Talk:Center for Organizational Research and Education/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Corporate Sponsors Section (2/11/07)

There seems to be some dispute about this. For the alleged funding information, I cited the Washington Post article [1] and the New York Times article [2]. Both are non-wiki and very reputable. If you read the NY Times article, it says: "A watchdog group in Washington, the Center for Media and Democracy, has posted data about Consumer Freedom's financing on its Web site. According to documents they say were obtained from a former Consumer Freedom staff member..." A former staff member is *not* a wiki source. The Washington Post article also cited a statement from Sheldon Rampton, "research director of the Center for Media & Democracy, which owns PRWatch." So again, the Washington Post *did not* just read off the information from the Sourcewatch wiki. Both newspapers *did not* use a wiki source, and therefore this information about alleged funding is valid to put in the article. Please do not remove this section again without discussing it here first. Thanks. Arthurberkhardt 09:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed name of section to "Alleged Corporate Sponsors". Again, I am simply reporting what the New York Times and the Washington Post said about the CCF. And an alleged former CCF staff member is *not* a wiki source. This is no different then posting allegations from the CCF about other animal rights groups such as PETA. The article quotes the CCF as saying that PETA is comprised of "malicious animal-rights activists"; this is also an allegation, not a fact. As long as it is clearly made that these are allegations (word alleged used FOUR TIMES in Funding and Alleged Corporate Sponsors sections), there is no violation of Wikipedia rules here. Arthurberkhardt 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please add content to the bottom of talk pages, as per normal Wikipedia practice. Regarding the source, it clearly says, "according to group x which has documents it says obtained from staff member y". Now we have two levels of remove from the New York Times actually saying this. As soon as you get to "according to x", then you can stop. They are saying that CMD said that they came from a former staff member. This is different from the NY Times saying the source is a former staff member: the source is CMD, which has made a statement which it apparently hasn't attempted to prove, despite the fact it has a website with lots of such documents on it. If the documents can be found I have no problem linking to them. Adding in allegedly doesn't change the fact that what you're doing is linking to something that's not verified. Let me say also that I don't think the content really adds that much, so I'm not sure why you're fighting so strongly for it. There's already perfectly good, cited information about sponsors for GCN in the article, and more is available such as this [3], which is a source for Outback Steaks and Brinker as supporters, while Coca Cola is already listed in the article. So it really doesn't contribute a lot to add another four companies sprinkled with 'allegedly's, when there's already adequate information in the article. Nssdfdsfds 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As of now, I only added back the sponsors that actually admitted that they contributed to the CCF. The New York Times article confirmed Coca-Cola as a sponsor. The Washington Post article confirmed Wendy's as a sponsor. And a third article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [4], confirmed that Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, and Cargill have all supported the CCF financially at some time.

I think that you have a personal agenda against the Center for Media and Democracy, and the politics that they practice. You keep trashing the CMD (and called it left-wing on the "Featured Article Candidate" page), but much of the info regarding some of the top alleged contributors (Coca-Cola, Wendy's, Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, Cargill) have apparently been proven correct by the newspaper articles listed above. 6 of the top 7 alleged donors (except Monsanto) have been confirmed via the newspapers and/or pmdocs.com. That doesn't mean everything on their Sourcewatch article is factual, but it would lead one to believe that there is some truth to that list. Where does it say in the Wikipedia manual of style that we can't quote the allegations of a reputable group, especially if at least *three major newspapers* have deemed it newsworthy?

See Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I don't think you understand what verifiability means. Arthurberkhardt 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's probably "true", it's just not verifiable. I'm not disputing what CMD has said, but anyone can write an attack piece: it's not an insult to call CMD left-wing - but fact is, this article originated from there, and was a completely hopeless unbalanced attack piece when it arrived, ok for a left-wing wiki, but not for one with NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Stop the Edit Wars, Nssdfdsfds

Will the food industry shills please stand up? Dairy industry, perhaps? --Eric Silva 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont' be a WP:DICK, why does removing unsourced garbage from an article make me a shill? Is that the best you can do, hurl the insult that anyone who doesn't want an attempted biased exposé on wikipedia must be a shill? WTF do you think I have something to do with dairy (?????)? BTW, there is no edit war, I made a series edits to the article, and someone else then reverted it, twice. How does that make me the edit warrior???? I changed the article, somebody else objected to that, that's nothing to do with me. Nssdfdsfds 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard this "not an exposé" argument more than once. Reporting facts the Washington Post reported over a year ago is NOT an exposé. These facts are relevant and have been referenced. Facts you removed have been reported by a major news organization and they are in no way "biased." If you think this is selective reporting of the facts, then add some more facts to paint a more accurate picture. Otherwise you cannot criticize these facts as being biased. There has been no convincing argument set forth to remove them. --Eric Silva 16:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not entirely sure which 'facts' you are talking about. You have accused me of being a shill firstly (a completely useless contribution), and secondly said I have removed 'facts'. While this second comment is slightly better than the first one, it's still useless - which facts are you referring to?

