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.

Recent Edits[edit]

Have in my opinion removed too much of the interesting and unique history of FEE in establishing an outpost for free market ideals during a period when that was very much a minority and difficult path to pursue. While the current version of the article presents a nice thumbnail of the current-day FEE, it lacks the encyclopedic history and context which fleshed out the earlier stable versions of this article. I suggest the history and early positions of FEE be reinserted. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

None of that deleting is recent. Abel (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
By "recent" I intended to say "during the past month" -- please review and compare versions. FEE was a pioneering project by its founders and their backers. They persevered on what was at the time a very lonely vision and history shows that they were successful in projecting their insights onto the mainstream of American thought and political reality. There is extensive discussion of this in the works on the reference list, e.g. Mirowski, Lichtman, and Schneider. This article should not only describe the current-day FEE but also provide its history and context in what Schneider calls the conservative century including its publishing program which brought thinkers such as William F. Buckley, Jr. to the forefront of American political discourse. The article was by no means complete as of August, but it now presents even less of this important history, context, and significant detail concerning FEE. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
While I am confident that I know where this is going, I will ignore that and assume good faith. The current article has 1,906 characters of code about the current organization and 8,358 characters of code about the organization's past. That is 19% current and 81% past. If anything the article is overflowing with "encyclopedic history and context" and lacking in "nice thumbnail of the current-day FEE." This admonishment to add more about the past and even further diminish the present makes no sense. Abel (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't diminish the description of the current FEE at all. But institutions have history and context, per my comments above and the article was much more encyclopedic and informative 30 days ago than today. Looking at a 30 day diff makes that clear. Have a look. We could post an RfC, but frankly I'm hoping this is not necessary. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
North8000 address your concerns years ago with, "... 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)" and "~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)"Abel (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. North8000 is no longer with us but at any rate, please review all of the changes during September. I'm only talking about September 2015 edits, so please check your dates. Clearly, since North was not here this month, you are referring to something outside that range. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The North8000 comment is just as fitting now as it was fitting when they originally said it. Abel (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
What is even more odd is that I found historical context buried in past edits and reintegrated that into the current article rescuing a little text and some citations, which seems to be exactly what you are asking for, yet you do not seem satisfied with that. Odd. Abel (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll launch an RfC shortly. Meanwhile, please do review your deletions of well-sourced text and consider whether you might reinstate any of them. The referencing format is awkward and has been deprecated on just about every other WP article, but that's not what I was talking about. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Launch away. The only reason you are asking for edits and not editing yourself is due to your indefinite topic ban that prevents you from editing. Since no one seems to be jumping right on the edits that you want in the exact way that you want, yet are not allowed to perform, you demand someone comply or you slap them with some arbitration procedure. What surprises me is that you assume no one will see through this blatant attempt to go around the rules. Abel (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hillside doesnt matter[edit]

