Talk:Cato Institute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Rothbard and Cato

Will Wilkinson, a Cato employee,[1] has found it necessary to delete the mention of Rothbard as one of Cato's founders. I have restored this since it is inaccurate and misleading to delete it. Rothbard is mentioned [here http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/bergland1.html], for example, by a prominent libertarian, as "a founding board member [of Cato] who even named the institute". See also chapter 5 of Justin Raimondo's biography of Rothbard, An Enemy of the State, which details the Cato Institute's origins. Cato may have been able to purge Rothbard, but that does not mean its employees ought to be able to purge facts from Wikipedia. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV requires that all viewpoints be represented. We don't have to decide which one is true. I don't think anyone disputes that Rothbard was a founding member. That's not identical with "co-founder". In any case, the "history" section needs to be developed. I rearranged some material for better flow and made other copyedits. -Willmcw 09:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Better flow, Will, but isn't an interesting fact about the Institute that Rothbard actually came up with its name? Why not try to keep this in? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 13:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
What's our source? -Willmcw 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
See the Bergland essay cited above (and the quote from it), plus the bio of Rothbard by Raimondo, again, cited above. Cheers, NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I also found a Cato source which recognizes that Rothbard first suggested the name.[2]. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Will Wilkinson may have deleted a little bit too much in his recent edit, though I agree with most if it.[3] -Willmcw 08:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Will, why would the reference to Rothbard's naming cato be problematic if it were from a libertarian? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 21:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Who said that? I do think that if Rothbard himself had been the sole source then it would have been questionable, seeing as he was not on good terms with the Institute. As far as I can tell, everybody involved in the matter was libertarian. -Willmcw 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
In one of your comments, when I pointed to the Dave Bergland article as the source, you said "ahh, another libertarian". No? As if to diss its legitimacy. Or did I misread you, Will? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 03:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my reference was to the edit by User:Will Wilkinson, another libertarian. Why would edits by libertarians by illegitimate? -Willmcw 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, well, are you asking me to psychologize you? I just assumed you were anti-libertarian given your history with various edits in the past, e.g. the David Duke incident. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 20:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Thanks, -NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 04:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Stephan, I don't know much about the extent of Rothbard's involvement. My understanding was that Crane and Koch were the principal founders. If that's incorrect, then I'm definitely OK with putting him back in. Generally, I was just trying to streamline the article. There was a lot of inessential information. The article could still use a lot refining. It would be nice to have a fuller history section, and a less arbitrarily selective listing of Cato's policy views. I'll work on it when I get the chance. Will Wilkinson 19:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Budget numbers

The article says 70% of their money comes from individuals, 12% from foundations and 6% from firms. Where does the other 12% come from? Anyone have a citation for this? --David Youngberg 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Random, uniformed, uncited guess... probably from things like shirts and publications. I've bought a couple things from the online store before but I would doubt that makes up 12% of their entire income so who knows. --TheHoustonKid

Rupert Murdoch

Surely Rupert Murdoch wasn't involved with Cato during the Iraq invasion? Something isn't right here, it just doesn't make a lick of sense, how can Cato be opposed to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, when Murdochs Media Monster is is a propaganda tool for both? Viet Dihn a co-author of the Patriot Act sits on the board of directors of NewsCorp, which Murdoch runs. Meanwhile Murdochs media arsenal in America, Britain and Australia promoted the Iraq war ad nauseam. There was ONE newspaper that Murdoch owns that had an unsavvy opinion about the War in Iraq...that was some itty bitty island in Micro-polynesia. I know this isn't a talk/soapbox forum, and wikipedians have done an outstanding job creating this site. True freedom lovers, as opposed to the masonic weirdo media owning types who'd have us all branded with a serial number tattoo on the back of our necks (to fight the war on terror of course).

Could there be links added at the bottom that highlight "conflicts of interests" of these Thinktanks like the ones I mention? It isn't MY propaganda, its an actual fact. If a Thinktank purports to be Christian in premise and condones and promotes war via its board members who are heavily connected to mass media, a conflict of interest arises given Jesus Christs sermon on the mount covered extensively in the book of Matthew of the Holy Bible.

If I made and added the link myself would it be removed as bias even though in my opinion its not?==Conflict of Ideals and Interests that "such and such" group claims to promote==

Dean [Mar04, 2006]

Thanks for the kind words. If we have a source for someone pointing out these purported conflicts then we can summarize that. But we cannot, on our own authority, say that so-and-so has a conflict, is a hypocrite, or violates the tenets of their religion. Doing so would violate our core policy, Wikipedia:no original research. -Will Beback 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "ending drug prohibition" is more neutral and accurate than either "ending the drug war" or "legalizing methamphetamine". Since the object of the sentence is to observe that some of Cato's policies are highly controversial, it's not appropriate to remove reference to Cato's opposition to anti-discrimination laws, and I put it back JQ 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"individual contributions"

The article currently has the text:

"The report notes that 83% of individual contributions that year came from individual contributions[...]"

