Talk:Cato Institute/Archive 2

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

Editing concerns

The following thread has been cut from my (S. Rich) talk page IOT paste here:
== CATO ==

Cato popped up on my watchlist recently and I've taken a look at some of the text there. I see that you've done some recent rearrangement and updating of formalities. The article has numerous problems which I hope you may address in the next phase of your improvement there. Full of weasels. Lots of mentions of this or that policy issue which turn out to mis-state the Cato positions. Lots of OR interpretation of Cato views. No real narrative of the organization or implementation of Cato mission. Excessive reliance on primary sources. And more. Cleaning up the formalities may have been a good first step in that it revealed the underlying weaknesses of the article. I hope you'll find time to continue working there. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 12:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Posted by: – S. Rich (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC

[14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC) moved comment to intended location above] SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not commented in this section so it is hard to understand how I am "changing the subject". My comments in the section above are focused on the BRD of removal/addition of lists of notable people in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"libertarian"

In what sense is this institute "libertarian" -- a word that means something rather different in the U.S. than the rest of the world. It turns out that it means the American version of "libertarian". I'd change the link... but there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory separation of articles on libertarianism; Libertarianism#United_States seems to be the best we've got now, and it doesn't explain anything, although the talk page has some idea what's up. Someone needs to do that work, because I know people who have been confused travelling U.S. <--> England, and Wikipedia is a go-to... —Isaac Dupree(talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What change do you suggest? Cato's an American think tank, so the American usage seems appropriate. If there's another meaning elsewhere in the world, it seems like it would be good to disambiguate the relevant links, but that should be done on the "libertarian" page, not this one. Binarybits (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C."

The Cato Institute is not a libertarian think tank. It is a RIGHT WING "think tank".

I suggest: "The Cato Institute is an American right wing think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C"

--- Dagme (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A discrepancy

"Notable books from Cato and Cato scholars include: 

   In Defense of Global Capitalism"

However I went to the book's page and it says that the book is not from Cato but from a Swedish libertarian group called Timbro. 70.198.130.132 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Board members & Nobel winners -- BRD

