Jump to content

Talk:Cato Institute

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xx236 (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 18 May 2022 (→[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
So, should the "ratings," or "ranks," be tossed entirely? Activist (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Benefits

Cato scholars seek to promote a better understanding around the world of the benefits of market‐​liberal policies and institutions

They also seek to prevent a better understanding of the drawbacks, but since the sentence is sourced to Cato, it does not mention that. I think the article should be less based on primary sources - it would make it less of of a propaganda tool. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]

https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-expanding-its-goals-ukraine-thats-dangerous Cato believes in negotiations with Russia. Such negotiations (Normandy Format, Minsk agreements) caused the invasion. Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cato_Institute&oldid=1088504713"