Buildings dont need names? Who says hillside name is imortant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The building has a name. You are free to dislike the name or consider the name of the building unimportant. History does not share that view. Abel (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You keep repeating that the FEE headquarters in Irvington, New York was not located at Hillside. Spikes & Leone 2009, p. 26 uses the name Hillside for the place more than once. If you follow the link to the Irvington, New York article you could read the entire history of the Hillside estate including the purchase by Read for the FEE headquarters and the history of the Hillside location years before that purchase. Since all of this is in the article, why writing this is even necessary is probably a better question. Abel (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Names of a building are not important so there is no reason to say the name. Your book does not say it is important, so youshould find a book that says the name is important, otherwise it is not important. It might be a name that is only important to the people who live there not to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a building in the§ United States called White House. No book says "the name White House is important." Following your logic, you should immediately run around and delete all mentions of the name White House. I have a suspicion that such an action will not end well, but by all means try that out, and let us know how it went. Abel (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This is so rude and mocking I think that is not a help to use 'talk' like that. We obviously are not talking about the White House. I am sure when somebody wrote letters to FEE they did not say 'FEE Hillside' but had the real address. You did not even answer what I said, the footnote does not say 'hillside' is important enough to be in a short article here. It is not good to make fun of other users here. Better to answer my point. You are not the boss, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out the flaw in your logic is not rude nor mocking. Pointing out the flaw in your logic very much answers what you said. Here, one is "the boss." Abel (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You do not act like you understand how this website works. You need a book to say the hillside house name is important. When you make fun of other editors instead of showing your ref to say its important then you are not working by the rules here. I ask for a ref that says the house name is important. If you dont have it so you mock me, 4 times, the name can't be in the article. Lots of bldgs have unimportant names... 1800s, most houses had names for no reason.
We get it, you are convinced that a few buildings with names deserve to have a name and most buildings with names do not deserve to have a name. You are free to hold that opinion and share it with others. This building has a name and the reference uses the name for the location more than once. That establishes the name of the place as valid. Nothing more is needed. Abel (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Re "self-published by FEE", if you review the rules for self-published sources WP:SELFPUB, you might be surprised to learn that there is not a blanket restriction on their use. Indeed, WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used [emph. added -jeh] as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [...]" and lists six requirements, all of which are met here. Re the house's notability, read the WP:N notability guidelines here: "Notability" is a requirement for article topics, not for content within articles. So the argument that the "house name is not notable" is irrelevant; the house name doesn't have to be notable by itself to be included.
Originally posted by Jeh. Copied here for reference by Abel (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The copied words come from aborted Dispute Resolution where I refuted the Central Point of them. Self published sources are ok about themselves not about land mark old buildings or other facts used for self-promotion. The 'Notable' point was because one of the mediators said that the FEE building is somewhat notable so I had to rebut his error. The fact is if you googlr 'hillside irvington ny' there's nothing except the 2 refs used here, both not RS and used here for promotion and aggrandizement. Comparing FEE's building to the White House is straw man nonsense and the whole 'hillside' ref is fanboy wow the HQ had a name and stained glass windows etc. and Hillside doesnt matter for economic education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to IP[edit]

You are free to contest content but please don't break things like the logo display while doing it. --NeilN talk to me 15:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not break anything except I pressed UNDO and then somebody accuses me of breaking the secret code. All this article got mostly erased this last month or 2. Why is all the article nw fanboy writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I am going to reverse all the erased history and the fanboy type lists they sound like adverts. Then if he wants to make any change itshould be not all at once, so that anybody can talk before the whole article is changed like before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, do not do a wholesale revert, breaking other changes. Manually remove contested content. If you persist, I will either protect the article or block you. --NeilN talk to me 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am not wanting to make trouble here. The page says 'this can be undone' and so I click undo but then you are telling me the page is broken. Can somebody fix that. There are 20-30 fast changes that erased all the history of this thinktank. Other institutes have their history. This one sounds like advertising. I dont know how to undo §30 bad changes. Maybe somebody can help fix the breaking bug so 'UNDO' works without breaking a code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Go to the article and click "edit this page" to make your edits. --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Basicly its impossible to unerase all the history in pieces. Is the undo supposed to break the code, because if not then its a bug and somebody should fix it. I cant copy and paste 40 erased facts so does the guy who makes 40 erases just keep them cause he makes the code brake if somebody tried to 'UNDO' the erased facts? I think it will be easier if somebody can help fix the breaking cde undo bug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no "bug". You are reverting to a version of the article that is broken in places. You have two choices. 1) Revert to that version and then redo all the fixes that were done in subsequent edits or 2) Figure out what you want from this version and carefully incorporate it into the current version. --NeilN talk to me 04:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello I think i understand you now, but that does lead to another thing. It looks like the guy who put in all the fanboy words also 'broke code' so that I could not undo everything he erased. OK. So then i got scolded but why me? Why is an erasing change allowed to break it, but when I try to fix it, it is not allowed? Is it OK if I undo back to before he broke it so there is no red and then if anybody makes changes everybody can talk about them one at a time. Also that name 'hillside' is not in the book about this oundation, so i dont see why he can put it in this article. He just put it back but I cant even see if their HQ had any 'name' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"He" didn't break anything. Just because an article showed properly two years ago doesn't mean the same version will show properly now. You removed all the fixes because you don't want to do the work of manually changing only what needs to be changed. --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It was 2 weeks not 2 years. I dont understand why the same code that was ok in Sept 2015 makes it broken now. I am not lazy but i guess i dont know enough to use 'UNDO' without a problem. I will make the small changeagain. The footnote book does not say FEE hq is named Hillside, so i ask to take that out. Then I will try other small corrections later.
You keep repeating that the FEE headquarters in Irvington, New York was not located at Hillside. Spikes & Leone 2009, p. 26 uses the name Hillside for the place more than once. If you follow the link to the Irvington, New York article you could read the entire history of the Hillside estate including the purchase by Read for the FEE headquarters and the history of the Hillside location years before that purchase. Since all of this is in the article, why writing this is even necessary is probably a better question. Abel (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. That proves nothing because it is the same one editor putting Hillside into the both artcles. Even at Irvington another user stated Conflict of interest at the Talk page to Abel107.107.62.156 (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