I left the Washington Post reference in, and actually quoted from the Washington Post article, which says the group is funded by "restaurant and food companies". The article also says: "The group was founded about 10 years ago with tobacco-company and restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants." "Back then, the group called itself Guest Choice Network. But it changed its name in 2001, as it shifted its focus to food and beverage issues". The article says that they were originally anti-smoking group, but are now a food and beverage group. So I will ask you what sourced verifiable fact are you saying I have removed????? I don't get it. Are you another that wants to insist they are currently funded by big tobacco despite evidence to the contrary? Nssdfdsfds 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they now have "shifted its focus to food and beverage issues" does not mean that they have decided to ignore tobacco issues altogether, or to stop receiving money from big tobacco. Because the CCF won't release funding lists, I think it's fair to say that it's unknown whether or not the CCF receives tobacco money. I don't accuse the CCF of currently taking tobacco money, but there is no evidence to suggest that they don't take tobacco money either. And because they took nearly $3 million dollars for Philip Morris in the past, I don't think saying we don't know one way or another is an unfair statement. Arthurberkhardt 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, GCN took money from Philip Morris. As GCN was a group designed to allow 'guests' to smoke, you can see why they might do this. CCF is no longer a group about guests smoking. Phillip Morris aren't stupid. They are not going to make donations unless they benefit them. Adding the statement that we don't know either way is of no value. If we don't know it, why say it? Nssdfdsfds 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I said this below, but it's worth repeating. Nssdfdsfds, you quote the Washington Post article[5] as a reputable source regarding alleged funding of the CCF, which is fine. But if you read page 2 of the article, it quotes the group PR Watch as the source for this information. If you visit the PR Watch website[6], you can see that it's a project of the "Center for Media and Democracy". Likewise, if you visit the Sourcewatch website[7], it also clearly says that it's also a project of the "Center for Media and Democracy". The Washington Post is using the EXACT SAME material that you're condemning, including the data from the tables. If PR Watch is reputable enough for the Washington Post, than surely it should be good enough for Wikipedia. So I don't understand what the problem is here. Arthurberkhardt 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said below, PRWatch is NOT reputable enough for the Washington Post, as they explicitly use the words "PR Watch claims". It's very simple, make a statement, find a good-quality source. I'm not sure why this is still being discussed. The PRwatch link was to support a claim that they are funded by tobacco companies. You've agreed there's no evidence for this, so why are we still discussing the source? The source was there to support this statement, which you now acknowledge is correct. I'm not sure why we are still arguing about a source that is no longer being used to cite anything. Nssdfdsfds 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's evidence to prove that the Sourcewatch table does not suggest that the Center for Consumer Freedom no longer takes tobacco money:

The 2002 donations on the Center for Media and Democracy/Sourcewatch list shows donations totaling $402,509. If you see the IRS tax return for the Center for Consumer Freedom in 2002 [8](must log into guidestar to view), you'll see that "Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received" totalled $2,724,066! Where do you suppose the other $2,322,007 came from? Clearly this SourceWatch table is very incomplete. Not necessarily inaccurate (the Washington Post cited the data as I explained above), but not complete. Thus, the table in no way proves or even suggests that the CCF no longer takes tobacco money. Arthurberkhardt 08:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's true, but I'm really not that excited about this either way. You need to prove a claim you're making, not me disprove it. Nssdfdsfds 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't oppose you making major changes to the article Nssdfdsfds, but I do oppose you making major changes to the article without properly justifying them. I do not wish to start an edit war, but I will make sure the article is fair and balanced. (just like Fox News is :) ) Arthurberkhardt 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing?

Would it be appropriate to link this to the article astroturfing? What I gather from the rest of this talk page is that questioning an organization whose stated purpose is to advance a particular POV is somehow a violation of NPOV, even though by its very nature, an article spympathetic to CCF would also be less-than-NPOV. However, since the CCF has run advertising campaigns (at least in the New York area) encouraging the general public to get angry at regulators rather than at the corporate interests they seek to regulate, it could be argued that it hopes to create a faux-grassroots movement by convincing potential customers that "consumer freedom" means "freedom to buy what the manufacturers would like to sell you" rather than "freedom to buy products that won't harm you." As for discussion of whether "front group" is appropriate, consider this: if a group called "The Alliance for Puppy Freedom" were formed to advocate the freedom to kick puppies, we would have no trouble with branding it a "front group." Obviously, this is not a case of such diametric opposition, but I'm not convinced the notion of "front group" should be dismissed out of hand. mjj237 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your POV. Who paid the US government to allow "organic" labelling to be used on certain foods? Same thing, except you don't like tobacco, alcohol, and fast food. --Kvuo 08:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with use of the term astroturfing. The CCF is quintessential astroturfing. Kvuo, it's not that he doesn't like tobacco, alcohol, and fast food, it's that those things are known to be unhealthy and the CCF wants to convince you otherwise. --Eric Silva 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing = fake grassroots. The CCF are not pretending to be grassroots. Nssdfdsfds 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further examination, they do make it fairly clear on their website that they are supported generally by businesses. --Eric Silva 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Last year's discussion (obsolete)

Dominick, why do you say that PR Watch is anti-environmental? I googled for references to the environment at PR Watch and they seem to be pro-environmental. Also, the Center for Parental Choice has a lot of information about Rick Berman of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Rosemary Amey 14:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I messed it up, but I see you caught it, I was trying to mean anti-anti-enviromental, which sounds silly. I liked the extra sites on the CCF, and the removal of the term "front" helps a lot. I am intending to add some to the front section, but work comes first, and I have a large technical specification to read and digest. I am glad people work like hammer and anvil here at wiki! I owe you a cheeseburger :-) Dominick 15:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I do mean a veggie burger Ms. Amey, it came off cheeky. Dominick 20:11, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Hatchet job?