Apart from the clumbsy language (surely 100% of individual contributions came from individual contributions!) it isn't clear at all what this means.

Does it mean to say that 83% of contributions were from individuals acting privately? If so, is it 83% by total amount, or by number of contributions?

Anyone? WikianJim 13:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've now fixed it. --dm (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the fix? If so, how about adding it to the article? WikianJim 14:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That paragraph has an external link to Cato's 2005 annual report. --dm (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
So it does! My mistake :) WikianJim 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BinaryBits: What reason have you to delete a whole section? —vivacissamamente 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cato and Social Security

I edited the section on Cato and Social Security. The section in question contained this line: "Critics have charged that Cato's plan assumes that the increased returns projected from private accounts are not worth the increased risks of participation in the stock market."

If Cato's plan assumed that the increased returns on private accounts would not be worth the risk of participating in the stock market, then Cato would be against privatization, not for it. It is critics of Cato's privatization plan who assume that the rewards would not be worth the risks. I changed the "are not" in that line to "are," thus remedying this conflict. And then I get this smug message on my talk page:

"Thanks for experimenting with the page Cato Institute on Wikipedia. Your test of deliberately adding incorrect information worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.–Quiddity 08:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)"

Quiddity, you have shown me that you are either ignorant, a jerk, or both. Next time you want to criticize an edit a user has made, consider telling them why the edit was reverted, and maybe you could try not to assume that they're deliberately trying to inject misinformation into Wikipedia. I still don't know what your rationale here is, and due to of your lack of an intelligent and reasonable rebuttal I'm inclined to re-edit the section you reverted, so all you really accomplished is making me think that you're a smug little bastard. Have a nice day.

PS: I'm not a newb, and I've read much of the documentation Wikipedia provides. Consider a smug-ectomy -- in fact, send me the bill. --64.131.208.133 00:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was in error, I revert a lot of simple test edits, and this looked like one. The fact that it changed the meaning of a sentence made me assume it was a misinfo vandalism edit, so I used a {{verror}} template instead of a {{test}} template (because I've been asked to use the userpage templates more often). I'll replace the warning with a welcome template on your userpage. Sorry again. --Quiddity 06:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2005 Social Security Reform Proposal

I removed some loaded language in the article regarding Bush's 2005 Social Security Reform Proposal and added a link to back it up.

Original read:

For their part, only a minority of Republican congressmen supported President George W. Bush’s 2005 proposal to weaken and then abolish Social Security, an idea strongly backed by the Institute.

This was an edit from an earlier version on 13 July 2007 by 198.77.206.228. I was unable to revert this edit, so I changed it to the earlier language reading,

...President George W. Bush’s 2005 proposal to partially privatize Social Security...

I also turned "2005 proposal" into a link to the relevant page. (2005 proposal)

My point, in short, is that even if abolishing Social Security was Cato's goal, and perhaps even Bush's, it was not a part of the 2005 proposal. --JohnofCharleston 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cato isn't "New Right"

The "New Right" page describes it as follows: "The New Right also differs from the Old Right on issues concerning foreign policy with the New Right being opposed to the non-interventionism of the Old Right. Though mostly ignored by scholars until the late 1980s, the formation of the New Right is now one of the fastest-growing areas of historical research. New Right activists denounced abortion, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, and especially affirmative action." This doesn't fit Cato at all, as Cato is non-interventionist, neutral on abortion, and opposed to government restrictions on pornography and homosexuality. And you're not likely to find Cato scholars denouncing feminism. Binarybits 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this would depend on what you are considering new. New right in comparison to the right wing conservative of the early to mid 20th century would allow for a characterization of cato as the new right, where as the neo-conservative approach that has been growing since the late 80's can also be considered the new right. that being said, the differences between these two are extreme and therefor could not be considered similar, as was mentioned before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.42.104 (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fumento Article

I removed a paragraph talking about Steven Milloy's re-publication of a Michael Fumento critique of a study about the health dangers of radon gas. Cato has several dozen adjunct scholars. Most of them are not on Cato's payroll and their research is not supervised by Cato. And in fact, Milloy is no longer even an adjunct scholar. So the fact that Milloy once published an article by Michael Fumento--who is also not a Cato scholar--has absolutely nothing to do with Cato's research on environmental policy. On top of that, it seems to me that the summary of Fumento's work (and again, Fumento isn't affiliated with Cato) is rather unfair to him. While he does suggest that they may have fudged their numbers in the pursuit of media attention or increased funding, the bulk of the article appears to me to be a serious critique of their methodology. I have no idea if he's right or not, but certainly to dismiss the article as being simply a personal attack is unfair. Binarybits (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bradley

Why is "Adjunct scholar Robert L. Bradley, Jr. was a speech writer for former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay" in the "in the news" section? There's no information regarding when he was a Lay speechwriter, and no evidence that his speechwriting had anything to do with the newsworthy aspect of Enron's activities. Maybe Bradley's work at Enron was newsworthy in some sense, but if so I'd like to see a citation to a news article or two about his involvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Bearian has twice added global warming to the introductory paragraph on Cato as an issue on which the Institute has "found common cause" with the Bush administration. He gives no examples of Cato supporting the Bush administration's position on the issue.

