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

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)

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)

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

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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.

Exact quotes[edit]

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