I just imported a chunk of GFDL text from Disinfopedia. NPOV as needed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:51, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Damn. Just came here from a link on another forum.. this article is a hatchet job. All instances of "front group" need to be changed, for instance. Needs a lot of NPOV work. Rhobite 21:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why? Common Man 07:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The article makes liberal use of the phrase "front group", scare quotes, and basically only tells one side of the story. Sourcewatch articles are also POV original research. I don't think we need a detailed list of their funding, we can link to Sourcewatch for that. I think we should try to include CCF's side of the story. Except for bite-sized out of context quotes, their POV is absent from this article. Rhobite 16:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the phrase "front group"? Are you saying they are not a front group? Common Man 10:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

"Front group" is derisive. Whether an individual Wikipedia editor such as you or Rhobite thinks they are one is irrelevant. - Nat Krause 10:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to be what you as an individual Wikipedia editor think. The article front group does not back up your view.

But let's assume you have a point. What would be the correct term for a front group in your opinion? Common Man 08:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The description given on front group sounds derogatory to me, in this context anyway. "A front organization ... is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization." The examples given are almost all shady organizations. The purpose of NPOVing is not to come up with some kind of nice euphemism for "front group". We could just say that CCF is an interest group that receives money from industry, as well as documenting any other specific ties that may exist. - Nat Krause 09:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This is only half the truth. A better description would be ''an interest group that receives money from one side but pretends to represent the other side". I'm not asking you to come up with some kind of nice euphemism. I'm only asking for the correct term for such a group. Common Man 07:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What are the "sides" that you are referring to here? - Nat Krause 08:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Industry vs Consumers, in this case. Common Man 07:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but who says those are the sides in this case? This seems to just be you inserting your politics into the article. - Nat Krause 09:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where you disagree with me. Are you saying that there are no significant differences between consumer and industry interests or are you saying that they have nothing to do with Consumer Freedom? - Common Man 05:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that the opinion that there is a significant difference between consumer and industry interests is an opinion, and it should not be assumed as fact by this article. - Nat Krause 14:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've just never seen anyone seriously make that claim before. So I guess we have our work cut out for us:

• You: Prove that the opinion that "there is no significant difference between consumer and industry interests" has considerable support.
• Me: Prove that there is in fact a significant difference between consumer and industry interests.

I won't be around for a few days. In the mean time, I would agree if you changed the wording to something like: "CCF is sponsored by the food, alcohol and tobacco industries. People who see a conflict between consumer and industry interests therefore claim that the name "Consumer Freedom" is misleading and call CCF a front group." It's not very elegant, but it should represent both our views fairly. Common Man 06:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you might be looking at this wrong way. Our purpose here is not to hash out our opinions. Regardless of whether I can show that an opinion "has considerable support" or whether you can show that an opinion is true to my or somebody else's satisfaction, these still remain opinions. Our goal in writing the article should be to present facts. In any event, the fact that the Center for Consumer Freedom itself apparently does not see a conflict between its sources of funding and its self-described goal of defending consumers is sufficient to make that view significant and relevant enough not to be simply ignored. - Nat Krause 08:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If by "not ignoring" you mean that the article should critically discuss the name and its appropriateness, then I agree with you. But if you mean we should take their self-name as a trustworthy fact then we should be ready to view the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as a democracy! Common Man 06:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But this article shouldn't "critically discuss" whether CCF's name is appropriate. Wikipedia doesn't publish original work. Rhobite 06:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Front Group is POV because it carries the idea of a group being less then able to carry its own opinin. If I were to say "Common Man is a sock puppet for President Bush" it would be the same thing as saying "CF is a front for X". Using the Term "Affiliated" is more on point and reasonable. The term suggests a connection but leaves the reader to his own devices to make the call. Chairman Meow 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

This page is, as written, quite biased. The battle amongst large activist groups is certainly a heated one. However, as the article on one of CCF's main targets, PETA, states: this article is about CCF, and any criticism and support should come last.
Now, let me state that I personally am supportive of CCF so that we all have full disclosure. That said, I will be restructuring this page, reminding myself that it needs to be as neutral as possible. Right now, the article clearly states that the CCF is openly "against" MADD, the AMA, and the CDC, among others - none of which is true. A more accurate neutral assessment would be that they are critical of some things these groups have done.

In short: Stay tuned. --Southpaw018 00:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Maybe you're the right person to explain this riddle to us:

CCF runs down Senator Tom Harkin and ridicules the Center for Science in the Public Interest for proposing mandated menu labels in fast food restaurants.[9].

I can't imagine consumer freedom without free access to information for consumers. How can one represent one and condemn the other? Common Man 07:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If you're in the camp that believes people have free will, you understand that people have the ability to decline to patronize restaurants who don't provide nutrition information. If you're a PETA/CSPI fan, you care less about free will and more about sniping at meat eaters by any means necessary. But let's not turn this into a debate. Rhobite 23:37, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

How does this answer my question? Common Man 07:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Poorly, if at all. This isn't a debate site. Rhobite 20:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies in advance, but I shall debate. :) I think Common Man does not understand the meaning of the word "freedom". I've checked every dictionary definition I can find and don't see how "freedom" should burden anyone other than yourself. --Kvuo 22:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed

This article has been marked as "The neutrality of this article is disputed" by User:Lord Patrick, who has not participated in any discussion here. After User:Common Man removed the tag, User:Nat Krause reinserted it, saying "this has been discussed already on the talk page". The criticism seems to center on the appropriateness of the term front group.