While it's certainly true that some Cato scholars are on the same "side" of the issue as the president, I don't know of any examples of close cooperation, or of Cato scholars specifically promoting Bush policy proposals or vice versa. That's in contrast to Social Security and immigration, issues on which the Bush administration's proposals are based on specific policy proposals that were originated by Cato scholars.

Cato scholars write about dozens of topics, so inevitable they'll have some agreements on a wide variety of issues. We can't list every issue in the introduction, we have to pick the most prominent or important. But the ones mentioned in the introduction should be the ones where Cato's work has had a particularly high profile. Immigration and Social Security fit that mold. They were major policy priorities for the president and Cato scholars specifically supported the president's proposals. Unless Bearian has a specific citations, I don't think the same is true of global warming; it's neither a high-profile item on the Bush agenda, nor a major Cato focus, nor have the president and Cato scholars' views been especially in sync. Binarybits (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the cites from below in the article. There have been whole chapters of books written as well about the Cato Institute agreeing with the Administration on Social Security and global warming in particular. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(Cato + "global warming") receives over 170,000 Ghits: [4]. That shows that the connection is being discussed, at the least. It's one of their biggest issues, and one they agree with the White House. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see why global warming is higher-profile than the dozens of other issues Cato scholars write about, but I guess that's a subjective opinion. Since we're expanding the list, I've added a few other issues that I think have been equally prominent on the "disagreement" side of the ledger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearian cites the fact that Cato has published 2 dozen studies on "energy and the environment" in recent years as evidence that global warming is more prominent than other issues. But this is silly. Cato publishes dozens of studies a year and has published close to a thousand studies over its 30-odd years in existence. Of these, exactly 7 were about global warming. There are literally dozens of issues that have received a comparable level of attention from Cato. For example, Cato's work on the drug war [5] encompases 16 studies. Binarybits (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the The Cato Institute Official web site. It very clearly lists the environment as a major issue for them. I'm not claiming that willi-nilly. They say it. The bloggers say it. Whole books say it. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well yeah, according to the Handbook for Congress, there are 40-some "major issues." Does each one of them need a mention in the introduction and a paragraph explaining how important it is? I don't have a problem discussing Cato's views on global warming, and I'll even accept a mention of it in the intro, but let's not exaggerate too much. Also, keep in mind that "energy and the environment" covers a number of issues, some of which (i.e. the Energy Bill) Cato and the White House are on opposite sides. Binarybits (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Center for Promotion of Human Rights

Shouldn't there be a section for this Cato department? [6] I think their work promoting libertarian principles in other countries/languages is worth mentioning. They've been expanding it lately and there are already websites in ~10 different languages Universalcosmos (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, be bold. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson logo dropped by Cato -- any sources say why?

Since inception (as far back as I can see anyway), The Cato Institute has used a bust of Jefferson as a logo, but this was recently dropped.

This seems like a very significant shift in branding for Cato, and I just can't imagine it was done casually. Cato is among my all time favorite sources...can anyone shed any light on this? WNDL42 (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the Jefferson logo is here WNDL42 (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

These comments "Cato scholars have been sharply critical of the Bush administration on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq war, civil liberties, education, health care, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, some Cato scholars have found common cause with the administration on other issues, most notably, on Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4][5] tax policy,[6] and immigration." seem inappropriate for the lead section - the Institute has been around for thirty years and to focus on its relationship to one administration in the lead seems to be tilting the article to "currentism". The comments may be appropriate at another location in the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas

I think the section on their reaction to Lawrence v. Texas is misleading. The case did involve homosexual rights to privacy, but it was not as this article implies only related to homosexual rights. Rather the court said that the right to privacy applies to all non-commercial sex.

For now, I'm changing this (back to-see diff) from "homosexual" to "sexual"209.125.235.25 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-partisan?

