with H.E. Hall on one point, the footnotes don't directly support the material in the article. Take, for example, the "Evenings at FEE" section. There are footnotes for the various authors, but those footnotes pertain to the authors themselves, not about the fact that the lectures are about the authors. (I saw a similar problem with the "Seminars" section and have attempted a fix.) So I recommend that Abel withdraw the GAN and re-work the article. --S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If I withdraw the nomination, how will I find out where all the flaws that need fixing are? "The article is nothing more than a brochure of the company that it is about" did not tell me anything useful, the article isn't even about a company. A good article review would give me specifics that I could do something with. --Abel (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Off topic[edit]

This is a big section in the article, but goes into details that have nothing to do with FEE. One of the GA criteria is that the article remained focused. To illustrate, Human Rights Foundation has an office in the Empire State Building -- but the article about HRF does not and should not include a history about the ESB. --S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be because the Empire State Building already has its own article? At some point this isn't going to matter as I understand that the headquarters will eventually move away from this property as it is just too expensive to maintain. --Abel (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The main point is regarding the off-topic nature of the section. The ESB is notable enough to have its own article. The FEE HQ building may be notable in its own regard. Whether or not the FEE HQ building is notable or non-notable is not the issue. The focus of the article is the important question.--S. Rich (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'll just move it, with some editing, into Irvington village's points of interest article and cut it from this article.--Abel (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Moving, and thereby saving, your hard work in this regard is an excellent idea! --S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


FEE seminar leisure activity

The image Fee.seminar.leisure.activity.jpg shows how the seminars are not completely made up of only academic activities. Some people are visual learners and get more out of a picture than those who prefer text, to each their own. Good articles are illustrated by images that are tagged with their copyright status, are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. This commons licensed image meets all of that criteria.--Abel (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only is the image itself blurry and vague, but its relevance is even more so. The facts that lectures at a FEE seminar are not occurring 24 hours a day and that while they're not occurring students may interact with one another (a pair of fairly insignificant points anyway) do not require a photo to illustrate. I think the section looks cluttered and confusing with this image. -SeiADP (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Confusing? A photograph of people that are actively participating in the program discussed confuses you? I don't know what to tell you about that. --Abel (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, that would be hard to respond to. Fortunately for your ease in responding, it's the layout that I find cluttered and confusing. Additionally, as the bulk of what was written addresses, this already insignificant fact needs no illustration, especially one of this quality. -SeiADP (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. All the images are now aligned on the right so that the layout will no longer be confusing. --Abel (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foundation for Economic Education/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is GA review #1

I have selected this article to review because it is the one waiting the longest for a GA review, and because I have a small amount of expertise in the area which is the focus of the foundation. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Two of the images (non-free, the foundation logo and the cover of the Freeman) need fair use rationales for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

How would an editor add such a thing, and where should it be added? --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Even though it relates to this article, it is done at the image file itself. Here's an example [1]. BTW, of the 5 images in the article, 3 are considered "free" images and do not need this. So I only noted the other 2 which are "non-free". North8000 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Both images have a "Non-free media information and use rationale."Abel (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Cool! Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One of my first impressions is that while, at first glance, it appears to be heavily referenced, after spending about 15 minutes attempting to follow references in about 5 places, I wasn't able to find specific verification of anything. For example, after the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead, there are 7 cites. The first 3 of them point to 3 references that list 35 page numbers and then to next 4 go to either entire website sections or entire documents. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Must an editor repeat an entire reference and change the page number for each reference or is there a way to use different page numbers with ref names --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a way to to do what you say, but that is not where I'd suggest starting on the issue which I noted. The intent of cites / sourcing is to make it so a reader can verify the material which cited it. I'd recommend, for each location where there is a string of cite marks to pick one source which clearly confirms what was just said, and get rid of the rest of the cites in that string. In some places you can keep 2 or 3 (particularly when that will avoid eliminating a reference, which you don't want to do) but I would never go beyond three, and certainly not 7. Also, when you are doing this, if you find a specific page number which specifically supports something which cited it, write that down for yourself as it may come in handy later. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Example on references[edit]

While I changed it a little to start the fix, lets take the first sentence as an example. Before I tweaked it it said: "Established in 1946 to study and advance classical liberalism, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest free-market organization in the United States". This contains three main statements

  1. Established in 1946
  2. to study and advance classical liberalism
  3. is the oldest free-market organization in the United States The only one of the three which is a strong claim that might be challenged.

Now lets say somebody wants to look at the cites to confirm this. An analogy I use is if you ask the question "can you give me them name of a good barber" and instead of answering you, they unload a dump truck load of phone books onto your front lawn and say "it's all there" . While it may look like they gave you more "information" than you asked for, defining "information" being an answer to your question, they have given you zero information. The same situation is sort of present with the cites/references in this article. For the above sentence the article gives SEVEN references; let's put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is trying to follow the cites to verify the statements (using the numbers as of today, 11/28/12)

  • #2 This points to one place. Has some other problems (indirect, goes to wayback machine which goes to a previous listing of them in a directory which just quoted their mission statement, and regarding the mission it conflicts with rather than confirming the original mission- which I subsequently fixed) but with respect to the "overload" issue, it is OK
  • #3 This says to go look at 15 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 14 of those will be dead ends.
  • #10 This says to go look at 6 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 5 of those will be dead ends.
  • #11 This just says to go look at an entire book
  • #4 This says to go look at 7 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 6 of those will be dead ends.
  • #12 This just says to go look at an entire book
  • #5 This says to go look at 14 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 13 of those will be dead ends.

No one thing above (including the multi-page references) is absolutely wrong, but the overall "sum" of all of things is not so good. And there is no one "right" solution. But if you would just find 1 or 2 specific places that support what is in that sentence, and cite those, and get rid of the rest I think that would be a good simple way forward. I suspect that if this practice is used in the article, cutting down those large chains of cite numbers, that the issue of having a large amount of pages on each reference will also automatically get reduced. But, if not, or if you prefer a different approach, there IS a way to cite individual pages without having to repeat all of the reference information. An example of doing this on a large scale is at SS Edmund Fitzgerald. An example of doing this on a small scale / "mixed" basis (just on one reference, the Donaldson reference) is at Folk music. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If I understand it, I need to collect copies of all the existing refences as a bulleted list between ==References== {{Refbegin|30em}} and {{refend}} with ==Notes== {{reflist|20em}} just above that. Then change all the existing citations to {{sfn|author|date|p=???}}. Yes? This will allow people to cite a specific page for a specific claim without duplicating entire citations then changing only page numbers. Do I have the syntax right? Abel (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
First to clarify, as a reviewer, I'm just saying that we need a little more focus (vs. the non-specific "truckload") on sourcing that actually verifies what cited it. Beyond that everything is just ideas and suggestions. I not fluent enough to just give the quick definitive answers on syntax etc, but I am fluent enough to help / and work through it with you and would be happy to do so. But I don't have all of those sources in order to know which page supports which statement/cite. Are you able to help in that area? If so, I'd say let's start and I'd be happy to take the first step. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and make those changes. I guarantee that if they are not quite right, someone will very soon chime in with a disparaging comment. Abel (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The article started out with exact page references, but with reusable ref links having the limitation of not allowing anything other than just adding page numbers to the one reference as new pages of the same source were needed, those original references are now drowning in page numbers. Now that the massive work of changing from cite to sfn is complete, each use of the same reference can involve a different page number for the same source. I put page=000 in the code so anyone can easily just change the page numbers for each sfn citation. If you look in the references first, the pages are all there. Just need to find which pages go with which claims. --Abel (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not fluent enough to critique the "2-stage" referencing details....I thought that there would be only one cite to each of the ones in the first section, but again, I have just done a few and am not fluent on it or the norms. I think that one thing that will simplify this task is in many places there are way too many cites. (too many cites, not too many references) In places where one sentence has like 8 cites after it once we find one or two specific ones we can delete the other 6 or 7 (as long as that doesn't delete or orphan a reference. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Review item[edit]

I find the coverage of the topic to be rather spotty. A look at the outline for the article is a good indicator:

1 History

2 Programs

2.1 Seminars

2.2 Evenings at FEE

2.3 Publications

And "History" really doesn't cover the history....just a bit on the founding and and going through who key subsequent people are. (That's just a very inaccurate summary of mine)

There is a good reason for this. Almost all sources that talk about the organization focus on the early years. Probably because of the fame of the founders. Current activities are covered some. Hopefully, the middle years are buried somewhere that I just have not yet been able to find. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So one thought is "where are the other missing sections?"