I would like to point out that I am very open for any factual criticism. If it is a front group, then this term should not be censored based on personal emotional reactions. If it isn't then I'd like to see a rational argument why not. I also offered a neutral compromise, which was answered with a personal attack. Common Man 10:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nat Krause and I already explained why the term should be removed. I think I'm going to go ahead and remove it now. The term is opinionated. That's not an "emotional" reaction, I simply know that the term "front group" is negative based on my experience with connotations in the English language. Rhobite 18:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The whole tone of the article is massivly anti-ccf POV. IreverentReverend 16:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Front Group is Legitimate

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned.

This definition and the term "front group" are useful in distinguishing the nature of groups like CCF. Everything from its PR-firm origins, to its funding sources, name, and public statements make it clear that CCF portrays itself as being a group concerned with consumer choice while concealing its industry origins and allegiances. This is sharply different from groups like PETA, whose organizational name and press releases make it very clear what their motives and agendas are. I am also confused by mixvio's statements since CCF refuses to reveal its donors. The data in the article is the result of an inside leak and does not give insight into current donors.

The generic term "special interest" applies to any organization with a specific political issue interest, regardless of whether or not they openly state their agenda or conceal it as a front group. The only thing "derisive" about the term front group is that it reveals the truth which the front group was created to hide. CCF is one of the clearest examples of what a front group is. CCF is a front group and a special interest, whereas the Sierra Club is simply a special interest that is open about its agenda. To remove the term front group because it is "derisive" is to obfuscate the issue for ideological purposes. --Teej 06:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

They clearly admit who they represent on their web page: "The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices." [10] They are not trying to hide the fact that they represent these industries. Rhobite 14:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

But what they do NOT state is their ties to Rick Bermans OTHER organizations. Such connections very likely imply that one group is front for another.

Shockingly Anti-CCF

I have never heard of this organization in my life. The only reason I even entered this page was through the community portal to take a gander at disputed NPOV articles.

And wow, I must say, whoever wrote this obviously holds a dire hatred for this organization. To include some quotes:

1. "...is a group which represents the interests of the food, alcohol and tobacco industries, and claims to represent consumer interests." In this sentence alone, we have informed the readers as a fact that the CCF represent A, B and C, but that it may or may not represent consumer interests. This alone would be fine, but the connotation of the sentence suggests the company is falsely claiming this. A more NPOV way to state this would be: "...is a group providing representation on behalf of the food, alcohol and tobacco industries, as well as consumer interests."

2. "CCF opposes...scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups such as..." This labels an organization immediately as one that defies societal norms for gathering and/or trusting information as well as simple logic. The opposition of "doctors" and "scientists" is hardly NPOV as I'm sure there's many of those occupations who the CCF would agree with.

3. "Dan Popeo, director (Popeo is also chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation, a corporate-funded right-wing think tank which paid him $301,593 in salary and benefits in 2000.)" This entry should simply be deleted outright. I can hardly believe this sentence has even remained this long.

4. "Mike Burita has worked for a variety of conservative causes, including Republican election campaigns, Phyllis Schlafly, Frontiers of Freedom, and Brent Bozell's Media Research Center." Another useless diatribe that hardly can be attributed as NPOV.

I could go on and on as there's much more to use, but the point is, this article needs clean-up. If I can, over the next few days, I'll help attempt at dragging it from the heavy slant its bathing in right now.

Your suggestions seem less NPOV rather then more. Let me address each quoted section you criticize:

1. The fact is that the group claims to represent consumer interests. Critics of the group dispute this. Thus the word "claim" is accurate and NPOV since it makes it clear their claim of representing consumer interests is not considered objective fact by their critics. The suggested alternative you offer states that they provide representation of consumer interests as if where a fact, which is an issue of dispute among the groups critics, Your alternative is thus not NPOV.

the group does represent consumer interests, just like they represent industry. critics are "claiming" they do not. If you want to get silly with the word "claim", I think NPOV would be "CCF claims to represent the food, alcohol, tobacco industries, and consumers". see? --Kvuo 22:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The food industry has to represent consumer interests otherwise they would go bankrupt. Klonimus 01:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Representing "consumer interests" implies that they view their goals as in the best interest of consumers. Critics charge they know their goals are not in the best interest of comsumers and that greedy self-interest is the only real interest they support. Thus to critics the whole "consumer inrerest" claim is simply propogandistic cover for their true interest. If the word "claim" bothers you so much, you could say, for example, they present themselves or describe themselves as representing the consumer interests which is accurate and NPOV without taking a possition as to the truth of the matter. --Cab88 11:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

when "claim to represent consumers" was used in the first paragraph of the article, it pre-supposes that they DO NOT represent consumers. If critics think they do not, then write that elsewhere in the article. I happen to be a consumer (and no part of any industry group), and CCF does generally represent my interests. I also do not believe that supporting industry and consumers is mutulally exclusive. --Kvuo 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The food companies represent consumers who purchase thier products. The Anti-CCF people represent donor's who like to feel holier -than-thou by making choices for other people in thier own best interests. CCF is just another corparatist libertarian outfit. Really nothing special, except that do a good job with Ads. Klonimus 01:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

2. With regards to scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists, etc., I think CCF clearly takes positions on certain issues that go against what most scientists, doctors, health advocates, etc. believe. The statement should be clear that not all of these people and groups disagree with CCF positions. It would probably be good to include specific examples of CCF positions that a majority of these people and groups disagree with with sources backing that the mainstream view of scientists, doctors, health advocates, etc. on an CCF issue is at odds with CCF own stated view. --Cab88 11:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