Just because the Cato Institute doesn't pick favorites between Republicans and Democrats doesn't mean it's non-partisan (as it currently states in the second paragraph). The Cato Institute is totally partisan, as it supports Libertarianism. Awesomebitch (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cato supports libertarianism (with a small-L), the political philosophy. It does not support the Libertarian Party, which would make it a partisan organization. Binarybits (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The Cato Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. As such, it is quite verifiably a non-partisan organization. DickClarkMises (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro Paragraphs

The last paragraph contradicts itself. It spends most of the first half of it talking about how the Institute has criticized the Bush administration, but then oddly ends the sentence saying that they have praised the administration. Anyone know whats right here so that can be fixed, or atleast clarified? Hooper (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it a contradiction? It says Cato has criticized the admin. for A, B, C, but also praised it for X, Y, Z. The point apparently being it is non-partisan. This is all accurate. —D. Monack talk 17:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I was curious if thats what it meant to imply, but from reading it as a normal uninformed reader, it doesn't seem to come across very clearly. Just wondering if there is a way we can rephrase it to help out. Such as: However, Cato scholars have praised some administration initiatives, most notably Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4][5] tax policy,[6] and immigration. Maybe its just me being a weird reader, but it just came across oddly to me the old way because if you (as so many of us do) skim over unintentionally instead of thoroughly read you miss that first bit of the original sentence. Hooper (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Binarybits (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What is "CATO"

What the heck is C-A-T-O. Is it an acronym, a name? Kaplanoah (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a name. It's written "Cato." The name comes from Cato's Letters a famous set of 18th century pamphlets in the UK. Binarybits (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious: Is CATO a WP "Reputable/Reliable Source" and how many wikipedia articles cite CATO?

I think that the CATO institute constitutes what the Wikipedia community would consider a reputable source. But what the hell do I know? Not much most likely.

I am curious as to how many wikipedia articles cite CATO or a CATO published paper as a source.

How would someone find that out? Are there any search engines that or Wiki stats that can be used to determine the link topology within the Wikipedia?

And actually, I am using CATO just as an example. It could just as easily be any other "Washington Think Tank", say the Brookings Institute, or the American Enterprise Institute, or ...?

In fact, I think I will place this comment on their pages too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.16 (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I (personally) do consider them reliable but slightly biased due to their "Libertarian" viewpoint. I have a few stats on several Think Tanks, Cato included. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I would tend to agree. Biased is not the same as unreliable. I think most of us are biased, the question is whether we are transparent about it. Lots of negative stuff can probably be said about CATO, but they don't deny their Libertarian viewpoints. 71.39.78.68 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
On Bias: I agree that bias is not bad per se. Both the scientific method and modern civilization require a basic commitment to continuously reconsidering your assumptions in the light of evidence, but without any bias whatsoever one cannot interpret the world as anything but a big collection of disconnected facts. As far as biases go, a bias for liberty and tolerance is at least as good as any other, and beats a bias for authority and parochialism any time as far as I'm concerned.Sjeng 13:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would consider them reliable as well. They do have a definite point of view, but so do most think tanks, including Public Citizen, the Economic Policy Institute, Brookings, Urban, Aspen, Heritage, etc. The trick, as with any other institution, is to look at each piece they publish and distinguish between opinion pieces, thought pieces, research studies, etc. and for research studies to look at the quality of the research. Good work is done by people all across the political and philosophical spectrum (as is schlock work as well).EastTN (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would consider them reliable to a point, as noted by EastTN. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Cato is a Think Tank. As such and by definition, they are a source for OPINION. The quality called "Reliable" does not even apply to a Think Tank that engages in producing OPINION. A criterion for citing a source is verifiability (Keep in mind that Wikipedia has no primary goal of Truth, but rather only verifiability (i.e. has someone reliable source said or printed it--whether it's true or not--)). So any Wikipedia article that cited Cato on anything would have to use lead-ins like, "The Cato Institute thinks that..." or "According to the belief of the Cato Institute...". The issue of reliability has to do with being known as a reliable source for scrupulously fact-checked news articles, science publications, or whatever. When an issue is in the realm of those things that no one can know for sure, then citations to Opinions are appropriate-- precisely because those are the only citations that exist. As an example, will President Obama's proposed Economic Stimulus Plan actually stimulate the economy or will it bankrupt us even further? NO ONE KNOWS for a fact what it will accomplish (at least now, Feb 2009, before it has even been put in place). Any article about the stimulus plan would necessarily have to include OPINIONS. Whose opinions count and therefore can be included? A citation from the web page of "Joe's Bait & Tackle, Used Tires & Refrigerators" would not be acceptable by anyone. Citations from Professional Economists would be likely candidates. But even so, those same citations, to be honest would have to be prefaced by phrases like those I wrote above (e.g. "Joe Blow, former Comptroller of The United States has said that..."). Even so, these are the areas that Wikipedia is constantly having (Issues | Arguments | Fights) about. Cato is a usable source for OPINION (and should be labelled clearly as such) but they are not in any way a "Reliable" source for FACT. Forgive me if I left something out here... Joe Hepperle (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberal tradition

The sentence "The Cato Institute's work is rooted in Classical liberalism, in the tradition of John Locke and Adam Smith" is poorly constructed because it obscures the relationship between John Lock/Adam Smith and classical liberalism. "...Rooted in the classical liberal tradition of..." makes this relationship clear and avoids a dangling prepositional phrase. Binarybits (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism & misplaced modifiers