The fact that Cato is the Primary source for info (board members & prize winners) is not sufficient to remove the info. As far as these listings go, the fact that various people are named is uncontroversial and reliable. The notability of these people is pertinent to the article in that the listing of them serves to explain, indirectly, Cato's high ratings in the annual think tank survey from U Penn. The listings also serve to balance the article because of criticisms connected with "corporate sponsorship" and the Koch brothers. Other think tank articles have such listings, notwithstanding WP:OTHERCRAP. Example: Hoover Institution. Indeed, listings in WP can become WP:FL. Example: Arthur C. Clarke Award. – S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The problems with this article go beyond whether these lists are copied from the Cato website. The article is overweighted with material sourced to primary statements of the analysis and opinions of its scholars. This work would ideally be selected and sourced to secondary discussion of the most significant of their writings. Moreover, the Cato institute itself has played an important role in the American policy discussion over the past three decades, and there should be more RS material about the Institute, its operations and influence, political and public reaction to it, and the like -- sourced to secondary RS references, not the Institute's own statements about itself, its intentions, goals and beliefs. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
"Worked with" is weaseley. What was the nature of the work of these Nobelists at Cato and how did it relate to their work as academic economists? -- which is the work they received the Nobel prize for. Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO's concern is validated by Cato's profile of Nobelist Gary Becker here. Becker's extent of involvement with the Institute appears to have been limited to one lecture. This is why we should avoid weasel words like "worked with." Steeletrap (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The tone of the Cato page which lists the Nobel laureates is overtly promotional. Srich, you should undo your reinsertion and instead generate RS text which discusses the involvement of the laureates and its significance for Cato Institute. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Who is using the term "worked with"? Why, Cato used it. So this is not an issue of an editor using weasel words or unduly promoting the listing. As it stands, the listing is simply a listing. But the bullet about Becker could be expanded to include his involvement as an advisory board member. Would such details be less promotional, or more? Would such info clarify that Becker's involvement is more than one lecture? In any event, I've modified the listing to say "associated with". Let us know if you think this is an improvement. If not, we can change it back or find other phrasing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
[inserted]Who do you speak for Srich, or is that the royal Us? SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Cato's page is not used in this article other than to repeat their listing. They are RS in this regard. Promotionalism has to do with how material is used in WP, not the fact that the RS has nice things to say about a topic. – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you are misstating policy and have no RS which tells us the extent or significance of those scholars work with for or influencing Cato. You've made the text worse, not better by changing the meaning to one which was not stated by Cato, in fact to one which is absurd since some of those gents are deceased. Please think this through and address the points raised by your colleagues here. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So Steeletrap does not like the phrase "worked with" and you don't like "associated". What do you propose? (Several of the Nobel gents are dead, but that is detail that may or may not be helpful.) I only include the list as a list, and seek to avoid embellishing it. Add embellishment if you like. But please note that ots of articles about institutions have such listings, supported by nothing more than the organization themselves. Look at WP:FA Seacology for example. Or look at various university articles, which quite often contain listings of notable alumni and faculty. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Here, FYI, is a A-class article (which is a step above WP:GA) that is sourced largely from GTRI, including the names of its key people. Georgia Tech Research Institute. – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Remember how you thought all the problems on Foundation for economic education shouldn't be tagged because it had passed GA? Please be specific in your response to issues raised here so that the discussion can converge to a resolution which improves the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The Nobel Prize section smacks of self-promotion (and is snatched from a marketing piece). Why not create a section broadly describing the collaboration between Cato with notable scholars? Gary Becker wouldn't qualify as having worked with Cato in anything but a technical sense, but Milton Friedman certainly would (see: here), as would others on the list. The content of the section could specifically describe the nature and extent of the collaboration and would label those scholars who have won the Nobel Prize as "nobel laureates". It would not however include everyone on the list, since that is misleading and self-promotional in those cases where the cited Laureate has had an exceedingly limited interaction with Cato. I also see little reason for the section to only mention Nobel Laureates, as opposed to prominent/notable scholars generally.
Also, the "A-Class" bit is really a red-herring. We are talking about one part of the article, not the article as a whole. Steeletrap (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I opened this thread as a BRD because someone had removed the listings of notables. If the objection is that articles should not have such listings, then state the policy to that effect and seek to overcome the fact that numerous GAs, A-class, and FAs have such listings. Overcome the fact the WP:FLs exist as well. Overcome the fact that numerous articles have their listings of notable people based on RS from their institution websites. The "problems" with this article page may "go beyond whether these lists are copied from the Cato website", but that question is not what this BRD is about. Rather, "what shall we include in terms of people lists?" is more to the point. If editors want a bare listing, you now have it. If they want a listing with more stuff, then provide such stuff. – S. Rich (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The source page on Cato's website is self-promoting insinuation and appropriation of undocumented benefits which purportedly accrued to Cato as a result of its in some cases minimal association with these gents. Srich, please state specifically for each of the individuals whose names you have listed, what is their association with the Cato Institute and how is that association described and documented by the cited source or whatever other sources you may propose. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NLIST provides guidance. Whether the Cato page is self-promoting or not is another question that must be evaluated IAW WP:RS guidelines. But RS is not evaluated on the basis of "self-promotion insinuation" or "appropriation of undocumented benefits" that might be seen in the RS (according to ones' views). Rather, describing the Cato page in these terms, with the idea of keeping the names out of the article, is injecting one's own views. Consider – we have an article titled List of SRI International people. There are enough people at SRI International to justify a separate article. The list article was a Featured List candidate and SRI International is a GA. In both of these lists, SRI's various webpages are used as the RS. And here [1] we see SRI's statement that "Our innovative contributions are often acknowledged at the corporate and individual levels by technical societies, national organizations, and professional associations. We are proud to feature some of our awards here." Do we reject the SRI webpage because of this promotional language? I think not.
The fact that I mention SRI and other quality articles is no red herring. If someone feels that the use of such "promotional RS" justifies the removal of names from WP, I invite them to start deleting the names from such lists in the articles I've mentioned. Go ahead and cite the "promotional" nature of the RS as the justification. My expectation is that editors following such lists and articles will object.
I will add that prose is preferred when mentioning names in organizational type articles. WP:UNIGUIDE is a WikiProject guide that encourages such writing. In this case, though, there are two problems. One, the lists do need RS which can be used to fill out the descriptions of the NoBull (and other notables) guys's roles at CI. And, two, there are likely to be complaints from editors who would not like any "promotional" tone that prose might or would entail. At present the lists serves a useful propose for readers. So: 1. the people listed meet WP notability guidelines; 2. there is sufficient RS available to V their connection to CI; 3. their connection to CI serves to underwrite CI's high ratings in the UP surveys; and 4. the the lists themselves might serve as a starting point for article expansion. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Srich, you keep changing the subject without responding to clear statements concerns and questions from your colleagues here. That cannot lead to a convergence to a stable community resolution here. SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Cato has updated their website to show how each laureate has worked with Cato.Sy9045 (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cato Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Early discussion