When you group them all together, its POV. Basically, the old "CCF is against everyone" is more POV than my "CCF opposes public policies by so-and-so". If someone wants to go thru the list and do a "CCF opposes this group because of this specific policy", or questions some specific science, then go for it. As written right now it is completely POV. --Kvuo 22:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The article should list specific examples of possitions on issues which CCF disagrees with and clearly state why CCF disagrees with that possition. It should then point out what most mainstream scientist's position on those issues are with disenting possition also included if available. The same can be done for groups and individuals CCF disagreess with.--Cab88 11:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

3. I think it is NPOV to mention that the guy has connection to a right-wing think tank funded by corporations. Unless you dispute the statements about the Washington Legal Foundation, then it would be better to rewrite the sentence to rephrase it in a more NPOV manner.

4. The indications of the political leanings of key members of a group are valid information to include in an article on the group. Again, if you dispute the claims then explain why but simply stating facts about his working for conservative causes is not POV. As to what relevance this fact has to do with his work for CCF should be left to the reader. --Cab88 11:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant, but maybe you're right. The article for Greenpeace, CSPI, Sierra Club, and any number of leftist orginazations have no such information, so I figure this article is just following form. --Kvuo 22:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

While those articles may not have such info it would be NPOV to add such info so long as the author does not add his or her own conclusions as to the relevence of such info. --Cab88 11:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to fix what I could today - I was pleased to see that a few changes were added to the article. It's still a bit POV, but it's nowhere near what it was a little over a month ago. Great job everybody. NoHitHair 23:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The POV

I think I realized why the article is so POV.. It's a straight copy from the Center_for_Media_and_Democracy 's article on the CCF. They make no point of being NPOV. it's in the links at the bottom of the CCF article. --Kvuo 20:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The bottom of the page states this, but there is no restriction on fixing this artcle. It is not a article about CCF, it is an article about the "evils of CCF". Dive in, be bold! Dominick 02:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly a Hatchet Job

Much of this piece is not only lifted verbatum from an anti-CCF group, but much of it is based on unsupported allegations. It's clearly a major hatchet job. The question as to whether or not the organization is a front group is minor in view of the hostile bias that permeates the entire entry. David Justin 17:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

fixes

Nice Job Mr. Anonymous Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 15:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I just restored some information that had been deleted from the intro, but was reverted. Rather than reverting me, could you say what your objections are, please? Perhaps we can come up with a compromise intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I know it's hard for you to realize, but your version, which has persisted as long as I've been watching the article, taken directly from an anti-CCF site, is very obviously POV. I dont know what's wrong with the version that I RV'd to. I thought it was very npov. Apparently, what people consume is a very political subject, and I'm sure we could battle, as I actually have very strong opinions about the subject, but that's not wiki-like. --Kvuo 03:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

oh, and the information is still in the article, just not in the first paragraph. --Kvuo 03:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you saying the currently intro is plagiarized from an anti-ccw site? Would you link to it, please?

The reason I restored the information is that how and by whom they were set up, and with what intention, is obviously crucial to understanding where they're coming from, so it very much belongs in the intro. But if it's plagiarized, as you say, then we should rewrite it.

What is it that you think is hard for me to realize? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't keep deleting the edits I made. Tell me here exactly which bits you object to and why, and perhaps we can find a compromise between us. But endlessly deleting my edits isn't going to help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[[11]] "center for media and democracy" is the plagarism, the link is on the bottom of the article, I didn't even know about it until recently. --Kvuo 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think they've taken it from us, not us from them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see proof of that. All I can see is that currently, most of the article is taken word for word from a leftist, anti-CCF website. I still don't see how [[12]] is POV compared to your current version. Apparently, the words "tobacco", "corporate", "funding", "food", "coca-cola", "Monsanto", "Phillip Morris", all inflame the left, and they all appear in the first paragraph. --Kvuo 04:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

SourceWatch content is GFDL-licensed, and this article began as a copy of their article. There is no plagiarism problem since they are properly credited. However, Kvuo correctly points out that SourceWatch's article is biased against CCF - see the many comments above which confirm this. Any rewriting to reduce POV in this article is a good thing. Rhobite 04:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to be saying you know that the Wikipedia article is taken from that website, whereas it seems obvious that the website is a mirror of Wikipedia. If I'm wrong about this, do you have any evidence? Or perhaps we could e-mail and ask them? As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean about all these words, or inflaming the left. The point is simply this: an intro must give an overview of the article and salient points about the organization. It's highly relevant that it was set up with money from the tobacco industry with the intention of promoting what it sees as the rights of smokers. The intro says this, and gives links to sources, so it's relevant and well-sourced. Whether something does or doesn't inflame the left is immaterial to us.