The first paragraph of the lead seems like a brief summary of a missing section.

Sorry about that. Moved the section about the headquarters to Hillside (1889) on the advice of another editor, then forgot to remove that from the lead. --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that I was indirect / unclear. I was actually implying that it would be good to add a section on what is summarized in the lead, not deleting what is in the lead. This is not hard-and-fast, just a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I thought the lead was supposed to be a summary of everything else. Maybe just add some of the lead stuff into history? Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. If you have something that is in the lead which is not in the article, "copying" that material to somewhere in the body is a good start on a fix. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Take us a bit more through its history and evolution. Also, it is a facility? One can't tell from reading the article.

It is an organization. This organization has a long history at a historic location, but that is about to change. The change has been in the works for quite some time, but this will still be emotional for supporters when it becomes final. Think that it is mostly a done deal, but expect more stir once it actually becomes fact and not just a plan pending approval. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, now you have told ME those things, but you still haven't told the readers those things. Should be in the article, at lease the wp:verifiable stuff should be in the article. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point, I'll see what I can find. --Abel (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There used to be an entire section on the historic location of the organization's headquarters, Hillside. Someone said that having it here would violate the Good Article criteria that the article "remain focused." So I moved it, after editing, to Hillside, a point of interest within Irvington, New York, where the structure is located. Abel (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I read the talk page comments but didn't go back to analyze what was in the article then. Possibly it went too deep in? But getting some basics in there (saying that they are at a facility, and what happens there (are the seminars there etc.?) is not too far afield. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that this article is going to need a lot of work to become a Good Article. It's a great topic and I'd be happy to help some. If there are folks actively involved I'd be happy to make some more specific suggestions and also help implement them, at least the type of help that doesn't take a lot of outside research. Maybe we could get through all of that work during this GA review cycle. Are there involved folks who are up for this effort. ? Again, I'd be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Reviewer.

That was exactly the thinking behind the Good Article nomination. To find the specifics that I am unaware of so that I and others can help improve the article beyond just what little I currently know. --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I'd be happy to work with you on this. There's a lot to answer......some answers will be brief at first and then I'll expand them later. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Any and all help is greatly appreciated. You should see what it used to look like . :) Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I may be a bit more experienced but I'm not perfect. When I edit, I'm working as an editor, not a reviewer. Feel free to revert, disagree, etc.. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Will be happy to disagree with you at some point. So far, I cannot find any reason to disagree. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


As indicated, I'd be happy to help on the article to a certain extent. Based on that "extent" this is going to need the involvement of a person who is willing and able to access and dig into those sources which have been cited a large number of times. I think that me and that person together could untangle the sourcing issues here. But without that I don't seeing this getting to where I could pass it. Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources? North8000 (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Going once on this open question.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article started out with exact page references, but with reusable ref links having the limitation of not allowing anything other than just adding page numbers to the one reference as new pages of the same source were needed, those original references are now drowning in page numbers. Now that the massive work of changing from cite to sfn is complete, each use of the same reference can involve a different page number for the same source. I put page=000 in the code so anyone can easily just change the page numbers for each sfn citation. If you look in the references first, the pages are all there. Just need to find which pages go with which claims.Abel (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice work. I don't have access to the sources, but I'll look in history..if I can find which page number they added for which cite and see if I can help. Just reiterating, this is more than I asked for for GA but this harder route there I think will help the article more in the long run. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Just info to keep organized, I am reviewing a block of edits (August 2012) to look for this type of information. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and I agree. All that work was not remotely required for a good article, but will likely make a future featured article status far easier so better in the long run. Wish I had known about sfn in the beginning, would have used that from the start. Like I said, all the pages are in the history. Anyone can go through and find where new claims were added and new page numbers were added to the existing citations to support the new claims. Or just look in the sources themselves. Either way, it will take some doing, but it is now possible thanks to the sfn conversion. When all this is complete, the citations will be bulletproof so it will be worth the effort. I've started on some and you have found others so it is really now just a matter of time before they are all exact. Abel (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

GA criteria[edit]


Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Could meet this criteria now. Has 5 images, and the two non-free ones now have rationales. But it would be nice to have a picture of their facility/hq. Is that feasible? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There are many, but every one that I have seen was not freely available. Abel (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Found a freely available image. --Abel (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you going to put it in? Need any help? North8000 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I will definitely find a way to bring back everything that I removed to accommodate the comments of another editor. The conversion to {{sfn}} citations turned out to be a ridiculous amount of work. Abel (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. My comment was respect to addition of the image. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
As was my comment. The image alone would just get deleted as something that is out of place. Abel (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Either way, lack of the image would certainly not keep the article from passing. But I'm not sure what would lead you to say that. An image of their building would not be out of place. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, you have not seen how many times people have attempted to wholesale delete every image in the article. There were times when people deleted images and left edit comments that made it sound like they were just correcting a typographical error. Abel (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
What they did doesn't sound right. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