Two different people latched onto the same baseless accusation? On Wikipedia? No way! That must prove it true! Of course you are well aware that I addressed that claim the first time it was lobbed at me, thanks to your stalking my edits, which I am pretty sure is yet another policy violation that you have committed. When a moderator called your dispute filling about this edit of yours as, "quite frankly it is the dumbest case I've ever seen" they very likely did not expect you to continue to argue for the same illogical edit for the rest of your life. Abel (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Foonotes[edit]

The footnotes for this article are not like other articles and they make the code break red even if you just 'UNDO' bad changes. A lot of the refs dont say what's in the article but the strange footnotes make it impossible for anything to change without red errors. The footnotes should be changed to regular way because this article needs lots of work. It sounds like a promo sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do the citations use sfn instead of the ref tags like in every other Wikipedia article? from February 2, 2013 addresses why the sfn template is in use and Note to IP explains why the undo feature is inappropriate for what you are attempting. Abel (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


A content dispute about this article was discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but it was failed, because one unregistered editor insisted on repeating themselves and would not discuss reasonably. I would like to point out that it is even more important for unregistered editors than for registered editors to discuss on talk pages and in dispute resolution forums, because a common early measure when there is edit-warring is semi-protection. If there continues to be edit-warring, please either request semi-protection or go to the edit-warring noticeboard, which is likely to result in protection or semi-protection. If there is disruptive editing, it can be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the content of this article involves American politics after 1932, please read WP:ARBAP2 and be aware that disruptive editing can be dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If you don't know what they are, you don't want to know, but don't edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oldest free market organization[edit]

In 'History' it says FEE is the oldest free market org. I looked in all the refs at that sentence but I dont see any one that says 'oldest'. They do say 1946, OK, but not oldest. I think 'oldest' should not be said unless there's an independent ref that says so. (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Clash of Economic Ideas by Lawrence H. White
"The oldest free-market American think tank is the foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946, which as noted was ..."
The Making of Modern Economics by Mark Skousen
"In his eighties, he continued to lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education in IrvingtononHudson, New York (the oldest free market think tank, founded in 1946 by Leonard Read), and ..."
Abel (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
These refs do not say 'oldest org' just thinktank and they are no in refs list. (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
According to JQTriple7 this is not an example of a content dispute, what you are doing is disruptive editing. Abel (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Now a source book has been added with 'oldest' label. Good. Next the article must say what the refs do say. 'Oldest Thinktank' NOT oldest free-market. We know lots of older free market organizations, like New York Stock Exchange, like US Chamber of Commerce, Pikes Market Seattle, etc etc. The refs say 'oldest free market thinktank, so please make the article say what is in the books. (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
What you are demanding is either plagerism or that the entire article be nothing but direct quotes, "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice ..." The fact that a think tank is in fact an organization is not an emotive opinion that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. See Wikipedia:Quotations. Abel (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not logical. All dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs. The Mastiff is the largest dog but Wiki can not say 'Mastiff is the largest animal' Yes we have good ref to say 'FEE is the oldest free market thinktank' but Wiki cant say FEE is the oldest free-market organization' Thats why I told you three older ones, New York Stock Exchange, US Chamber of commerce, etc. Just like a horse or elephant is bigger than the biggest dog. This is just Logic and not opinion. The oldest lady in the room is not the oldest person in the room if one man (stock exchange) is older. (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Then change organization to think tank in that one sentence. Abel (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Some new refs for FFE[edit]

Found new refs to add more about FEE history. (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, added both. Abel (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

More refs (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

×== Good RS REF text wrongly deleted == The intro must say what's in the article. The article says 'think tank 46/60‘ and 'oldest think tank', etc. Therefore it is not OK to delete this info from the opening lines so this must be put back 'think tank'.