Rather than arguing about politics, can you say exactly which sentences you disagree with, and why? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather ask why did you RV the rewrite that someone did that was perfectly NPOV? Did it not agree with your politics? The rewrite did not remove any information, it just moved it to the appropriate place. We've been working with this anti-ccf article for months trying to work it to NPOV, and you come and put it right back to where it started. real fun. --Kvuo 04:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I am positive that this article began as a copy of SourceWatch's article. SourceWatch used to be called Disinfopedia - see SourceWatch. They are not a Wikipedia mirror, they are an independent wiki that happens to be GFDL-licensed. Many Wikipedia articles are based on SourceWatch text. If you browse through the history of this article you will see that Neutrality copied their content into this article: [13]. This is fine! They are GFDL, there is no copyright or plagiarism problem! However, they definitely express an anti-corporate POV which still needs to be removed from this article. This article contains too many handpicked quotes from Berman et al, there are too many lists of directors, donations, and other original research which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. You replaced a paragraph in the intro which consists entirely of quotes from internal documents.. I don't think that belongs in the intro. Rhobite 04:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhobite. I don't like the idea of pages being copied even if they are GFDL. Regarding the intro, why would you say it's inappropriate to quote internal documents? The problem with the previous intro is that it omitted all reference to the origins of the organization, which are important because controversial. Describing the promotion of the rights of teenagers to smoke as an effort to promote individual responsibility is arguably a whitewash. We should neither attack nor defend this organization, but just describe what they're trying to do, and using their own words from their own internal documents seems ideal to me, because then we're not adding our own interpretation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, but right now we are attacking them. Keep in mind that this article used to accuse them of being a "front group" even though they make no attempt to hide their agenda. It's gotten better but it still needs improvement. Rhobite 05:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Which part of the intro do you see as attacking them, and can you say why? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kvuo, I've asked three or four times exactly which parts of the intro you find objectionable. Please answer rather than constantly deleting what I've written, then we can begin to find a compromise. We can't do that until you're specific, rather than engaging in handwaving. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't touched this article since wednesday. I did not have the energy or time to continue after my 2 rv's and subsequent talk here. someone else explains, below. --Kvuo 02:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain all reverts here (including mods)

I changed:
and "more than 1,000 concerned individuals," according to its website. [14]
to
and a stated "more than 1,000 concerned individuals." [15]

I did this, because I found the same wording in the PETA article. "and a stated 800,000 members and over 100 employees worldwide. "

Why was this reverted?--129.173.105.28

You can't decide what you should be here with reference to what is elsewhere; if you want to change another article, do so. Also, there is independent verification that PETA employs 800 people, so that isn't simply according to their website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please provide references for new addition

SlimVirgin, I noticed you introduced this change in the past few hours:

Nonetheless, up-to-date funding data is difficult to obtain, but is thought to be largly from the food/beverage industries and companies involved in animal testing.

Could you provide a reference for this? --129.173.105.28 16:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi 129, I didn't write that sentence and have no objection if you want to remove it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

CCF's funding is mostly from food companies, especially those exposed to PETA harrasment. Klonimus 04:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that, Klonimus, and do you know which companies? We should put it in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not that is going to meet WP:SOURCES but I've talked to some people involved in this sort of thing at a major food industry conference. Certain large food companies are pulling out of this, because they don't like Berman's confrontational style. Others, however like it that somone is sicing it to PETA, and will continue to support. The whole thing is rather secretive, but the anti-PETA campagin has been farily effective, since PETA is a stupid concept (animals are not sentient, they can't have rights.) and PETA leaders/ideologues say/do stupid things regularly. Klonimus 01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, why was my previous comment deleted? You have been hammering your obvious POV into this article for several weeks now. --Kvuo 06:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Concentrate on the article and stop the ad hominems. Please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand. There are several people trying to create a NPOV article, and you will have none of it. You own this article. Good job. I see why you have "awards" for your tenaciousness.. --Kvuo 07:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe that sentence was there in a much older version, but it popped back during a revert. I went through the diff's to see if I could find who wrote it, but had no success. I'll leave it as is for a while to see if someone can find a reference. --129.173.105.28 13:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

the PETA, now PETAKillsAnimals.com section

I just edited the section on Activistcash.com. I changed the title from PETA to ActivictCash.com. Here is a link with the differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&diff=28909172&oldid=28908779

If these edits seems unreasonable, could I ask that you at least post your reasoning here? --129.173.105.28 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

PETA website

An anon has added a new website about CCF, apparently set up by PETA, called Consumer Deception. [16] Does anyone have a view as to whether we should use it as a source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the precedent set on other pages, I would object to using consumerdeception.com as a source. The site is set up with an agenda, similar to activistcash.com, and other sites that are not permitted as sources. There are some interesting points on these websites, but it would be best to find a primary reference to the information available on the newly linked site.--129.173.105.28 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

intro (reprise)

there is a source quoted in the oft debated intro: "The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly called the Guest Choice Network, is a non-profit U.S. advocacy group funded by the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries, and "more than 1,000 concerned individuals," according to its website. "

however, the source website says:

"The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

The growing cabal of "food cops," health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know "what's best for you" are pushing against our basic freedoms. We're here to push back. "

--Kvuo 01:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Apparently some people here want to try to push their POV instead of reporting the facts. --SpinyNorman 01:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should we assume CCF's own assessment of itself to be "the facts"? It would be equally unfaithful to NPOV to arbitrarily give the organization the benefit of the doubt. In fact, since the organization's entire purpose is to promote a POV of its own, skepticism towards it is really the only way to get to the heart of the matter.

CCF has another website, Fishscam.com

http://www.fishscam.com/about.cfm

"FishScam.com is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition dedicated to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices.

A growing cabal of environmental activist groups, public health researchers, and government bureaucrats are using junk science to needlessly frighten Americans about the fish they eat. This scam has very little public opposition, but we're here to set the record straight."

