Talk:List of think tanks

Instantnood

I would like to put it on the record, that User:Instantnood has reverted [1] this article, with no valid explaination and no entry in this discussion page. This was done despite clear instructions against such disruptive behavior as per the relevant Arbcom cases.--Huaiwei 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam Magnet

The article in its current form appears to be a magnet for spam. Given that it simply categorizes think tanks and consultancies by country, I propose either (1) deleting this and identifying organizations via the appropriate category; or (2) deleting all red links and requiring new additions to have WP articles before they are added to this list. Does anyone object if I implement one or the other solution? - Aagtbdfoua 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Move

Given there were no objections to either of the above proposals, I took an intermediate solution. I moved this page here from List of economics consultancies and think tanks and removed all economics consultancies. If someone really feels we should have a list of them, recreate it at List of economics consultancies. I marked all of the economics consultancy articles with [[Category:Economics_consulting_firms]] - Aagtbdfoua 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Completed the move by either replacing List of economics consultancies and think tanks with List of think tanks or deleting as appropriate for all articles in the mainspace. - Aagtbdfoua 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Lobbyists Berman and Company at work

This article has been edited anonymously by Berman and Company, who are lobbyists for amongst others the American Beverage Institute, the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Center for Union Facts and the Employment Policies Institute.

IP address of 66.208.14.242 traces to Berman and Company, see the Whois report. I Spy With My Big Eye (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Until we can come up with some other criteria for inclusion in this list, the criteria should be only think tanks that already have their own Wikipedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is such a good point - we should be limiting entries to those which satisfy the Wikipedia:Write the Article First guideline. I am sorely tempted to wp:Be Bold (unless some other editor beats me to it!), and delete all the wp:redlinks here - do others agree? If others object, please say so here. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And, after all, people can start the actual articles for think tanks that they really think are notable, once they haver found wp:reliable sources for the organisation concerned.

E.g., to find sources for YourThinkTank, one can use the template {{Find sources|YourThinkTank}} ,

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

Then, if sufficiently good sources are found, one can write the article, then - and only then! - one can add the organisation to this List.

That way, we'll just have reliable blue links, not unproven red links. Trafford09 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

The list of Think Tanks for Mexico, is wrong.

CIDE, Colmex and ITAM, they are universities, i think they may do research, but i don0t think they are a Think Tanks, even ITAM is a profit organization.

CIDAC and IMCO are OK.

Galilei Consulting it's a consultant firm (again, profit firm)

Another Think Tanks in Mexico are: Fundacion Idea, Fundacion Ethos, Este pais, Mexicanos Primero, Fundar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilitili17 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is perfectly normal for profit-making organisations to be on Wikipedia, provided they meet other criteria (WP:Notability etc.) & their inclusion is not purely for wp:Advert. Trafford09 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Analytica

Analytica: it is about software for influence diagramming, not think tank in Macedonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palapa (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

INSTITUTO ELCANO IN SPAIN In Spain the most important "think tank" is the Instituto Elcano.--83.53.167.139 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

LEAP2020 needs to be added to list

LEAP2020 needs to be added to the list under a EU or European heading. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Leap2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Amending

Deduced spam deleted. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

i added back the following groups

Per Wikipedia:Red_link#Dealing_with_existing_red_links

• Council for Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP)
• Information Security Institute (IISI) (United States-based)
• Rethinking Russia

Red links help Wikipedia grow.

Moscowdreams (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Common list inclusion criteria for such lists are either "with articles only" or "with articles or as redlink with a reasonable independent source" (see also WP:CSC), depending on editor consensus. Usually such changes in list criteria should be discussed first, but if other editors agree we could include think tanks with independent reliable sources as mentioned above. We just need to make sure to avoid and remove future link spam and unsourced promotional editing. GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ping currently active editors from previous discussions listed above: @Ronz:, @Trafford09:, @Jackiespeel: GermanJoe (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Limiting this article to entries with their own Wikipedia articles has been very helpful. I see no reason to change that criteria. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I contributed to the article many years ago so do not count as a current user. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering the long-standing consensus since 2010, I have removed the entries again. I am not totally against different approaches on a case by case base, if consensus changes. But the current handling (no addition without article) has worked just fine for the last 9 years and like Ronz I don't see a pressing need to change a working system. Many of such large lists simply are far too vulnerable to promotional COI spam to allow more lenient handlings. @Moscowdreams:, of course you are welcome to initiate a more formal Request for comment to propose a change of this consensus. Please see also WP:WTAF for additional advice and some background info, why many editors support strict handlings in such situations. GermanJoe (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There will always be borderline examples - some think tanks are launched with great fanfare and fizzle out, others work quietly in the background, etc, etc.

It might be useful to make use of the Wikia Think Tanks wiki [2] for some parts of the process. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really suitable imo. This Wiki seems to mirror large parts of content from English Wikipedia (and is a copyright violation if it does so without proper attribution). On first glance, it has little own unique content and no additional reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - it may be useful for 'not quite notable enough yet for WP' think tanks, and otherwise have potential. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)