The citations in the history say think tank due to FEE starting as purely a think tank. That is not the FEE of today, hence the lead not using exactly the same wording that was accurate years ago but not accurate today, hence history. Abel (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Second, the REF #48 is FEE's own statement that tells their old house on Hillside was needing alot of expensive repair and fixup and this was a lot of money. This is in RS 68 in FEEs own story why they moved, one of 2 reasons, so it is RS and its wrong to say it is my guess. This is not AGF and the Ref is #48. Therefore I ask Id4 to put this back and read the REF. (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Were the article about the Hillside estate that would absolutely be relevant. Given that the article is about an organization and not purely about one location used by that organization including one reason out of many for changing one location and none of the reasons for changing the other locations makes no sense. Abel (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this false argument violates the policy of 'npov' here. It requires you should read the source, not accuse another editor of rumors and guesswork. The RS REF gives 2 reasons airplane fares and then most important that FEE needed alot of money to fix up the big house because its in bad shape. This ref is not about the house, it is about Fee's move in its own words. The policy here means you should not censor FEE's own reasons, no matter how much ex-students love the old house.

The RS REFS say FEE today is the 46/60 thintank and oldest thinktank, not ex-thinktank. Of course you switched and changed your story. First you say thinktank is not sourced, when any reader sees its all through the article with refs. Then when everybody can see the refs you change and say the refs are from the past. Not true! If you make up false arguements to change the article for fanboy-type wording, that isnt allowed on Wiki. You are 'edit warring' for your pov. Please undo andput the RS facts back. (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You are free to continue telling everyone what they must do according to your version of what the policies mean. Multiple administrators have not only linked to policies but explained the policies in detail. You continue to ignore those policies and explanations by telling everyone that they must follow your version of those policies are supposed to mean. The rub is in that your version makes no sense, which lead to an administrator labeling your dispute resolution submission as "quite frankly it is the dumbest case I've ever seen." Another administrator characterized your behavior as "repeating themselves and would not discuss reasonably" then instructed me to "just ignore unconstructive talk page comments." Abel (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not let you make ad homonem attcks. Please follow the triangle of dispute amd stick to the Main Point. Graham's Triangle at wp:tpno.
The article's refs say FEE is today a thinktank and the article says so many times. 'Educational' is not what independent Ref's say, and the IRS just shows what FEE puts on it's tax return - NOT independent. Wiki must not be written for promotion by fans and conflict of interest editors. Soplease change back the text I pointed out before you attacked me in your latest message. Your admin adviser would not be ok with ad homonem attacks. Thank You. (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You are free to badger the Internal Revenue Service staff until they change their designation of FEE as an educational organization. I doubt they will care about your opinions on the matter, but you are absolutely free to try. Let us know if you persuade them to change it. Abel (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to be polite and lets talk about improving the article, not personal attack or deflection to irreleant matters. The wikipedia rule says that the intro must summarize what is in the article. The refs in the article and the words of the article say 'think tank'. IRS files as self-described by FEE are not secondary RS and in fact there is not an IRS Category called 'think tank' so all thinktanks file for IRS using 'educaional' -- like AEI and other think tanks. All the refs and the article say 'think tank' so the intro can't contradict it. Please change back where you undid the proper word as in the article and refs. Also please read my notes above concernig why FEE chose to sell the old house needing expensive repair. That has its own words for RS about itself, as in wikipedia policy so please undo where you removed it. (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The IRS doesn't vouch for the content of FEE's tax returns any more than it checks whether a filer sells dipsticks or donuts. The only case in which that would arise would be if an audit showed some signficant tax implication. You are correct that IRS records are primary source and in any event do not override the other article content, which does favour "thinktank". (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"FEE does this by delivering content that is substantive and thoughtful in forms most convenient to our customers, including in-person seminars and lectures, web-delivered content, printed material in book and magazine form, and networking opportunities. At FEE, young people—and educators who work with them—will find an exciting and optimistic exposure to the classical liberal tradition in free-market economics as well as opportunities to connect with other young people and free-market organizations around the world." Abel (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Self source fom FEE does not counteract the RS article sources according to wikipedia regulations . You must not editwar per wikipedia. Please remember the warning from last year concering special rules for this article.You can be restricted if you keep warring against the article RS and independent description of thinktank in the main part of the article. You should undo your editwar change. 'Don't edit disrptively' see above warning. Thank you very much. (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What you refer to as the "middle part of the article" is labeled history for a good reason. Amazingly, what was true some 70 years ago is often not exactly the same today. The "unregistered editor" who "insisted on repeating themselves and would not discuss reasonably" as stated above in "Caution" is you. Abel (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The sysop who warned you will see your disruptive speech here. I did not say 'middle' of the article, you are disrupting with false hood. The article say's FEE -IS- the #40 thinktank and two RS Footnotes say it -IS- thinktank. You never answer the main point per the triangle of DR I showed you at 'TPNO' guidannce page. You are not neutral because you must have some connexion to the FEE and wikipedia does not allow conflicted edits, like you have been warned (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it seems to make you feel better, you can also insult my heritage, or body weight if that is an easier target for you. Abel (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is ad hominem attack I have never made any insult so I will request Sysop to discipline your disruptive words. (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