WHOIS: Fishscam.com
Registrant:
Center for Consumer Freedom
1775 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
US
202-463-7112

68.49.65.121 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New Direction

CCF is no longer against per say “anti-smoking, anti-drinking...activists” anymore. It’s fire now mainly rests upon PETA and the obesity scare. Furthermore, CCF is similar to Competitive Enterprise Institute, but the article for CEI is much less critical (no reference to financial contributors in the intro section).
The article should be directed more to the current CCF agenda and formated like the CEI article. =D Jumping cheese 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Found another organization similar to CCF: American Council on Science and Health. The ACSH article is also less critical than the CCF article. Maybe edit the CCF article to have less POV issues? =D Jumping cheese 06:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Intro - revisited

The website says the CCF is funded by "restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals". The version you keep trying to foist on us if FACTUALLY INACCURATE. Either support your claim or leave the article be. --SpinyNorman 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead also refers to "lawsuits against obesity." I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt obesity has never been served with a lawsuit. I am certain the phrase in no way describes the circumstances to which the writer refers. When I read nonsense like that, I don't need to read any further. The article is unreliable, the people who wrote it are not reliable writers, the editors who made their casual "tweaks" while ignoring the nonsense are indifferent to the truth and anyone who hosts such nonsense under the rubric of an encyclopedia is not a reliable provider of information. Count me among those offended and not the least humored by this frontal attack on common sense. U gotta B kidding 01:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Should "funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries, as well as, according to its website, "more than 1,000 concerned individuals."" go in the intro since there is a funding section, it seems a little redundunt. Also "as well as, according to its website, "more than 1,000 concerned individuals."" seems to have a negitive pov because putting a quote there implies that it might not get donations from individuals and unless you can site a source that proves it does not. I think that puting it "as well as from donations that are made through its website." would be better. --Soliscjw 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

I removed the excess of links to CCF's websites as Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and consolidated all external links. Since ConsumerDeception doesn't state who runs it, I removed it. If someone could find a reliable source showing it belongs to PETA, that would make it notable. Jean-Philippe 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Need comments on personnel section

I am intend on removing the bulk of the huge "personnel" section and summing it up in a few sentences. I don't see why we need to give it so much weight when so little of it is of encyclopedical value. Jean-Philippe 22:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're "intend" on removing the bulk of important information which clearly and neutrally states who is directly involved with the organization? How can you sum up a list of people on an organization's advisory panel "in a few sentences"?

Your statement that the list has "little encyclopedical (sic) value" is absurd. Look at the wiki article for the New York Yankees. By your reckoning, including the current active roster would be of little encyclopedic value.

The information regarding the key people involved with the CFCF is pertinent in understanding who is involved with this organization, just as outlining the active roster is to the New York Yankees article.

You're not fit to change anything mate. First you should learn how to spell. Djwatson 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits (as of Jan. 22 2007)

Here are some of my problems with the edits from Jan 21 2007:

1) “funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries” becomes “funded by a coalition of restaurant and food companies”

Pmdocs.com (documents resulting from tobacco lawsuits) clearly shows that Philip Morris donated at least $2,950,000 to the CCF. (consumerdeception.com has all the documents nicely listed if you don’t feel like searching) Since the CCF refuses to publicize its funding sources, why shouldn’t we list the tobacco industry is a funding source, in light of the absolute concrete evidence evidence of this?

I did a quick google search, and can find *no evidence whatsoever* that the CCF is currently supported by Philip Morris or any other tobacco company. The one non-partial source, which I quoted, the Washington Post, said food and restaurant companies. The article as I left it says (quite correctly) that the Guest Choice Network was founded by Philip Morris, however, the GCN is not the same organisation as exists today. If you have evidence, please add it with a citation. Until then, it's absolutely wrong to say this. The (uncited) list of sponsors from 2001 + 2002 with amounts does not include any tobacco companies in it, so it rather suggests that "food and restaurant companies" is indeed correct. So when you have some evidence please add it. Until then, there is no reason to doubt what the Washington Post says. BTW, the term "fast food" is somewhat pejorative, the companies listed are mostly *not* fast food. Again, a problem of bias from your reversion. Nssdfdsfds 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You must obviously think I'm very stupid. You said that we shouldn't include the Sourcewatch/Center for Media and Democracy funding sources because of the "unnamed source", yet you want to use the "unnamed source" to "prove" that the CCF no longer takes tobacco money? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Did it ever occur to you that the unnamed source may not have known how much (if any) money the CCF received from Philip Morris in 2001/2002? Also, it's very popular to bash PETA, but it is extremely unpopular to be viewed as pro-Big Tobacco in the US. So it's quite likely that the CCF is fighting against public smoking bans behind the scenes. Do you think Rick Berman suddenly had a religious awakening, and had heavenly inspiration telling him that supporting Big Tobacco is wrong? He's a regular Mother Teresa! Arthurberkhardt 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you are stupid. Frankly though, as it is YOU that has a completely unproven idea to add to the article, it is YOU that must justify it. If you think they are funded by tobacco, well find the evidence. Until then it's ridiculously partial, the subject of the article has said something, and you are basically accusing them of lying. The unnamed source proves nothing, that's why I removed them both. We must not question what people say, accusing them of lying, without any evidence. Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[[17]] - they were clearly funded in the past by tobacco, and since the CCF refuses to release its funding sources or to explicitly deny that it takes money from big tobacco, we cannot assume that they do not receive money from big tobacco. You don't have any proof yourself that of who actually funds the CCF, including the names of the alleged restaurant operators. Arthurberkhardt 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Inserted into article: "The group does not list its current corporate sponsors, saying "It doesn't add anything" to give details., and indicating on its website that many 'want anonymity as contributors' 'in light of the violence some activist groups have adopted as a "game plan" to impose their views'"

Clearly POV and dangerously close to libelous. Sourcewatch has released an extensive list of alleged funding sources of the CCF. When has any group “violently” attacked the alleged funding sources of the CCF? Just mentioning that the CCF does not provide its funding sources is all that is necessary.