It has been two weeks since there has been any action on this review, either here or editing on the article. Is work going to resume soon? If the article still has a significant amount of work remaining to achieve a GA level, perhaps it should be concluded; the review is over seven weeks old at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer. IMHO the work needed to get this to the point of passing is of a type that immensely slow/difficult/inefficient (e.g. like mowing a lawn with scissors) unless it is handled by a person with the references in hand. I had planned to try but as someone not having the references in hand now I'm thinking not. There doesn't appear to be a person with the references in hand to do this. If so, please say so soon. Otherwise I think that I'll need to non-pass this. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The writer hasn't edited in two weeks so that may be best. Wizardman 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Collected the exact page references of each citation, and added the references to each citation as I went. Was later told that I had to split them all apart using sfn citations, so I did. Now all that work is pointless because I am not fast enough at finishing off the mountains of work required? Maybe I can crank out a little blood along with the sweat and tears. --Abel (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend reading carefully what I wrote as I think that you misunderstood in several areas. But if you could just answer my one question that I asked: "Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources?" I think that that is the most important "next step question" at this point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
There is someone willing. Me. However, I need time to do all this. --Abel (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have access to some of the sources...particularly the heavily used ones? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
All of the pages numbers were added with each new claim so it is all in the article history. It might be faster to go to the sources, which is what I did the first time, and can certainly do again.Abel (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's take an example. This is regarding what is now the first large strings of cites, which are those which follow "or feature one prominent speaker for the Evenings at FEE series...." Could you find a one page in one of those references which supports that sentence, and put it in? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that I need to clarify the situation here; whether or not we have a route forward that could move this forward quickly enough to be handled while the current review is open. I think that I will use the question that I just asked to clarify that. So, in short, if we can't get that ONE item handled quickly, I'm going to close this as "non-pass" after which the article could get fixed up at a more comfortable pace and re-submitted later. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Edited North8000 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am sadly forced to non-pass this article at this time. I say "sadly" for a multitude of reasons. Able has done a lot of work on it, albeit while "missing the point" on what I have been asking for since November 28th. This is a very interesting and worthwhile topic; I was willing to substantially help here as well, but was stymied by the fact that nobody was doing the part that I am not able to do, which is finding specific support for "cited" statements in the off-line references used (and the heavily used ones are all off-line). I have been asking for this many times since November 28th, and not a single one has been produced. This means that I see no route to getting this fixed within the time frame of a GA review, doubly so for one which I started the review on last November. Abel, you are to be congratulated and thanked for your efforts here. If there is a way that I can help at the article via working on it or providing feedback, or an expedited review after it's fixed up, please ping me....I'd be happy to. I'd love to see this article get fixed up and then be resubmitted for and pass as a Wikipedia Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to make the changes that you asked for. In fact, I was in the middle of doing just that when someone deleted the citations that I was about to add the page numbers that you asked for. I had set up the article to have page=000 for all the instances that you wanted a specific page number to support that specific citation. This way I could just change 000 to the actual page number, problem solved. Then someone up and deleted most of them. Kind of had to make the changes you asked for with people removing the code that was about to become just the thing you requested. Abel (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
There is much confusion here. I believe that the edit that you are referring to (deleting cites) was by me, which was a baby step towards resolving the problems. To skip the long story and simplify, I have just reversed/reverted/undid that edit of mine, which restores the cites. I would recomment that further discussion occur at the article talk page rathr than the review page. This can be confusing, since the review page is transcluded onto the talk page. I will add a new "Additional discussion" section to the article talk page to clarify/provide a place for this. Let me know how I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
All 15 Phillips-Fein citations now have page numbers.--Abel (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Plehwe 2006 citations now have page numbers. Abel (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

End of Good Article Review #1

Deleted Citations[edit]

By deleting citations that do not yet have page numbers due to the conversion to sfn code (which are in the history because of the limitations of the cite code hence the arduous conversion to sfn code) you have deleted a host of prefectly valid citations. Webpages and such do not have page numbers. --Abel (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to anything that I did, please feel VERY free to revert me; in fact I encourage you to do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed Good Article Review[edit]

Place additional discussion here. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unclear on what this section means. Additional discussion to old topics ought to go into original section. Do you mean new topics? If so, please feel free to retitle this sections and remove my query.--S. Rich (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it was a followup to a note on the review page where I recommended that further discussion be done on the article's talk page, not the closed review page. And I recognized that the transclusion could make less-familiar folks accidentally edit on the review page while thinking that they were editing on the article talk page. So I just added the section to help clarify.....feel free to delete. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Have completed some of the page number adding that you wanted. I guess now I add the page numbers for the last eight of the 59 citations then wait another year for the next good article nomination to get a review? --Abel (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Make that six citations. Two of the citations had page numbers already sitting in the reference for each. Didn't even have to look anything up. --Abel (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
If you renominate it I'd be happy to pick up for review quickly, but I wouldn't want to do that if it looked like I'd have to non-pass it again. So one idea is to have me give it a look when you think it's done. If it looks good, then you'd renominate it and tell me and I'd pick it up quickly for a review. That's just one idea, if you like it. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Then I will finish off the pages numbers and message you before I nominate it again. --Abel (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ready for review?[edit]

IMHO I don't seen anything that should prevent GA passage. There is one thing that is very unusual...the very large number of cites for certain sentences. My advice would be to reduce those a bit, but IMHO this should not prevent passage. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Looked through good article criteria and found where it says that good articles needs in-line citations for statements that are likely to be challenged. I do keep running into editors with an obsession for deleting citations for "readability." In academic writing there is no such thing as too much support for a claim. Maybe I just do not understand. Found an essay about citation overkill, but it explicitly states that it is purely opinion and not a policy or guideline.--Abel (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing that "readability" was a vague term for the issues that you just fixed. And yes, that essay which said
"A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should be avoided as clutter."
is ONLY an opinion. This article has strings of up to 7 cites, and several 6's. Maybe a "middle of the road" idea of reducing larger bundles to 4? Again, I don't consider this to be a GA passage issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominated. Please start the review process. --Abel (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Their facility?[edit]

What do you think about putting a few sentence in about their location/ facility and their association with it? (even thou I know that you said that that may change) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Am now working on this very tall order. Not much written about Irvington, New York outside of how Tarrytown stole Washington Irving's Sunnyside estate by changing a border, making the name Irvington ironic. --Abel (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of something very simple / brief / simple like 2 sentences, something like this. " Their headquarters has been located at the xxxxx building on xxxx avenue in xxxx since 19XX. Some of their classroom and xxxx type programs are run at that facility." North8000 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Easier said than done. Well, easy to do, but would instantly get deleted without a citation, which is the difficult part. --Abel (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that you are seeing ghosts with the "instantly deleted" stuff.  :-) But I would think that a couple of basic sentences (not necessarily along the lines of what I wrote) should be not be tough to source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If finding a reliable source for that was easy, someone would have done it already. --Abel (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ask and you shall receive.--Abel (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool! A bit more detail than I had in mind but that's cool. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This is GA review #2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foundation for Economic Education/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review on this article. I non-passed it on its first nomination; primary editor is agreeable to this. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Review comments[edit]

GA criteria final checklist[edit]


Meets this criteria. Is well written. IMHO has a minor case of overlinking, but that is arguable, and not a significant issue either way. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Removed links per WP:OVERLINK.--Abel (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Confirming, minor case of overlinking is resolved. North8000 (talk)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. IMHO strings of 6 or 7 cites can actually detract from this and are unusual, but this is either a minor issue or a non-issue here. I think that Abel deserves an award for the immense amount of difficult work that they did untangling and repairing the previous citation / reference issues.North8000 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Bundling citations per citation content guideline solved that problem. --Abel (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It does not really address the main reasons behind my comment, but again, it is not necessary to do so. North8000 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria based on reasonably-available sources. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
A note on "reasonably-available sources" since I have run into this before. From the identifying reliable sources content guideline:

Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Abel (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. Is stable.North8000 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Passes this criteria. Has 6 images; the 2 non-free ones have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. On behalf of Wikipedians, a big THANK YOU to Abel for the IMMENSE amount of difficult work they did and perseverance that they exhibited to get this article into shape. Congratulations! I will implement the details shortly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Links to president, vice-president, and chair[edit]

Just because you and I have a good idea about what non-profit president, vice-president, and chair positions involve, does not mean that everyone reading this article will share that same priviledge of knowledge. The entire point of wikilinks are to allow readers to easily follow what they are interested in reading. By removing links we are taking away easy to follow for some choices, yet keeping easy to follow for others. Incredibly mild censorship, but it is still censorship that Wikipedia policy does not support. --Abel (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I took them out as being borderline overlinking, asking anyone who disagrees to revert, which you did. So that's cool. I don't agree with the "mild censorship" characterization but that is sidebar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to take a few more out but now have dropped that idea, now knowing your thoughts on that. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
After finding the should not section of the linking guideline, I took out many more. --Abel (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool! North8000 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many citations[edit]