History section[edit]

History section is now mainly just a list of names and dates. Until Aug. 2016 it had all the information of how FEE began and it's goals and ideals. This should go back. (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not quite accurate. The text was moved from the history section to the significance section and edited several times. Abel (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of times does not matter. (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Think Tank # 47 per RS[edit]

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

For those not willing to dig though all the edits to confirm that none of that nonsense is true: the McGann ranking was added by S. Rich. In no way does the McGann ranking list the Foundation for Economic Education as the 47th largest think tank within the United States. I happen to be only one of several editors who have reverted some of the many disruptive edits by the anonymous editor who has probably used,,,,,,,,,, and often in rapid succession. Abel (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) The table on page 75 of the Rs footnote says fee is #47 think tank. Not p 171 like Abel's footnote. It is p 75. Here is the Rs 'McGann, James (2015-03-01). 2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. University of Pennsylvania. p. 171' when user abel put 'think tank' he also put the Rs footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Reliable source[edit]

Citing a reliable source involves much more than putting the letters RS in an edit summary. Abel (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Please help. How can the edit explanation line say 'vandalism' to fix grammar mistakes like 'publish books lectures...'? Not vandalism. False attack! (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC) thank you.

I'm sure editors will assume good faith and not label edits as vandalism whenever possible. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The grammar edit was not labeled vandalism. The wholesale deletion of the McGann ranking was labeled vandalism. Abel (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad Grammar?[edit]

Why does everybody let him/her (‘abel') keep saying 'bad grammar' when I fix that bad sentence? Please somebody help stop the war. Thank you somebody who fixed other mistakes. (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yelling "edit war" every time any editor corrects an error that you made is only adding to your behavior that an administrator labeled as unreasonable.Abel (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Think Tank[edit]

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


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


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

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

Changes made. Better? – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
very good, end of warfare! Thankyou. (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Much.Abel (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Took care of the citation. Abel (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed, you are more than welcome to make such a change back to the previous text. Abel (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
my tablet is not showing the editin tab today so I ask your help please to do the thinktank edit as agreed. (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The History Footnoes[edit]

