Talk:Cato Institute

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cato Institute article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: District of Columbia Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American / Libertarianism High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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]