Found a solution that can make everyone happy. Instead of sfn, can use sfnm. This has far more complex code, but will keep the sfn benefits of exact page number and non-duplicative citations while adding bundling of multiple citations into one single numbered footnote. People who argue that many footnotes in a row make reading difficult will get a single footnote. People who argue that many footnotes are safer as one or two might one day need to be removed get to keep all the valid citations. Everyone wins. --Abel (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The "problem" if there is one is minor. And most of the common concerns regarding "too many cites" would not be addressed by what you describing. I'd recommend either leaving it be, or just trimming a couple just from the longest strings. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you also trimmed them while changing formatting. Cool. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Still needs work. Here's one: "John Sparks Sr.[16] served as president of the Foundation from 1983 to 1984. Bob Love[16] followed Sparks as president. Love served[16] from 1984 to 1985. From 1985 to 1988 a series of acting presidents[16] presided over FEE. In 1988 and continuing until 1992[16] Bruce Evans served as the president of the organization." Same citation used 5 times in 5 sentences. Could such info be bulletized, with a single cite for the introductory sentence? "Presidents of the foundation have included the following:[16]" While prose is often preferred over lists, such bits of connected info deserve better layout. Consider – you have 2 sentences telling us Love served. And all of the paragraph is devoted to the presidents, so there's no need to repeat the fact that they "served as president", "served", "presided over", "served as president of the organization". Yes, I could WP:DIY, but I pass on this comment with an encouragement to look at this, and other sections, with an eye towards effective presentation. Keep up the great work.--S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Finding the names and years was painful. Probably because the early days were chocked full of famous names and ground breaking events. The more recent years have plentiful newspaper and magazine mentions. I could find squat for those middle years. Threw in those very poorly written sentences because the gaping hole in chronology created by not having them was bothering the heck out of me. Would love to write "Sparks implemented this" and "Love created that" but right now all I have are names and dates. I'll try to come up with something creative that works these in better.--Abel (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Better?--Abel (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My rationale for adding "New York"[edit]

In the sentence "Originally based in Manhattan, FEE moved the headquarters just outside the city" I was thinking that since no city was named (Manhattan is a part of New York City) that adding "New York" might be useful. Also I don't think that Manhattan is on the AP list. (of course, New York is) Either way is cool with me, but I wanted you to know my reasoning. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I must have mixed Manhattan and NYC together in my head. How about this?--Abel (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool! North8000 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article[edit]

(I am "repeating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. On behalf of Wikipedians, a big THANK YOU to Abel for the IMMENSE amount of difficult work they did and perseverance that they exhibited to get this article into shape. Congratulations! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Where to put citations[edit]

While I do not know what "ce" means, I can explain the locations of the citations. I used to place all citations outside the sentences. Just as you would for academic writing. Then some editor lost it over how they insisted that all citations had to be right next to specific claims within the sentence. As usual, Wikipedia is all kinds of contradictory on this issue.

How to place an inline citation using ref tags says, "it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph." However, Punctuation and footnotes says, "ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation (see exceptions below), with no intervening space." With Punctuation and footnotes being more explicit, I went with the immediately next to guidance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Id4abel (talkcontribs) 05:07, January 30, 2013‎

You will often find shorthand in editor comments. "ce" is copyedit. The WP:G (glossary) has a lot of them. Perhaps the complaining editor has not read the guidance you quoted. In fact the two are compatible – "follow the text" does not mean the particular word or phrase (why does it add the comment about after punctuation?) And WP does follow the academic writing MOS. Looks like a bit of miscommunication has occurred. Thank you for explaining. If you don't make the changes, I shall. (But not for a few days or so.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Go right ahead, I will help. That editor was adamant about it. I don't care either way. Thanks for the WP:G link. That will prove immensely valuable. --Abel (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


At present the text reads: Founded[11] in 1946 by Leonard Read of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Donaldson Brown of General Motors Corporation, professors Leo Wolman of Columbia University and Fred R. Fairchild of Yale University, Henry Hazlitt of the New York Times, Claude Robinson of Opinion Research Corporation, and David Goodrich of B. F. Goodrich, FEE is the oldest[12] free-market organization in the United States. I'd like to move the bio background info into a footnote format. The result would be Founded in 1946 by Leonard Read, Donaldson Brown, Leo Wolman, Fred R. Fairchild, Henry Hazlitt, Claude Robinson , and David Goodrich, FEE is the oldest free-market organization in the United States.[ZZ] Footnote [ZZ] would read Leonard Read was the abc of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce from 19xx-xx, Donaldson Brown was the efg of General Motors Corporation from 19xx-xx, Leo Wolman was a Professor of Hij at Columbia University from 19xx-xx, etc. Why don't I change it? The sfn format is new to me. Can I simply use the <ref></ref> format? – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Originally used ref tags. Then started using named ref tags to be more efficient. Problem is, that put all the page numbers into one big reference. The sfn and sfnm allow citing a source once and having it automatically link to the full reference, yet allow many citations to the same source yet with different page numbers. The sfnm even allows citation bundling which also made people happy.
We can do this two ways. You can use ref and I'll later convert it to sfn or use sfn from the start. Sfn works like this:
*{{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year }} or
*{{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year| p=000}} if it has a page number or
* {{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year| pp=000, 000, 000 }} if it has a page numbers
then the reference goes like:
* {{Cite ... | last = ... | year = ... |ref=harv}}
Abel (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, sfn and harvnb render the same yet sfn and harvnb render differently. sfn within a ref tag should work, yet does not. harv and harvnb within a ref do work, but do not render like sfn. Going with superscripted harv until the bug can be fixed on the server. --Abel (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
<ref name="Read with Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce">Read was the [[Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce]] executive director<sup>{{harv | Rothbard | 2006 | p=451 }}</sup> from 1938<sup>{{harv | Dochuk | 2010 | p =116 }}</sup> to 1945.<sup>{{harv | Heller | 2009 | p=197 }}</sup></ref>
<ref name="PERSON with ORGANIZATION">PERSON was the [[ORGANIZATION]] POSITION<sup>{{harv | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000 }}</sup> from YEAR <sup>{{harv | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000 }}</sup> to YEAR.<sup>{{harv | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000 }}</sup></ref>

Hi Abel. I don't think that anyone raised any issues that the bundling addressed, so I'd call that optional. IMHO finding page numbers for the individual cites was important here in particular due to other factors here. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you have not yet experienced the wrath of Beyond My Ken. Waves of aggression and personal attacks, all to support the position that more than two citations is wrong. There is no policy to support this, only an opinion piece. Thing is, Wikipedia policy seems to be whatever the most aggressive person says that it is, so bundling citations is a very big deal. Abel (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Abel, if I had any extra advice to give from our interactions here is that it appears that you tend to sometimes over amplify and jump to conclusions on what you hear and then sometimes overreact to it. Take it easy, have some fun. You're doing fine.  :-) North8000 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Let us investigate that exaggeration claim. Abel (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Because I cite sources, as Wikipedia tells people to, I should be reported to administrators for adjudication. I have been getting away with "bullshit." I am "simple-minded." I am hiding a conflict of interest. My comments are not welcome. I only want to add promotional matirial to articles. When I cite Wikipedia policy, I am not making a policy-based argument. I am guilty of point-of-view-pushing. My account has only one purpose. I have no business editing articles. My replies are "content-free."
"Any attempt to restore the previous citation overkill I will take as confirmation of the political motivation in your editing, and I will bring this to the attention of admins for adjudication as a potential violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV."
"Were I you, Id4abel, I'd be satisfied that you're getting away with your bullshit on the Foundation for Economic Education article, which is perilous close to violating WP:PROMO, and could use some attention from a neutral editor."
"Maybe you're just a simple-minded libertarian soul and have been trapped by circumstance into appearing to be something less innocent -- but there's little I can do about that, and I won't lose a single wink of sleep over it, since your judgment appears to be so poor in any event. One thing you certainly got right -- I was, indeed, correct from the beginning, and your insistence on multiple references for simple facts was detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm a man who can cheerfully admit when I'm wrong and turn on a dime, but in this case, there's no need for that."
"One other matter: your comments on this page are no longer welcome, so please do not post here again. Any further participation from you here will be deleted without being read."
"You just want to spin off points of interest so you can put back in promotional material that was removed."
"You have no 'policy-based argument', and my policy-based argument is that point-of-view-pushing single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest have no business editing articles in the area of their conflict."
Your replies are content-free. Suffice it to say that if you attempt to split off the content, you will be reverted, and, per WP:BRD, it will end up back here. If it continues past that, admins will be alerted to your special status as a conflicted POV-pushing SPA, a claim that can be easily documented by your ownership of the FEE article."
"Take a good look at yourself: you are a single purpose account."
Yeah, all of that because I cited sources. So you still think the citation bundling doesn't matter? Abel (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Stuff happens in Wikipedia. Take it easy, have some fun. You're doing fine.  :-) North8000 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not bothered by it. I understand that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are male, and that some of the most vocal editors are often insecure jerks. My point is that the citation bundling is very important because it is the only way to keep the above from happening again. It was an unpleasant experience and many editors experiencing that would have given up and left. Most of the edits on this article have come from me, but that does not have to be the case forever. Behavior like the above almost guarantees that new editors will not join in and participate. Yes, from one point of view, citation bundling is not mandatory because there is no policy requiring it. From another point of view, if we want new editors to join in, citation bundling is vital to preventing the new editors from being attacked for doing what Wikipedia says they should be doing. --Abel (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the miracle that is the template refn, was able to replace the temporary solution of superscripted harvnb with sfn. Now the entire article can consistently use shortened footnotes. Abel (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

