Talk:Frank Fetter

Frank Fetter 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
March 20, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 21, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
May 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 25, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Fetter an Austrian?[edit]

Was Fetter really an Austrian? The text of the article says that he didn't self-identify as one. I suggest that we remove "of the Austrian school". Bucketsofg 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the verbiage in question is the following:

Despite his ideological proximity and personal rapport with eminent Austrian School economists such as Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser, as well as his favorable reviews of works by Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, Fetter referred to himself, Thorstein Veblen, and Herbert J. Davenport as being members of the "American Psychological School."

If you will refer to the Austrian School article, you can see that the Austrian School is sometimes referred to as the "Psychological School" of economics. Therefore Fetter's self-description is synonymous, although more specific, since it specifies that he is an American, rather than Austrian economist in this theoretical line. The term more commonly in use today to classify this intellectual tradition is the now more general term "Austrian School." When I wrote the passage above I was confused on this point. I'll rewrite that passage to reflect the above. Do you think that takes care of the discrepancy? DickClarkMises 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's better, but I wonder whether the opening sentence should not reflect a little more ambiguity than "of the Austrian school". (How early are the "Austrians" recognized as a "school", anyway?) Bucketsofg 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some ambiguity because while the first major thinkers of the "Austrian School" were indeed Austrian, others who furthered their ideas were not. While it seems that it was common to have referred to the "Austrian School," it seems there was some desire to avoid vagueness on the part of non-Austrian thinkers in this line, and to choose a more theoretically descriptive name. As the Austrian School article states, Menger is generally considered to be the founder of the school, with his Principles of Economics being published in 1871. I used the "Austrian School" label because that is the most common modern descriptor for the school--that is, it seemed to me to be most useful for a modern reader. DickClarkMises 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand that is quite reasonable, but on the other runs the risk of removing from the reader a little bit of the subtlety. I wonder whether we might not be able to find a formula like "economist whose views were associated to and influential on the emerging Austrian school" (I'm not quite sure whether "associated" is the best word here, but you get the idea.) Bucketsofg 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed[edit]

I have failed the article according to the GA criteria. The article is well-written and has sufficient sources but is missing a few things. First, see if you can add an infobox (look to other economists for examples or WP:Bio). The main reason that I have failed this article is that it is not broad enough. According the criteria, it is not necessary for it to be as comprehensive as the requirements for FA, but at this point, the article appears to be a start or B class at most. I'd recommend elaborating on the other sections, or the success/importance of the books he wrote. Did he develop any significant or notable theories that should be mentioned? There is also no mention of his death. Again, look to other articles for examples of what else to include. Keep expanding the article and then look over the GA criteria before nominating again. Consider getting a peer review to get more assistance in improving the article. --Nehrams2020 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have added an infobox, a section noting some of Fetter's theoretical contributions, a few more accolades, and a smattering of additional sources. I have not been able to find any source whatsoever for the details of Fetter's death, something that I suspect has to do with the ripe old age at which he died. DickClarkMises 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed[edit]

Nice article! As part of the GA review, my suggestions are:

Expand the lead—which is meant to stand on its own as an introduction (WP:LEAD)—to two paragraphs.
I found the jump to a quotation here confusing: "Fetter was a staunch opponent of Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to end the gold standard and, [quote] In January 1933, a letter was sent to the president-elect,..." Transition to quote as you do the others, by providing context. –Outriggr § 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the introduction of that quote, although I'm not sure if I got it quite right. DickClarkMises 04:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead still needs to be expanded. --Nehrams2020 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several months later, the lead has still not been expanded. Please add more information that better summarizes the rest of the article, and for an article this length, a single paragraph should suffice. The rest of the article looks okay, and I don't think that the intro would be reason enough to delist it. --Nehrams2020 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The quote in the "Land as capital" section taken from Land as a factor of production - Chapter 2 references The Principles of Economics 189-190. However, I tracked down a copy of the original text, and I cannot find the quote anywhere. Can anyone else verify this? --Explodicle (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, what a great catch! Since the source that excerpted the original source referred to it being an "article," (rather than a monograph, such as the footnote indicated) I checked Capital, Interest & Rent, and there it was. Here's the correct cite, which is now in the article: Fetter, Frank. Capital, Interest, and Rent. Murray N. Rothbard, Ed. Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews, and McMeel, Inc. 1977. Part 2, Essay 2, para. 13. [1] DickClarkMises (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! --Explodicle (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Frank Fetter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]