Bibble; and spam links

Geoffrey Bibble has never been on the board of directors of the Cato Institute. Additionally, I removed two external links because neither link even mentioned the Cato Institute. Although the books that the two links were advertising may have something in them about the Cato Institute, the purpose of external links in Wikipedia is not to sell books but to give people immediate additional information. Jimbo Wales 20:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bad phrasing; sorry

128.193.88.135 was right to edit my edit. To be fairer, I should have written something like "Many environmentalists oppose the Institute for its advocacy of the deregulation of industry. See reference below for an example." I shouldn't have repeated the "astroturf" allegation, since that was just one man's view (however amusingly phrased). I shall not edit any further unless I find more information or read other contributors' opinions. -- Heron

Too much of a muchness

There is no reason to cite the personal opinions of a technical support engineer in re the Cato Institute. Mike Huben does not qualify as an environmentalist, much less an expert environmentalist worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia article. Giving credit where credit is due, we should link to his collection of anti-Cato links. Nothing more; nothing less. -- NetEsq 20:26 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Odd internal links

Susan Mason (talk · contribs) has added bidirectional links between this article and Koch Industries, but neither article gives any clue how these two organizations are related. Does anybody know? -- Heron

Greg Palast must have said something about them; 'she' feels the need to vomit everything he says all over Wikipedia.
Koch Industries has some sort of relationship with Cato, something to do with about $21,000,000 given to Cato, however Palast didnt specify too much so I didn't bother to do much more than indicate that there was a connection. Susan Mason
The chairman of CEO of Koch Industries is a cofounder of the Cato Institute and I believe the Institute itself is a successor organization to a Koch foundation. They also receive a boatload of Koch money on a regular basis. Hilarious Bookbinder 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Heron:

If I were you, I wouldn't spend too much time contemplating the merits of Susan Mason's edits. See Problems with Susan Mason. -- NetEsq 15:18 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)


it just so happens that koch has bought out the cato institute, and it no longer holds the entirely pure, "paleo-" libertarian positions characteristic of murray rothbard, ludwig von mises, and ron paul. actually, the cato institute does not hold positions at all, only its scholars do, as is noted here and probably elsewhere on the site. unfortunately, many of the true small-government libertarians have walked out, following rothbard, leaving vacancies which are being filled by a decidedly neoconservative sort, or just those otherwise not really all that adverse to the state interfering in the "free" market (so long as it means their opinions are right). tracing this change involves a fair amount of work and i do not intend to do it myself, but any lewrockwell.com reader is probably well aware of it. 128.128.98.46 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cato and Objectivism