{{refn|name=Read with Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce|Read was the [[Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce]] executive director{{sfn | Rothbard | 2006 | p=451}} from 1938{{sfn | Dochuk | 2010 | p =116}} to 1945.{{sfn | Heller | 2009 | p=197}} }}
{{refn|name=NAME with ORGANIZATION|NAME was the [[ORGANIZATION]] POSITION{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000}} from YEAR{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000}} to YEAR.{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000}} }}

Why do the citations use sfn instead of the ref tags like in every other Wikipedia article?[edit]

Rather than ref tags, this article uses shortened footnotes because there were complaints about how ref tags force page numbers to be rolled into one giant, repeated citation and people could not figure out which page goes with which use of the reference. Shortened footnotes let you have a reference that can be cited many times, yet have different page numbers for different citations all while using the same reference over and over again. More efficient and easy to understand for the reader.

This at first seems like more work for the editor, but since sfn automatically links to the reference, sfn is less work than trying to keep track of where the full ref tag is and where all the repeated ref tags are. Rather than having references all over the place, the references are collected at the end. References all in the References section in order by author then by date are many times easier to find and work with. Inside the article text all you need is {{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year }}, then let the automatic linking do the work.

Shortened footnotes also accommodate multiple citations rendered as one footnote number. There were complaints that several citations next to each other increases reading difficulty, which is true. Easy enough, delete several perfectly valid citations. Aside from the obvious argument that deleting perfectly valid citations is the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, another worry is that maybe one day one or two citations could today be reliable, yet later turn out to be unreliable sources. Stephen Glass comes to mind. With many citations for each claim, no problem, just delete the ones now found to be unreliable and the claim remains because it still has other reliable sources already in place. The people who want only a single footnote for readability get that, and the people who want multiple citations to ensure reliability get what they want at the same time. Everyone wins.

Shortened footnotes instead of ref tags[edit]

Shortened footnotes look more like computer code than ref tags, but they are really just a name and a date: {{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year }}, {{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year| p=000}} if the source has a specific page number for this claim, or {{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year| pp=000, 000, 000 }} if the citation refers to more than one page of the source. The reference at the end is the same as what gets used for ref tags, with the addition of ref=harv added in. That is because these things were originally called Harvard style. The reference looks like: {{Cite ... | last = ... | year = ... |ref=harv}}. The server will automatically match up the last and year of the reference with the last and year of the citations.

{{sfn | Dochuk | 2010 | p =116}}
{{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year }}
{{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year | p=000}}
{{sfn | LastNameOfAuthor | Year | pp=000, 000, 000 }}

More than one work in the same year[edit]

Easy enough for books, but journalists are going to have more than one source with their name on it in a year. This is why the reference section is sorted by author then by date. The first reference of the author gets an "a," the second a "b," and so on like {{sfn | Huebert | 2002a }} and {{sfn | Huebert | 2002b }}. To be extra fancy, you can add "authormask = —— " to the second reference, but that is not required.

{{sfn | Huebert | 2002a }}
{{sfn | Huebert | 2002b }}
* {{Cite news | last = Huebert | first = J. H. | title = A Great Institution in Freefall | date = July 9, 2002 | year= 2002a | url=|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite news | last = Huebert | authormask = —— | first = J. H.| title = A Great Institution in Freefall Seeks Quantity, Not Quality | date = July 22, 2002 | year= 2002b |url=|ref=harv}}
{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEARa }}
{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEARb }}
* {{Cite news | last = LASTNAME | first = FIRSTNAME | title = TITLE | date = MONTH DAY, YEAR | year= YEARa | url=http://SOMETHING.EXT/SOMETHINGELSE | ref=harv }}
* {{Cite news | last = LASTNAME | first = FIRSTNAME | title = TITLE | date = MONTH DAY, YEAR | year= YEARb | url=http://SOMETHING.EXT/SOMETHINGELSE | ref=harv }}

Explanatory footnote or nested citations[edit]

Maybe you want to explain something in a footnote or need a citation within a citation. No problem, use a nested reference.

{{refn|name=Read with Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce | Read was the [[Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce]] executive director{{sfn | Rothbard | 2006 | p=451}} from 1938{{sfn | Dochuk | 2010 | p =116}} to 1945.{{sfn | Heller | 2009 | p=197}} }}
{{refn|name=NAME with ORGANIZATION | NAME was the [[ORGANIZATION]] POSITION{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000}} from YEAR{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000}} to YEAR.{{sfn | AUTHOR | YEAR | p=000}} }}

Multiple citations rendered as one footnote number[edit]

To prevent the deleting of several perfectly valid citations you will want multiple citation collected into one footnote so the text is easy to read. If you prefer, and this is far less complicated, just use the explanatory footnote (nested citations) technique. refn then a series of sfn. Problem solved.

Another option is to use sfnm to get multiple sources in a single footnote. Not so bad for two authors, {{sfnm | 1a1=Hollenbeck | 1y=2013 | 2a1=Horwitz | 2y=2013 }}. Once I figured out that 1a1 means first citation – author – first author, 1y means first citation – year, 2a1 means second citation – author – first author of the second citation, and 2y means second citation – year this went a lot faster. Why 1a1 instead of just 1a? Many references have multiple authors and coauthor= in the reference code will not work. Instead, the reference has last1=, last2=, last3=, … this allows for the more complex:

{{sfnm | 1a1=Phillips-Fein | 1y=2009 | 1p=86 | 2a1=Mirowski | 2a2=Plehwe | 2y=2009 | 2pp=15, 19, 21, 53, 156, 190, 196, 243, 281, 284, 293, 387, 397, 410 | 3a1=Plehwe | 3y=2006 | 3p=31 }}

The first citation has one author and a page number, the second has two authors and many page numbers, the third has one author and one page number. Granted, this is starting to look like computer code so feel free to use refn sfn, sfn, sfn as it will produce the same results but will be a lot less complex.