The sentence "The Cato Institute's work is rooted in the classical liberal tradition of John Locke and Adam Smith" is poorly constructed because it grossly distorts what it is intended to mean. "Classical" and "liberal" are adjectives modifying "tradition" We are not intending to say that the Cato Institute's work is rooted in "tradition". Instead, we correctly say it is rooted in "Classical liberalism" (a noun). "...Rooted in the Classical liberalism of John Locke and..." makes this relationship clear and avoids misplaced modifiers. Joe Hepperle (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"classical" modifies "liberal." "Liberal" modifies "tradition." "The classical liberal tradition" is the intellectual tradition that informs Cato's scholarship. Cato's own website uses this phrase a number of times. For example | here it talks about "books and essays from the classical liberal tradition." Binarybits (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-published source

Dynablaster removed a sentence about Exxon-Mobil funding on the grounds that it comes from a self-published source. I'm not actually that big fan of the sentence since it's kind of dated and focuses on a very small part of Cato's budget. But I don't think the self-published argument works. The Exxon-Mobil page itself is well-sourced; it points to Cato and Exxon-Mobil disclosures, which we could easily add up to verify the overall figure. Maybe that's original research, but it's certainly verifiable. Binarybits (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Listcruft

Why are there long lists of everyone affiliated with Cato? I am trying to think of a bigger violation of WP:Listcruft in any of the articles I've read. Academic38 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cato Institute and Tobacco

I feel that in order to let people decide about the objectiveness of the Cato institute more needs to be said and available on its past dealings specifically with tobacco companies.

The Cato Institute has received funding from tobacco companies:

Between 1995 and 1998 the Cato Institute received 425,000 from RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris.

--"1998 public policy contributions," Philip Morris. 1998. Bates No: 2065243965 – 2065243979. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fwo83c00. --"1997 policy payments for Slavit," Philip Morris. 1997. Bates No: 2078848138 – 2078848147. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qwi82c00. --Noah and McGinley. “Tobacco industry’s figures on political spending don’t reflect gifts to think tanks, other groups,” Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1996, p. A16. --Covington & Burling. "Possible revised budget for expanded 1995 tort reform program," Philip Morris. January 24, 1995. Bates No: 2048769111 – 2048769114. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hxt28d00. --Public Citizen Congress Watch. “A million for your thoughts: the industry-funded campaign against the FDA by conservative think tanks,” Washington, D.C.: Public Citizen, 1996, p.30 & p. 52.

What all that money bought:

"The Second-Hand Smoke Charade" Opposed the EPA's finding that second hand smoke caused 4000 deaths in the United States a year. Public policy and scientific consensus now agrees on the dangers of second hand smoke http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811


"Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths." http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

Which was refuted by the american council on science and health http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.498/pub_detail.asp "Levy and Marimont's arguments do not present a scientifically sound and convincing case that the estimate of 400,000 annual smoking-related deaths is a specious, statistical gimmick." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hozjo (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a fair issue to pose of all think tanks. Remember to be bold, but don't write so much as to put undue emphasis on it. I'd say maybe a sentence or two in the section on corporate support would be good as an illustration of the alleged affects of corporate support. Academic38 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair to complain about this, but this is nothing more than postmodernist crap. I guarantee the Cato Institute would have sided with the tobacco industry whether or not they received any money. First smokers voluntarily harm themselves. Second, the effects of second hand smoke are very mild at limited exposures. Your chance doubles after 30 years of constant exposure, but how many people involuntarily expose themselves to second hand smoke for 40 hours a week for 30 years? Nobody, except the third world poor.(LVAustrian (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Tone / Mild Bias Issues

I'm a free market guy. But this article is more or less promoting its subject. Much of it should be rewritten in more neutral terms or the article should be flagged. --Nogburt (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and flag the truly problematic section. I just don't think that wording like "...peace, tolerance, equality..." referring to the subject is absolutely unbiased. --Nogburt (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the offending sentence. Does that help? Binarybits (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That struck me too, in the section under liberalism, e.g., saying that Cato is for "peace" and "civil liberties" and "equal rights" is too vague to mean anything. I mean, what's the converse? Who's NOT for "peace"? Or civil liberties or equal rights? It's just a difference of opinion on how to accomplish those things, and when/where/how it should be applied. So, I suggest deleting that sentence, or else refining it to actually mean something. DonF18 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Be bold Don, you don't need a concensus to make an edit and it's not supposed to read like an advertisment for them (and fwiw I agree). RutgerH (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Minarchist?

I don't think this insertion makes sense. I've never seen Cato describe itself that way. I was a little puzzled by the edit summary on the main page that WP:BLP applies here. Is that true? Academic38 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, descriptions on the WP:BLP page do change, but it has been used to apply to organizations, usually when there is more libelous unsourced material included. Just getting whomsoever's attention that they need to source it or it will be deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian AND neo-liberal

As a think tank, they obviously have members that are favored of neoliberal and classic liberalism economics than only libertarian, but the word neoliberal isn't even mentioned in the article. Is it because it is not used in the US as much as outside?

09:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.143.107 (talk)

Neoliberalism? 99.181.133.228 (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proprietarian?

Proprietarian think tank? Aside from no WP:RS, there is no Wikipedia article discussing this concept. Accordingly, not an accurate description in this article. --S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Koch v. Crane and Levy?

This story says that the Koch brothers are trying to buy up Niskanen's shares of Cato, to elect their own board member and take control of the organization. Crane and Levy, who have criticized Democrats and Republicans alike, believe that the Koch brothers are unacceptably partisan, and would destroy Cato as an independent, nonpartisan organization.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/03/the_kochs_brothers_are_trying_to_seize_control_of_the_libertarian_think_tank_cato_.single.html Cato Goes to War The Koch brothers have launched an extraordinary campaign to take control of America’s most respected libertarian think tank. Will they destroy it? By David Weigel|Posted Monday, March 5, 2012, at 6:00 AM ET

BTW this article lists changes in the board; the list of board members in this article is apparently inaccurate. --Nbauman (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/cato-institute-and-koch-in-rift-over-independence.html Cato Institute Caught in Rift Over Direction By ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: March 6, 2012

--Nbauman (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Founding information

  1. Cato says it was founded in 1977.
  2. The Charles Koch Foundation said it was founded in 1980.

So why does Activist (talk · contribs) say that the Charles Koch Foundation was founded in 1974, and restructured into Cato in 1977? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I say so because the original articles of incorporation for the Charles Koch Foundation were filed in Kansas on 12/19/74. In its board meeting on July 7th and 8th, 1976, it changed its name to the Cato Institute with the document filed with the Kansas SOS on 7/28/76. Crane's name first appears as president of Cato in a document filed eight months later. I have provided the URL to Mr. Rubin earlier today that contains PDFs of these documents. I was in error, as I accepted Crane's statement. I stand corrected. It was founded in 1974 and the name was changed in 1976. I have no idea why Cato maintains that it was founded in 1977 when that's clearly not true. Obviously, if Charles Koch claims he founded Cato in 1980, he is not telling the truth.
The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation became his instrument for funding other anti-tax libertarian think tanks, at a later date than 1977. I wonder if Rubin is not confusing the two. Recently, and I'm not going to bother looking up the dates, the Charitable Foundation split into the Charles Koch Institute and the Charles Koch Foundation, reprising the name of the earlier non-profit foundation, but certainly not being the same entity. http://www.cgkfoundation.org/Activist (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The establishment of one organization or another at any particular time does not mean another organization (e.g., Cato) was established at that same time. Please provide RS, not illogical arguments or arguments about truth.--S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, the source given did not have the indicia of reliability, nor did it actually have the information reported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing Cato Institute [cut & pasted from S. Rich talk page]

I provided a URL to the website that contained corrections to entries on the Cato site. I provided an extensive rationale supporting my original edits to the original undoer, Arthur Rubin, prior to your latest revision/undo. I provided further information citing the specific documents. It seems that you, and he, find those publications for which that author writes to be less than reliable for purely arbitrary reasons. I have provided the URL for the original PDF articles of incorporation documents that verify the accuracy of my edits. Still you chose to undo my edits, reverting to the demonstrably incorrect information. I don't understand why your insistence on retaining and preserving misinformation is so important to you. Perhaps you and Rubin (I'll copy this to his Talk page) can explain?

The Koch brothers employ "minders" who scrub any pages referring to them in any way of any less than positive (even neutral) information. I don't see any indication that you're in their employ, at least from looking at the most recent page listing of your editing efforts. So, I'm baffled as to what your agenda is? Did you look at the sources I provided, or just do a whimsical undo?Activist (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't. You provided a website (not a specific URL) which contains documents which appear to contradict the statements here. You later provided a URL on my talk page, but, even if the documents are genuine, I can think of any number of ways in which the statements you changed would still be correct.
I suggest you strike out your accusations in the second paragraph above everywhere it appears, or you probably will be blocked for WP:NPA violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would really like to hear how you think that the statements that are verified by actual PDF copies of the original documents are "incorrect," if the statements that I revised differ considerably from the sources that are essentially hearsay and in which you're expressing confidence. (Cato's version and Charles Koch's version, which differ from each other.) The statement that I made about the Koch's "minding" (actually whitewashing) pages containing materials about them is indisputable. If you'd like sources, I'd be glad to provide them. Next, my note to which you refer is addressed to S.rich, not yourself. I didn't make an accusations but what I did ask was what his or her motivation was for reverting the changes.

I don't mind removing them at all. What I find aggravating is that both of you have persisted in keeping incorrect information (unless you have some source that you haven't revealed and the Secretaries of State from Kansas and California have bogus documents on their sites) on the page. I figure if you redo them in any way that reflects reality, not necessarily using my words, and pull the cautionary note so that the next editor who stumbles across it will not repeat the removals that you and S.rich initiated, I'm fine with that.