Doesn't the Cato Institute have some connection to the Objectivists? - --Gwalla 02:17, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No more than any other Libertarian advocacy group does, really. --Kade 05:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The president and founder says all the leadership are objectivists, I added it under principles. Hilarious Bookbinder 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a citation? Binarybits 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There are now citations, enough I believe to support the assertation that the Cato Institute has significant institutional ties to the Objectivist movement. This is, imo, noteworthy. I'll also note there was a section on Objectivism previously which was also deleted by Binarybits. The former objectivism section didn't have too much to say though. Apparently there is a picture of Ayn Rand over one of their conference rooms. The only other fact was Ed Huggins (iirc) was a former Cato staffer now running some portion of the Atlas Society. Does anyone this this should be included? Hilarious Bookbinder 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The libertarian and Objectivist movements are profoundly interwoven. If there are sources, this is worthy of inclusion. Louislover1969 (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Cato vs. renewable energy?

It would be nice if some of Cato's inexplicable bias against renewable energy could be explored here. --scruss 22:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

scruss could lead the way with a couple of Cato quotes downplaying some specific sources of renewable energy. We'll edit them in. --Wetman 23:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I trust I'm not the only one who hears an alarm going off when a Wind Farm engineer proposes to throw a single bias that serves his own interest into an otherwise well-rounded article. If you want to write a section devoted to criticism of CATO, lets think a little more broadly than "They don't like my poor little wind farms". --Kade 05:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also, it's not inexplicable it's consistent with the rest of the policies they advocate. Like other libertarians, Cato opposes government subsidies of any kind of private business. E.g. they oppose subsidies for oil exploration, mining, agriculture. It's not accurate to say their against renewable energy. They just don't want anyone forced to pay for it. --dm (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

funny how renewable energy is great, but only if you use the government to force it on people. they wouldn't do it themselves because it's not marketable? surely that can't be any kind of limitation of feasiblity. 128.128.98.46 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CATO & Education Reform

In addition to supporting a more limited government, CATO has been in the forefront of the debate on educational reform. See its forum presented in summer of 2004 and OPED articles by Marie Gryphon and others.

I will see about trying to include some of that information. If you can provide some sources that will be faster. I can dig something up though.Louislover1969 (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

Do the two entries in "Controversy" really merit inclusion? Neither has anything to say about Cato as an institution. They both deal with individual members who did controversial things wholly apart from Cato, and Miller's misfeasance is fairly petty in any case.208.59.114.86 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Matt Tievsky

If the activities of Cato's scholars are irrelevant, then we should remove the list of their names from the article. Cato, like any similar institution, is the sum of its personnel. However, the heading doesn't seem right, these entries should be part of the list of scholars. -Will Beback 23:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
But we're talking about what Cato personnel did OUTSIDE Cato. That's what I'm really getting at.208.59.114.86 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Matt Tievsky
It's not that simple. In the case of Bandow, he was trading on his reputation as a Cato senior fellow:
  • Bandow has written more than 150 editorials and columns over the past five years, each identifying his Cato affiliation.[2]
In both instances our article describes the tie-in or reaction from Cato. (PS, don't forget to sign your talk page entries, by typing four tildes ("~"). Thanks.) -Will Beback 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that controversy sections are inherently biased. The best way to handle negative information is to add to part of the article where it is most relevant so that is can be read in context. Louislover1969 (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Citing sources

Some of the changes you are making to the Cato Institute article are a bit POV, and certainly unsourced. Could you offer a source for the following excerpt, especially the bolded portion?:

In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy, all of whom are leading scholars in the field.

