Talk:Foundation for Economic Education

Founder Read's statement
There was some article content giving perspective on the views and motivations of FEE founder Leonard Read that was deleted some years ago. I wonder what current edtors would say about reinstating this text, which I believe is foundational and revelatory to an understanding of FEE. See the text here. regarding Read's statement.  SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it could be included if cited to a secondary RS that relates it to FEE, per WP:PSTS. Llll5032 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See pages 72 and 73 in this Read/FEE publication: . SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be better for an independent secondary RS to say it is important to understanding FEE, per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source ..." Llll5032 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm actually with including it as is; the secondary source reasoning (to ensure we aren't interpreting and to ensure notability) don't necessarily apply to this. If there is a secondary source, that would be great, but I don't think it acts as a barrier to inclusion, especially for a direct quote.  Squatch347 (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Issues
There is a pattern by some to set a very high bar for inclusions of what an opponent might consider to be "positive" material (e.g., the existence of a large, well attended program)and a low bar for inclusion and giving prominence to any negative sounding material. The recent fully independently sourced information about a program with over 1,000 participants was a recent example. Put in by Doctorstrange617, deleted by Specfico, restored by me, then re-deleted by Specfico. An edit summary misapplying wp:onus and claiming I should have know better because I didn't "know" their mis-interpretation further added to the issue. The material shouldbe restored. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether this is a good or bad event in the life and work of FEE. But I don't think a college newspaper, which prints all kinds of trivia or self-promoting info about the undergrads there, or a local "what's happening this week in our neck of the woods" publication meet our standard for signiicant events. However, if -- as you seem convinced -- this was an important event, then there should be some mainstream RS coverage of the event, perhaps what was covered, notable speakers and participants, etc. such as we see for CPAC Davos and other significant thought forums and conferences.  SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to meet the high bar of "important event" that you are promulgating in order to be in the article. And putting in information about a program at the subject institution also does not need to meet the unusually "high bar" sourcing criteria that you describe. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I brought this up (more in a generic sense) at the NPOV noticeboard. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to concur with North here, there does seem to be a consistent trend here that seems inconsistent with WP policy. Just a brief review of the article's history shows that this pattern has repeated between Specifico and several editors. In fact, I can't find a single example in the last 500 edits of a positive contribution rather than a removal of content. This feels a bit like a WP:OWN situation. Squatch347 (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I Pencil Section
This text was recently removed by an editor with a vague explanation relating to WP:DUE. Rather than discuss this when asked, he has simply reverted several editors attempts to restore the page to the original consensus page per WP:ONUS. I'll forestall an edit war here by asking him to explain his take on why he would like to remove content that has been present on the page for at least a year and a half. Squatch347 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this a bit, because I'm honestly confused by the unexplained "undue" reference. Is the concern that the fact they published it is somehow unbalanced? Or that an article that is notable enough to have its own wiki article is somehow not notable?  I'm legitimately asking for a clear explanation and am open to why it is an issue, but I'm not really seeing it here so far. Squatch347 (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Having heard no objections and noting that the topic has a host article of its own (thus meets Notability and WP:DUE criteria) and that the source is referenced at WP:RSP as generally reliable, this addition would seem to meet policies. I'm going to add it Squatch347 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)