Shortened footnotes solve several problems and the vast majority of citations are going to look like either {{sfn | Dochuk | 2010}} or {{sfn | Dochuk | 2010 | p =116 }}. Abel (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Use rationale[edit]

The Freeman cover does need a use rationale specific to this article. When I looked at it during the GA review I thought that it did. I think that I saw the title of the use rationale (which is for the magazine article) which is the same as the image and probably thought that the title was referring to the image name. Now I see that it doesn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC) GA reviewer

Added a use rationale specific to this article.--Abel (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Needs Cleanup[edit]

This article has several areas that need attention and cleanup. I fixed a few and tagged with a list of the issues. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This article went through WP:GA in January. If there are particular points that need addressing, then please tag the items. Lay a foundation for article improvement rather than unspecified laundry list in a hatnote. (Please note that per WP:GAR "Before attempting to have any article de-listed through reassessment, take these steps.... The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.") – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


This is the laundry/wish/shopping/check list from the hatnote:

  1. This article may have too many section headers dividing up its content.
  2. This article may require copy editing for Style, tone and sentence structure.
  3. This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view.
  4. This article may contain original research.
  5. This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience.
  6. This article relies on references to primary sources.
  7. This article needs additional citations for verification.
  8. An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole.

Partial response:

  1. Hardly - 3 sections!
  2. Please fix particular problems.
  3. While written in favorable language, excessive fandom can be converted to NPOV with edits.
  4. Please tag specific OR or fix.
  5. Some/all excessive detail (like info about the mansion, etc.) can be moved to footnotes.
  6. There is a lot of secondary source material supporting the article and primary source in of itself is not verboten.
  7. Needs cn? Quite well footnoted!
  8. If there is undue, then please specify the concerns.
S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Could we please not call this a laundry list. It's my pick from the twinkle menu of what I feel accurately describes problems I saw. Mr. North put in a large effort to evaluate the article for GA. I admire and respect his contribution. But just try to verify a citation. Please try. I did a few, but many others remain. Look at the participle-laden sentences, look at the recitation of faces and places in the history of FEE. We don't list all the founders and past officers of the Red Cross or the ASPCA. The article stated "The initial headquarters of FEE filled two rooms at 737 Seventh Avenue on the 30th floor of the Equitable Building in Manhattan.[8]" -- What a joke. That's a strip club. Somebody must have googled "Equitable Building" and didn't know that the original Equitable Building was downtown at 120 Broadway. The current Equitable offices are at 787 7th Avenue. So that edit, and I fear others too, was just fabricated OR that looked plausible to some long-ago editor. So the article is not a good article, sorry. It needs a lot of work. Your copy of the list here is constructive, and serves the same purpose as a tag on the front. I hope others will join me in trying to work on the clean-up. Check the footnotes. It is not well-cited at all. Try to verify. Anyway, thanks for copying the list. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Here's an example: Taken from FEE document, it reads like promotional material or short-form boilerplate, but for a WP article we need further description. Many organizations, in their own materials, describe themselves in such general language as to be meaningless to outsiders who don't already know more or less what the organization is about. Example: "Mission: The foundation states that its mission is "inspire, educate and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical and legal principles of a free society." "Connect?" Connect a person with a principle? That's why we prefer to paraphrase in WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
"Murray Rothbard credited FEE with launching the movement[4] by providing a 'crucial open center.'"-- Say what? I fixed the 'movement' in the lede. If we're using Murray's quote, it needs context to clarify the meaning. We could also find more extensive discussion or statements by him and elaborate on what he meant. The article is not well written. We need to fix it. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Organizations does not have an article structure template. But here is the TOC from Royal National College for the Blind, a Featured Article:

1 History
1.1 Early years
1.2 Relocation
1.3 Hereford
1.4 Restructuring
2 Assistive technology
3 Education
4 Campus
5 Extracurricular activities
6 Notable people and alumni

The "mission" had been paraphrased, and sourced from Charity Navigator. But I believe one of the "mission" quotes/paraphrases got tagged as cn. Well, I re-did it, finding the stated Mission, and provided the citation. As it comes verbatim from the FEE website it is proper to quote – even if we don't agree that the syntax used by FEE is proper. Currently a strip club? My Google Street View failed to focus on the 30th floor. (Alas.) Has Equitable moved its offices, or did the address get its designation because it was known as the Equitable Building? – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Failed verification"[edit]

SPECIFICO deleted "The initial headquarters of FEE filled two rooms at 737 Seventh Avenue on the 30th floor of the Equitable Building in Manhattan.[1]" giving the reason of "Failed verification" yet page two of Dodsworth reads, "In those anxious moments, Thomas I. Parkinson, president of Equitable Life Assurance Company, came to the rescue. He provided Fee with two rooms in the Equitable Building at 737 Seventh Avenue in Manhattan. On the 30th floor, with a magnificent view over the city, Leonard Read set about conducting the affairs of his new organization."--Abel (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Id4abel. FEE began in the Equitable Bldg offices at 120 Broadway. I don't know how this statement came to be written in this document -- you might contact FEE and inquire. Although the statement would be verified if that citation were a fact-checked or third-party edited and published source, the pamphlet does not meet those tests so its not RS and the citation is invalid. Regardless of the moot question as to under which theory it's invalid, the fact is incorrect anyway. 737 was not the address. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
And your source for this is what? --Abel (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Not in cited source"[edit]

SPECIFICO tagged this claim as "not in citation given" when the source says, "In early May 2010, FEE opened a branch office in downtown Atlanta."Abel (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not I. Please strike through and correct. As a reminder, talk pages are to discuss content not editors. Your concern could be stated without (erroneously) naming the editor whose change you are disputing. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. The "not in citation given" tag did not correspond to the description "Not in cited source." Really not shocking given the large volume of edit descriptions that sound reasonable yet are attached to edits that have nothing whatsoever to do with the edit actions taken. Thank you for the correction. For the record, SPECIFICO had nothing to do with the "not in citation given" tag. SPECIFICO used the edit description of "Not in cited source" to somehow justify the rewriting of a direct quote in violation of MOS:QUOTE Abel (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

{{multiple issues}}[edit]

SPECIFICO tagged the text:

Established in 1946 to study and advance "economic, ethical and legal principles of a free society,"[2] the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest[3] free-market organization in the United States. Murray Rothbard recognized FEE for creating a "crucial open center" that he credits with launching the movement.[4]

as {{condense}}, {{copy edit}}, {{fansite}}, {{original research}}, {{overly detailed}}, {{primary sources}}, {{ref improve}} and {{undue}} tags (within {{multiple issues}} with no support whatsoever.Abel (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And this:
FEE provided a base[5] for the international post World War II libertarian movement.
as well.Abel (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Fix lede sentence"[edit]