For other, more factual claims, such as percentage of Institute funding from tobacco companies, could you cite a source? Dick Clark 19:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All of those scholars are widely published in the climatology literature. Michaels, for instance, has published 13 papers in refereed journals in the past three years. I'd say that makes "leading scholars" less POV than "disagree with widely held views of climate change."
You could look up Cato's annual budgets and compare them to the claims by critics of Cato's tobacco-company funding, and find that it's a very small percentage. I know of no published source that makes that comparison.
DavidBoaz 19:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not claiming that they are not "leading scholars"--I am saying that we need a notable source for such a claim. I believe you that they are above reproach, but it isn't encyclopedic to just say it in the encyclopedic voice, rather than in an excerpt from or summary of a notable, verifiable source (See Wikipedia:No Original Research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citing sources). Dick Clark 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(Above text copied from User talk:DavidBoaz.)

Well, I'm not sure why "all of whom disagree with widely held views of climate change." is more encyclopedic. They disagree with widely held views by journalists, but climatologists are obviously split on the topic. However, I'm afraid I've devoted enough time to this, so c'est la vie.
DavidBoaz 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And then there is the issue of widely held by what people and how many people. If "widely held" just means belief by lots of people then belief in AGW and global warming "denialism" in all its various forms are widely held. Louislover1969 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"Widely held" is a very weak statement to make about something. Now, it seems to me that the folks associated with Cato contest the anti-scientific dogmatism of many that hold the "yes there is global warming, and humans contributed to it" line. Nonetheless, there is this dogmatism, and for many it goes unquestioned. I don't particularly like the wording myself, since it still posits something (however weak the claim may be) that is supported by no cited source. My revert wasn't a demonstration that I preferred the previous wording, but rather that your change seemed to violate WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, et al. I agree with you that the previous wording is problematic... but replacing it with even more problematic, POV-pushing is not the solution. Dick Clark 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should keep our personal opinions about policy merits out the talk page as well as the article. Our personal political opinions are not relevant here.Louislover1969 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Dick Clark, I think you're off base here. The view that "yes there is global warming, and humans contributed to it" is not "anti-scientific dogmatism" as you claim; rather it is the consensus view of a large majority of scientists with relevant expertise. Certainly, there are scientists who disagree and of course sometimes the scientific consensus turns out to be wrong, but really you've inverted the situation. Even many skeptics concede there is warming and that it is partly anthropogenic; they just think one or the other (or both) has been overstated. Crust 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Crust: As you well know, my opinion on global warming doesn't matter here. What matters is what notable sources say. I am certainly not trying to inject my own position on global warming into the Cato Institute article. What I was trying to do above was show the editor making changes that I was not contesting the positions of the Cato scholars in question, but I was rather questioning the fact that no notable sources were offered to support such a claim. As for global warming being demonstrably anthropogenic, any proof of such a claim would necessarily require the inclusion of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument (since we don't have a control biosphere in this "experiment"), thus depriving the argument of much (if not all) of its heft. Dick Clark 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Dick Clark, as you say, it's not your opinion on global warming that matters here; the issue is what is the scientific consensus. So I'm surprised to see you follow up by telling us that not only are you skeptical of current arguments for anthropogenic global warming, but that furthermore as a purely logical matter you reject any such argument (or as you put it, it would have little or no "heft"). But enough about you. The point is, while some scientists and many non-scientists disagree, there is a clear scientific consensus on this. Crust 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Crust: I stated my opinion on global warming above because I wanted to insure that user:DavidBoaz didn't take me to be a POV warrior simply reverting his edits out of spite. I don't really see why my opinion on global warming further matters for this discussion page since I have not tried to insert it into the article. Rather, I was attempting to prevent unsourced edits, even though I personally agreed with their content (see diff). Are you under the mistaken assumption that I was trying to inject some POV on global warming into the article or are you just trying to convert me here? Dick Clark 17:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Dick Clark, point well taken. I was confused about the edit history; I didn't notice that you edited in the opposite direction of your personal views, which is commendable. Sorry for the perhaps snarky tone. Crust 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Crust: (In re: Cato Institute) No hard feelings--I'm glad we sorted things out. Dick Clark 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cato Institute. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