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

Incorrect. Abel (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
" White 2012 "The oldest free-market American think tank is the foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946..."; Skousen 2015 "In his eighties, he continued to lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education in IrvingtononHudson, New York (the oldest freemarket think tank, founded in 1946 by Leonard Read), and ..."; Hazlitt 2006 "The original officers were David M. Goodrich, chairman of the Board (he was then also chairman of the board of the B. F. Goodrich Company); Leonard Read, president; myself, vice-president; Fred R. Fairchild, professor of economics at Yale University, secretary; and Claude Robinson, president of the Opinion Research Institute, treasurer. [The] sixteen [original] trustees ... included H. W. Luhnow, president of William Volker & Company; A. C. Mattei, president of Honolulu Oil Corporation; William A. Paton of the University of Michigan; Charles White, president of the Republic Steel Corporation; Leo Wolman, professor of economics at Columbia; Donaldson Brown, former vice-president of General Motors; Jasper Crane, former vice-president of Du Pont; B. E. Hutchinson, chairman of the finance committee of Chrysler Corporation; Bill Matthews, publisher of the Arizona Star; W. C. Mullendore, president of the Southern California Edison Company."; Dochuk 2010, p. 114 "The job of economic education must be undertaken now while those who appreciate the value of liberty are still in a position to support it."; Schneider 2009, p. 47; Mirowski & Plehwe 2009, p. 387; Backhouse 2005; Backhouse 2009; Kashyap & Wilcox 1993, p. 384; Farrell 2011."Abel (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
there should not be editor's footnotes after every name that do not give source, but just employer names. After thinktank war and hillside, now another one. Better to fix the problem like mr/ms srich32977, not argue. Thankyou. (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You are saying things that are not true, probably because you do not know where to look. That isn't an argument, that is instruction. Given that I have seen you tell administrators that they are wrong over and over again, I fully realize that my attempt is pointless, I do not see that as absolving the duty to notify. Like how I should tell you that your tinkering with my name in your last edit is also not helpful. Abel (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Accidental damage to your name should be fixed not aacused. Please do not make personal attacks at other users here. Please remove your attacking and please talk footnotes as I state my worry footnotes should not be for comments but should be RS . (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Which is why I do not think your actions are malicious, just not competent. If you would stop calling everything a personal attack and just learn what you clearly do not know, all of this could be easy, but have it your way.Abel (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The talk section is to talk about the article, not personal remarks. No more personal remarks here! Zero. Thank you. The foot notes should not have info about employer etc but should give RS. If employers are on topic, they go in the article other-wise not, but not in little footnote remarks. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Which is just more ignorance that could easily be fixed. No one can use your talk page because you change IP addresses constantly and do not register, leaving this as the only option to communicate with you. Which is not helping as you continue to tell people what they must and must not do when it is abundantly obvious that your expertise is near zero. You are making all this vastly more difficult on everyone. Abel (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Skousen[edit]

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

"See talk." does not equal "no reason." It means "see talk," as in this has been discussed before and yet again you are ignoring talk page consensus. Abel (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The talk has said a good RS is needed so I have put 3 refs a book an Prof'sown words,etc. Therefore you are mistaken. The senior editor who Ok'd my protected edit has verified. So Abel4, please reverse that delete of my good rs information. Thank you. @JayJasper: please help (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC).
Your lone opinion is not a consensus. Post it here, wait for people to agree with your option, poof -- new consensus. Abel (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Poof! I agree with Abel. New consensus established. – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please, I do not understand this. Srich32977 is the RS no good or what is the poof meaning. Thank you. If there is a consensus to delete, can you say why and what is the consensus saying? Thank you. (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You do understand. The consensus was to delete, which you already know, "The talk has said a good RS is needed." To change the consensus from delete to include: 1. post your idea for what you think the new version should be here on the talk page, 2. wait for people to agree with your option, 3. once you have a new consensus then, and only then, edit the article according to the new consensus. Abel (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please be polite. User Abel4 stated'consensus' -before- Srich32977 spoke. But when i looked it up the only talk previous said 'use RS refs' so I found 3 good refs and so what you have stated is not true therefor I ask mr/ms Srich32977 to state what consensus and anyway why take away Prof.s own info with others backin up tthe same?? @H.dryad: @JayJasper: (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC).
Again, stop with the victim olympics, nothing in that comment was anything but polite. What was "and anyway why take away Prof.s own info with others backin up tthe same" supposed to mean? Abel (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Some of your[1] disruptive editing seems likely due to a limited grasp of the language. The article English grammar may be a good place to start. Abel (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Meaning the anonymous editor that changes their IP address every few minutes.