The edit by SPECIFICO was described as "Fix lede sentence" yet the change altered a direct quote to no longer match the source. Abel (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Those words are fine to put in the body of the article in the context of FEE's description of its mission and objectives. It is not a first sentence of a lede which should follow a more declamatory and descriptive format similar to what I and apparently another editor inserted. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not fine to rewrite a direct quote. MOS:QUOTE Abel (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My edit did not alter the quoted words, it removed the quote entirely. The policy you cite does not apply. Please think twice, post once. We're all here to improve the article. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You deleted text and citations and left new text with no citations. This is exactly the opposite of what editors are supposed to be doing. --Abel (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a one-line, 3-sentence opening with the content cited to an in-line footnote at the end of the third short sentence. Your statement that my version had no citation is incorrect. Check it out: [2]. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Text you deleted:
"Established in 1946 to study and advance "economic, ethical and legal principles of a free society,"[2] the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest[3] free-market organization in the United States. "
{{sfnm | 1a1=Hollenbeck | 1y=2013 | 2a1=Horwitz | 2y=2013 }} and {{sfnm | 1a1=Charity Navigator | 1y=2011 | 2a1=Phillips-Fein | 2y=2009 | 2p=27 | 3a1=Mirowski | 3a2=Plehwe | 3y=2009 | 3p=156 }} got harpooned. Text you added:
The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a libertarian educational organization located in Irvington, NY. It was founded in 1946. Libertarian Murray Rothbard credits FEE with having created a "crucial open center" which launched the libertarian movement.
Not a citation in site in the text you used to "fix" the text.Abel (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The citation is in the diff that is posted above. Please look at the diff in my previous post here. Moreover, even if it were not, because the statement appears below in the body of the article with the citation repeated it would not need to be cited inline in a lede sentence which is summarizing key content from below. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. You are either saying that the citation that already existed for something completely unrelated to the nonsense text you edited or a citation is unnecessary because "cited to an in-line footnote at the end of the third short sentence." Wow, even a person who is both drunk and high would easily be able to spot the obvious logical flaw in that. Abel (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

I have begun to read through the article to verify the statements in the cited sources and adjust the text where necessary. I hope others will work with me on this or other clean-up of the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The reference checking is very difficult, partly due to the bundled citations which require 3-step paths to the source to be checked, and partly due to a superabundance of citations within each of the bundled notes. For example

"FEE lectures are presented either as part of week long team-taught seminars presented in several U.S. locations, or are single-speaker events in the the Evenings at FEE series.[6] FEE publications include The Freeman (a monthly magazine) and various pamphlets, lectures, and libertarian texts."[7]

It is unlikely that more than one or two citations would be required for this text, and yet we have 12. I suggest that they be pared down to the most compact list that is needed to support the text. If anyone currently working here is familiar with the source material, it would be helpful if that person could choose from among the sources.

SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


The concern about the Founding section, discussed above, has not been resolved. There are numerous sources quoted for single simple facts and there are citations, e.g. for GM executive Brown, that have nothing to do with FEE. This section needs to be annotated simply and clearly, and it would be easiest done by an editor who is familiar with all these citations. Otherwise, the task is likely to require an inordinate amount of time and concentration. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The short descriptions of the founders are helpful. For instance, it would be proper to say "Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek founded the ...."[1] The references do need clean up -- more placement at end of sentences, shorter quotes. – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, that might be ok, but look at Brown for example. The citation has nothing to do with identifying Brown or linking him with FEE. It's just a random trace of Brown. More important however are the strings of references that are too cumbersome for the reader to follow either for verification or additional reading. SPECIFICO talk 02:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested improvements[edit]

  • The historical info about the estate can go into a footnote. (As I am not familiar with this footnoting method, I'm reluctant to mess with it.)
  • The publications listing needs trimming. If the books have their own articles, listing them is appropriate. But if the books don't have any particular independent significance, they should be removed. However, if the book has its' own description in the author's article, it can be listed.
    • The list has been trimmed. Unless I could find a WorldCat listing that showed a book published by FEE, I removed it. With this trimming in mind, I think we can leave it as is. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are more footnotes that can be moved to the end of sentences. (I shall work on this later.)
S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Views of the Founders[edit]

There is additional interesting material in the cited sources that give background on the views and attitudes of the Founders and shed some light on their motivation for the creation of FEE. For example, see p.27 of Phillips-Fein, which discusses Crane's apparent concern that the New Deal had set back the American dedication to individual liberty. It will be worthwhile to include more such material, provided that it is well-sourced and relevant to the mission of FEE. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Phillips-Fein is a good source and should be expanded upon. And I note that the discussion has picked up below. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Skousen Giuliani statement removed pending clarification and citation[edit]

"After the controversial decision to invite Rudy Giuliani to be the keynote speaker at FEE's annual Liberty Banquet for a $30,000 honorarium, the Board of Trustees asked for Skousen's resignation."

This text is weasel and suggests the board fired Skousen for having invited or offered to compensate Giuliani. If true is it important. If important and true needs RS citation. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a good point. I just looked on Mark Skousen's page, and there are a number of references for the claim that he was pushed out of FEE because of the Giuliani invite, but the majority of them point to a blog by someone named Jacob Huebert. Doesn't seem like a reliable source for a BLP. Anyway, I'll look to fix that, and I agree we need some solid sources for a contentious claim. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ashford Citations and other non-RS[edit]

There appear to be numerous citations to references which are promotional or blog mentions of FEE or its programs. These should be removed. Also, since there are many instances of redundant citations, any one of which would be sufficient for the cited content. It would improve the readability of the article to remove these non-RS as a first step in simplifying the superabundance of references here. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ashford is not a "non-RS" citation. The link is broken, and tagged for enterprising editors to fix. Kosmos is part of George Mason U, a Reliable Source. Suggest particular non-RS citations be tagged in-line. {{unreliable source?}} is one such tag. – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Advanced Austrian Economics Seminar text[edit]

I have cut and moved the following text from the article to this location:

who are interested in exploring the work of historical and contemporary Austrian economists in depth. Menger,[1] Mises,[2] 
Kirzner,[3] and Hayek[4] as well as works by current Austrian scholars Pete Boettke,[5]
Christopher Coyne,[6] Roger Garrison,[7] Steven Horwitz,[8] and Pete Leeson.[9]

Most of the citations are links to works of these authors rather than to sources which indicate that these authors are the subjects of this FEE seminar. We should try to find a secondary WP:RS that gives an overview of the Advanced Austrian seminar, or lacking that we should find an explicit description or link to the FEE course listing. If that is the best we can do, perhaps a general description of the educational program, along with a link to the FEE course descriptions, is more appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Read statement on Danger of Losing Freedom[edit]

I believe that the Read quote, now reverted is relevant to the section on founders and founding because it gives context to the mission and program that prompted the founding of FEE. Earlier versions of this article made it sound as if FEE were a venue for school enrichment programs and publications, but the initial vision of Read, Crane and the other founders was very different and embodied a very purposeful vision. Please re-insert that text. Its much more relevant than other material currently in the article such as the academic and corporate affiliations of various people, the architecture of the office building and so forth. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If Read had said "we set up FEE in order to... because of lions and tigers and bears ... (oh my!)" that would be relevant to the article. But the passage quoted (now reverted) is quite a general one. Nothing (I recall) in Chapter 4 specifically talks about FEE. I agree that the article needs more fleshing out, but the quoted passage did not do so. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The quote was from the founder and President on the topic of FEE's mission in a book published by FEE. It is entirely appropriate for the article and there is no reason to omit this. Do you think Crane's employment at DuPont and the like is more significant to the program and mission of FEE? Please undo your removal. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The employment of the founders is relevant as to their background. For instance, what if they had been Argentine and were setting up the Foundation in the US? Their business background is even more relevant considering Phillips-Fein's description. But taking a specific quote from Read, not his general background or philosophy, is SYN when it comes to describing his motives. The quote might work in his article because it illustrates his philosophy. But adding it here is too much of a stretch. Read was not talking about the mission or founding of FEE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved Read statement about slavery et al to "People" section[edit]