SPS citing of Cato data

Given the reputation of Cato assessed by the University of Pennsylvania, I submit that citations using Cato are inherently RS. Moreover, to give an encyclopedic picture of Cato, the material in the article is WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed a chunk of text here [3], because it was entirely self-sourced. The problem here is that when we use primary self-sourced material, it is an indication that we are relying on our own judgment as Wikipedia editors as to what's important and how it should be represented. In other words, we're conducting original research. There's no problem citing Cato as a source for, say, trivia like its year of founding, but we should not be basing substantial sections presenting the many things we think have been significant based solely on primary sourcing from Cato. Cato people are mentioned enough in the media that it should be trivially easy to establish the significance of any of these things by reference to reliable independent secondary sources. This is absolutely normal practice, by the way, and I just had the same argument with someone who was sourcing half of an article on a anti-vaccine propaganda group to their own press releases and website.
The issue is not reliability (Cato is reliable as a source in the views of free-marketeers, not as an objective judge of fact, of course), the issue is undue weight. To prove we're not giving undue weight to certain statements and views, we need independent third-party sources. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Editors must make the judgment as to whether material is noteworthy. And given that Cato-sourced material meets all 5 factors of WP:SPS policy it is not proper to cite SPS as a rationale for its removal. Also, OR does not apply because we are not citing material "for which no reliable, published sources exist [emphasis added]." Rather, the inclusion of this stuff is part of the discrimination process that editors undertake. Could it be that your objection to Cato has more to do with a dislike of libertarianism? – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC) PS: Arguments you made with other editors about other articles have nothing to do with this discussion.23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No, third party sources do. What's to stop me mining websites, pulling out random stuff and adding it to Wikipedia? If it's disputed, then third party sources become mandatory. This has nothing to do with which way a think-tank leans and everything to do with the fact that think tanks exist to push opinions, and we can't take their word (or ours) for which ones are important. This would apply exactly the same if it were the Fabian Society. Don't ascribe motives, just check policy. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: Response? – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cato Institute. 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) 09:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cato Institute. 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) 19:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

UofP objectivity in lede?

Koch Industries, whose owners founded and heavily supported Cato, has made substantial donations to the University of Pennsylvania. Should the high ratings given by James G. McGann, a UoP prof, in the lede be considered objective? Activist (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a question that WP editors need not ask. If the Think Tank project is biased, then secondary sources are needed to support this idea. We can't let our own subjective opinions interfere with this editing question. Besides, "rankings" are subjective in and of themselves – like asking "who was the best President?" In the UoP project, the scholars are doing surveys of what others think about the world of think tanks, seeking to objectively "rank" what others think is the best. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
So, should the "ratings," or "ranks," be tossed entirely? Activist (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Given that the article is starkly devoid of mentioning any major controversies around Cato Institute, merely meekly pointing out they were criticised on a handful of individual points , having such a ranking in there CAN be misleading in suggesting the institute was universally and globally acclaimed. It contributes to the problems of an already skewed article. --91.67.245.87 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing "notable Cato experts" section

I'd like to get feedback on possibly removing the "Notable Cato experts" section altogether. "Notable" according to whom? Which reliable sources? It's entirely self-sourced. Would people object to removing that section? There's a whole lot of self-sourced content on this page, this just seems like the most egregious example. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BB I'm going to remove it. Feel free to discuss here. Thanks ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Cato Institute is generally regarded as an unreliable source of information by Wikipedia editors."

I agree with the statement, but does it belong in the lead? How many articles announce the position of Wikipedians internally, let alone at the start? If we're trying to prevent it from being cited elsewhere, I rather doubt putting it in this article's lead will stop people. anthologetes (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Anthologetes: thanks for the catch. That definitely shouldn't be in the article and I have removed it. Discussions/opinions about whether a source is reliable belong at WP:RSN. Marquardtika (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cato_Institute/Archive_2&oldid=1136596298"