I'm not trying be contentious or make this personal, and hope you don't take it that way, but this is a simple correction of two errors of fact that I found on the page. Cato was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 and changed its name in 1976 to Cato. That's "reliable" information. It's documented. I personally feel that it is important information. My original sources were the Nation, a publication that's maybe 150 years old, a Beau Hodai story from In These Times, which magazine I've been reading for over 30 years though I don't know its age, and dbapress.com which provides copies of the original documents. Why should this be so difficult?

If you can suggest some way of communicating besides the Wikipedia pages, I'm perfectly comfortable with that as well. Although there may be some small utility in having a this sort of a discussion about the mechanics of Wikipedia on this page, it seems unlikely that it will be read by many (if any) othersActivist (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note the Cato page has 117 watchers and 15,000+ page views in the last 30 days. IOW, lots of people will read these comments even if few feel motivated to comment. Also, if you can provide specific URLs here (on this talk page) it will facilitate discussion. WP:COOL! --S. Rich (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information and clarification. I posted the requested URL to Arthur Rubin's page three days ago, hoping that he would simply revert his undo and pull his cautionary note which would invite others to do the same as himself. I don't know why he didn't do that, although he may be currently blocked for being involved in another edit war which I haven't looked at.

Here's the URL with PDF's of the documents filed with secretaries of state in Kansas and California that I posted to Rubin's Talk page, that he still contends are insufficient:

Here's your source documents: http://dbapress.com/source-materials-archive/koch-money-the-corporate-cash-that-oils-the-right-wing-%E2%80%9Cthink-tank%E2%80%9D-machine-koch-industries-americans-for-prosperity-americans-for-prosperity-foundation-reason-foundation-cato/cato-institutecharles-koch-foundation-incorporation-papers-and-bylaw Activist (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to confess that I am not someone who spends a lot of time on Wikipedia. My logging on is almost entirely to obtain much appreciated information. But at times I find information of which I have personal knowledge that is inaccurate and I change it and source it, unless I'm just fixing a typo or some such trivial thing. I work about 12 hours a day trying to do 18 hours work, seven days a week, so I can't spare the time to volunteer on Wikipedia. I have very little technical expertise. I really don't know the etiquette here. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. I just want it to be a more reliable source of information.

At one point, I even found a post by a user identified by a URL only, who inserted a raving, semi-literate allegation into the middle of an existing sentence about Michael Moore, that he was a known pedophile. I thought that was outrageous, but it had been on the page undisturbed for maybe a year and a half. So I thought maybe I'd just missed something, some accusation which inexplicably wasn't broadcast endlessly on right wing sites that would have been drawn to it. I found nothing. I asked for some editor other than a novice such as myself to make the revert, but the next time I checked back it still hadn't been done. So I did it myself. I have posted well-sourced information to some pages only to have it reverted by other IPN-only anonymous users who never seemed to post anything else, anywhere, to Wikipedia. So I'm not at all confident that libelous information on frequently visited pages, even, will be deleted by readers as my Cato corrections have been. Activist (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The url's provided by Activist have been corrected and they lead to a DBA page showing articles of incorporation for Cato reflecting its' incorporation in Kansas on 12/19/1974. The Kansas Secretary of State lists Cato as filing that date, entity no. 0385872. This page: https://www.accesskansas.org/bess/flow/main?execution=e1s3 takes us to the Kansas SoS business entity name search page. It requires typing in "Cato Institute" IOT reach the particular data.
Cato's "about us" page uses the date "1977" as the date of "founding". Our infobox uses the term "established" and reflects the 1977 date. These differences are NBD. What Cato could have done was incorporate the entity in late 1974 IOT legally work on or towards its eventual founding or establishment as a functioning organization. That is, the Cato Institute entity must exist as a (non-profit) corporation so it can set up bank accounts, hire employees, lease or buy property, or conduct other functions. And after all this preparatory work is done, it declares a date of "founding". The 1974 date is interesting, but I would not get wrapped around the axle by it.--S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I appreciate your tolerance of my Wikipedia inexperience, but I find this argument you've posed to be speculative and extremely unconvincing. The notion that the immensely wealthy Charles de Ganahl Koch might take over a year and a half to "set up bank accounts," etc., is quite a stretch. He and his brother David H. are currently tied as the fifth wealthiest persons in the United States, with over $25 billion net worth apiece. The foundation didn't "lease or buy property," but used the Kochs' existing premises to house the Foundation. My best assumption is that both Charles and CATO were just sloppy in recounting their history. The documents I've provided clear up that misrepresentation. What they did, for whatever reason, was to change the name of the organization. I am not familiar with the acronyms you're using, i.e., NBD and IOT. Thank you for your thoughtful assistance. Activist (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I still don't know what "NBD" and "IOT" mean, but I'm guessing they might be "No big deal" and "In order to." I have once again supplied the documents that clearly establish the date of the founding of Cato as the Charles Koch Foundation and the subsequent name change to Cato. What Cato "could have done" is not an issue. The documents demonstrate what it did in fact do. I can suggest a better explanation for what might have caused the name change but it would be of course only less speculative than that supplied by Srich. Activist (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
We can say "Cato was first incorporated in Kansas in ... and then founded in San Francisco ...blah blah blah." As it started operations in California, it probably registered with the California Secretary of State. There's where you can look for more info. (BTW, U R AOK RE NBD N IOT, LC?)