The morals beliefs of the Founding President of FEE regarding economics is obviously relevant, as FEE is a group that moralizes about economics constantly. (they very rarely if ever use mainstream, value-free social science methodologies in their publications; it is always the strictly "logical" armchair Austrian method, which, without the hindrance of data, tends to be peppered with moralizing rather than strictly concerned with facts.) SPECIFICO's quotation illustrates, in a clear, concise, and evocative manner, theand nature strength of Read's "anti-statist" economic convictions. However, I think the quotation fits better under "people" since in my view it more directly relates to Read as a personally than FEE's mission (though it relates to both). Steeletrap (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This idea of giving a section (or subsections) to the various FEE founders and prominent persons is not a good one. It opens the door to all sorts of off-topic information. Each of the founders probably had philosophies/views as to the world, politics, religion, patriotism, etc. Do we want to expound on them (e.g., either the people or their views) because they have some relevancy? Then it becomes a problem of editorializing as to which particular views are relevant to FEE, its' founding, its' mission, its' influence etc. And then where is the secondary source info that supports such editorializing. Recommend that this material, unless supported by secondary sourcing such as Phillips-Fein, be kept out all together. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read the cited sources for this article. There's a goldmine of information about the founders, their views, their mission and other relevant material concerning the relationship of FEE to other initiatives to promote their views. What is your rationale for calling material from the cited RS "editorializing?" The connections have been researched and stated in detail in the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
See where this is going? Read has certain beliefs – he's a member of the Congregational Church in Los Angeles, therefore he must adhere to Congregationalist polity, etc. (Those churches have ties, or are descended from the Puritans and Calvinists.) He served in the military, and somehow became an anti-statist. (Was he an anti-militarist as well?) Ayn Rand is mentioned in Read's article – she influenced him somehow. But how do these factors relate to FEE? We are taking "fact A" – Read founded the FEE (based on one source), adding "facts B " – Read served in the military, was anti-statist, knew (or read) Rand, attended the Congregationalist church, etc., (based on other sources) and coming up with "therefore C" – e.g.: "because Read had these influences in his life, the FEE is based on Congregationalism, Puritanism, Calvinism, anti-statism, Objectivism, whatever." Steele is correct, but only to a limited extent. In Read's article we can say directly that Read had certain direct influences (supported by RS), but we cannot say – indirectly – that these influences had anything to do with the founding or philosophy or activity of FEE. Implying such influences is SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's in the reference sources that previous editors have cited. Please read the sources. Several of these books are available for a buck or two. I got mine from an online bookseller. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what's been cited and quoted. (Indeed, I've done refimprove on Lichtman.) Where does Read's article (Elements) talk about the FEE? – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Rich, it seems we're at an impasse. I'm completely confidence in my reasoning and you in yours. (I clearly see how founding president Read's moral views on economic policy are relevant to FEE, much more so than his employment history etc, which is also included in the article, and which yu don't object to) And I do not find your argument re: synth compelling. Maybe a fourth opinion would be in order? Steeletrap (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not one of relevance to the topic or article -- the issue turns on WP:SYNTHESIS. I have no problem with your reasoning, I just ask that you please show me where I am wrong in my analysis about A + B C. Every SYN argument says "C is relevant". But WP policy says we cannot engage in SYN, no matter how relevant the conclusion is. We cannot state A & B and thereby use A & B to imply C. – S. Rich (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no A there's no B and there's no C. The quote is from a FEE publication, written by its founder, which directly expands on the founding principles of FEE as stated above. There is no implication of anything. It's the founder expanding on the founding principle and published by FEE. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, what is Read saying in Elements about FEE? Provide one line. I'd love to see it. To restate the A B C more in context of the quotation, it goes like this: Fact A: – "Read founded the FEE" (based on one source – A is not contained in Elements). Elements adds Fact B: "Read felt that people subjected to slavery .... etc." The problem is Therefore C: The implied result is therefore C. "C" is the conclusion that "Read founded FEE because of ...." This one conclusion (among many others) is probably true, but we need independent RS to say so. (Suppose we quoted from Chapter 6? E.g., "The libertarian thinker is one who has an awareness of his own shortcomings." Why not put that the article instead of slavery & tigers?) To quote the WP policy (again): "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." – S. Rich (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is repetitious. Fee's founding principle, that education must be done "before it's too late" is exactly what Read more eloquently states in the quote. Perhaps we need to get additional editors to evaluate this issue. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree about the repetitiousness. If you (or Steele) don't post a RfC in the next day or so, I shall. – S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say either leave it out or paraphrase it. On the plus side, the underlying point is good. On the minus side, it uses out of fashion /currently-discouraged wording, and so the taken-out-of-the-time-context wording makes him look bad which many will suspect is why someone wants it in. It has insufficient germaneness (a selected one of the thousands of things that key personnel have said) to force in something with other significant issues and inclusion-controversey such as this. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, North. Read's book is still in print in hardcover and paperback. I'm not concerned about the word "negro" if that's what you are referring to out of fashion. All quotes have language specific to their time and we don't update the language or censor the text. WP is not censored. Because FEE published the book and it expands on FEE's founding mission statement, the quote is notable. I think we should find more selections from FEE's publications program and include additional quotes as well. FEE's publication program was ground-breaking -- well before the Mises Institute -- and highly influential. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Specifico. Without addressing your main points, I have a sidebar quibble. ~99.99% of policy-eligible material is left out of any given article, and ~.01% is chosen to go it. Failure to be included in the chosen .01% is the norm, it is not "censorship". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. My point was that, since the quote is clearly relevant content, the decision to alter or omit it because of old-fashioned language which, if written today would seem strange, would be censorship for current-day political correctness. I don't think there's any doubt that the quote clearly expresses the urgency of FEE's mission -- a mission in which it was highly successful in reversing the American acceptance of creeping socialism. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement about how Elements "expands on FEE's founding mission statement" is incorrect. Elements does not talk about the founding or mission or mission statement of FEE. Without an actual connection in the article, including it is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please have a look at WP:SYNTH and WP:SYNTHNOT. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just what paragraph in the essay "is not" are you referring to? How am I wrong in my analysis – which is based on policy? – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Information on the headquarters in Irvington[edit]

The info on the restoration of the estate is relevant and useful. It shows that FEE moved up from its initial storefront/nightclub headquarters, was able to establish itself in a nice neighborhood, and has facilities for its library, seminars, etc. Compare, the London Gay Men's Chorus started off in a Tube station and is now performing in many very nice venues. Obama works in some pretty fancy digs too. The FEE headquarters does not warrant its own article, but more background info the estate is worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────FEE's first office was on the 30th floor of the Equitable Bldg at 120 Broadway, one of the most prestigious addresses in NYC at the time. It was donated by one of FEE's wealthy patrons. This is hardly a rags to riches story, and the statement that they started in a storefront is incorrect. This is explained in the thread about article improvement, above. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"What a joke. That's a strip club. Somebody must have googled "Equitable Building" and didn't know that the original Equitable Building was downtown at 120 Broadway. The current Equitable offices are at 787 7th Avenue. So that edit, and I fear others too, was just fabricated OR that looked plausible to some long-ago editor. So the article is not a good article, sorry. It needs a lot of work. Your copy of the list here is constructive, and serves the same purpose as a tag on the front. I hope others will join me in trying to work on the clean-up. Check the footnotes. It is not well-cited at all. Try to verify. Anyway, thanks for copying the list. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"
S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

SourceWatch link[edit]

I do not think the SourceWatch link [3] is a useful WP:EL here. All of the information in the article about FEE says that it is current as of 2011. It's 2015. The only source used in the FEE article is the FEE website itself. We already link to the current FEE website, so linking to another website which merely gives dated information from the FEE website is redundant and not helpful. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's actually more out of date than I thought, the board says that it's current as of 2007. It's not helpful to WP readers to direct them to inaccurate, out-of-date information on an external website when we can very well just put the current board of trustees right here on the WP page (if it's not already here). Safehaven86 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)