Charles Koch issued a statement this month that confirmed the correctness of my edits with respect to the Cato founding and name change. [1]

Charles Koch’s Recent Statement on the Cato v. Koch Conflict

By Ilya Somin • Volokh Conspiracy - March 9, 2012 2:00 pm

My objective is for Cato to continually increase its effectiveness in advancing a truly free society over the long term. This was my objective when, in 1976, I came up with the idea of converting the Charles Koch Foundation to a public policy institute and recruited Ed Crane to run it.

Activist (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How can something calling itself the "Volokh Conspiracy" be a reliable source. And that quote still wouldn't mean that Cato was founded in 1974. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://volokh.com/2012/03/09/charles-kochs-recent-statement-on-the-cato-v-koch-conflict/

There is no such thing as a Nobel prize in Economics

"The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics,[1][2] but officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" from Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences it is given by a Bank is laden with controversy and is not an official Nobel prize given by the Nobel foundation.

please stop reverting to a misleading caption no fellow of cato has ever won a Nobel prize. --24.241.37.128 (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Corporate Support

The section on "criticism of corporate support" hardly contains any criticism of corporate support. Considering the section is mostly examples of Cato working AGAINST corporate interests, I imagine this was washed by somebody sympathetic to Cato. Either some actual criticisms should be cited or the section should be deleted. Considering less than 2% of their funds come from corporations and they don't seem to have any high profile corporate interest scandals, I wonder whether such criticisms are worthy of being highlighted. MoireL5522 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- the majority was Cato criticisms of corporate welfare. So I moved it up into a subsection of Cato's positions. The remaining, small, section is tagged as needing expansion. This shouldn't be hard -- lots of commentators opine on the fact that the Koch family backs Cato. Next, if and when there is more put into this Criticisms of corporate support section, we can add Cato's/others' response for balance.--S. Rich (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Election

I think it ought be said that Cato also criticized Romney and Obama this time around in 2012.24.249.193.180 (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Václav Klaus to become Distinguished Senior Fellow

Is it worth including in the article that the Czech president Václav Klaus, whose term is just nearing end, is to become a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Institute? Klaus.cz - 193.84.186.81 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But what does Cato.org say? Besides the Czech language reference you provided, English languages sources will help. Remember, we must verify carefully in accordance with WP:BLP rules. --S. Rich (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This was just published on Cato.org. - 193.84.186.83 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Some new user thoughts on Cato page overall

I am a long time reader of Wikipedia, but a new user to the editing side. With that being said, I would like make a few observations about this page. If we want to answer the question of “what is Cato Institute?” from a neutral perspective, as per the content section of the Wikipedia editing policy, could this page not have less content and accomplish the intended goal better in regards to neutrality?

The reader who comes to the page likely wants basic facts about Cato. As the caption at the top states, the lead article launches into “a series of position comparisons” which is not a neutral way to answer the question of “what is Cato”. Also, I would suggest that some of the resources did not pertain to the Cato Institute (e.g. "The Doubters of Global Warming" Frontline). The article should, in my opinion, not stray from the path of neutrality and explaining to the reader what the subject is, rather than conjecture about how it was accepted by others.

I do appreciate those of you who have taken the time to provide this information and I hope not to sound critical as my interest were to simply improve our collective intelligence. Evanw2821 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

First, I would like to thank those of you who have taken the time to edit this and other Wikipedia pages. Sharing your expertise about the page topics while trying to ensure a Neutral Point of View, Verifiable Sources, and No Original Research is quite worthwhile. In this new media world, it enhances the opportunities for participation and improves the quality of the final content.

This is my first venture on the edit side of Wikipedia, I hope I can provide a new-user perspective about how this page is evolving. My interest was to simply learn what the Cato Institute is. The content on the page seems to move back and forth between two different viewpoints creating a tug of war of ideology. While the obvious purpose is to provide a neutral point of view for the page, it seems to get lost in the discourse and debate of political ideology.

My hope is that those more experienced and knowledgeable than I about Cato will contribute to the additional editing of the Cato Institute page so it will ultimately be neutral and without bias, providing information which simply informs rather than persuades. Respectfully. BevIndiana 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeverlyCompton (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cato_Institute/Archive_1&oldid=1030697849"