Don't be ridiculous. Who do you think they are libelling? Nobody is named in the article.

It is not POV to report what the group actually says!!!! This is off their website, are we just supposed to delete it? If they say that we should report it. Whether you think that the people that have attacked directors of various companies, stockbrokers for Huntingdon Life Sciences, among others, pose no threat to CCF donors is your own POV, and has no place here.. Nssdfdsfds 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? Your POV is so transparent that it's not even funny. You included the quote about violent to portray the CCF and its poor little clients as "victims", and you know it. Arthurberkhardt 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, the quote is from the CCF. It is not my POV, it is what the CCF say. It is quite normal and correct to report that. The PETA article includes plenty of quotes from PETA, there's nothing followign the quote in that article where it says "PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use — for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason." that this is just their opinion. It's clearly the opinion of the organisation. It is absurdly POV to *Not* report what an organisation has to say. Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The PETA article also has plenty of criticism of the group, which you refuse to allow. Arthurberkhardt 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? I haven't removed any criticism. Nssdfdsfds 07:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the hyperlinks regarding the funding sources of the CCF (from the HSUS[18], CSPI[19], and the PCRM[20]), which were the only real criticisms on the page. Perhaps we can create a separate criticism section as a compromise, since the PETA article has several criticisms of the group, and in order to keep the article neutral. Arthurberkhardt 06:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

3) The YouTube trailer link was deleted [[21]], which provided the necessary verification of the assertion regarding the Charlotte’s Web trailer removal from YouTube.

Ok, whatever, add it back to my edit. I did rewrite the section on youtube to say what they were trying to do, as it was evidently intended as an attack on the group - ooh wow, they got something deleted off you tube, big scandal, let's add it to the wikipedia article. It's hardly notable to say that the trailer was deleted. Nssdfdsfds 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Denouncing a movie version of one of the best selling children's books of all-time as "violent animal rights propaganda" (this is verbatim from the YouTube video) is a big deal. Notice that they don't condemn the animal rights lunatics at Wendy's, who are giving Charlotte's Web toys with their kids meals. And note the (alleged) donation of $200,000 by Wendy's to the CCF in 2001. Coincidence? I think not! Arthurberkhardt 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, whether or not the book sold millions of copies, doesn't mean they can't criticise a website made from the movie of the book for promoting vegetarianism to children ("say no to bacon" http://www.savewilbur.com/). The book does not do that. I read the book as a child, it does not do these things, there is no "Save Wilbur". WTF would they criticise Wendys? Wendys did not write the website; the website is from Nickolodeon/Paramount Pictures. Your POV is quite clear, you are quite virulently opposed to them, and indeed to Wendys and I imagine to all manner other of large companies. Your agenda is obvious: you are twisting things to suit your POV - your reference to the qualities of the book is meaningless, as they [22] were clearly attacking Paramount Pictures, not the book. I could make a movie edition of Romeo and Juliet and use to spread hatespeech; that doesn't mean that it would be wrong to criticise such a *movie*, simply because *the book* was much loved and bet-selling. I hope you can see the obvious distinction. Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't shove words in my mouth; I said "a movie version of one of the best selling children's books" ... Wendy's is advertising the movie/DVD with their kids meal toys, and thereby promoting the "animal rights propaganda" that the CCF supposedly condemns. Romeo and Juliet? I'm tired, and I'm ending this conversation. Arthurberkhardt 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

4) This section was deleted: For the year 2000, an income of $514,321 was reported, of which $492,500 came from seven unnamed donors. It did not report paying salaries to any employees, but did list $256,077 paid to Berman and Co., Inc., for "management services." Subsequent years too had the same payment pattern to Berman and Company.[23][24].[25][26] [27][28].

That exact dollar amounts were clearly verified on the IRS tax returns on the guidestar.org documents, so there is not a reason to delete this section, other than to spin the truth about where the money goes at the CCF. Do you honestly believe that Rick Berman – a prominent Washington lobbyist - only earns $18,000 a year? Arthurberkhardt 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my edit? "Revenues were $3.6 million, while expenses reached $3.25 million. The largest payee, was Berman and Co. Inc, which received $1.45m in compensation for 'management services'." That is information that I added, which makes it clear that CCF pays a very large amount of money to Berman Inc. I updated the information from 2000, replacing it with 2004 figures, and making it clearer the payment to Berman Inc.. I am not sure how you imagine this is 'spinning the truth'.

BTW, I would like to clarify the intent of the edits. The revised article does not read anything like an advert for the group, it's just that several screens worth of donor lists (Outback Steaks gave them money???? No way!) make it look like Wikipedia is doing an exposé on this group. This is not supposed to be investigative journalism, it is an encylopedia article. Nssdfdsfds 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording makes all the difference in the world. The original version makes it more clear that Berman and his cronies directly benefit from the donations to the CCF. But the really isn't my biggest concern. Arthurberkhardt 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to work a little harder on WP:NPOV. 'Cronies'??? You really do come across as a bit of a lone warrior battling what you perceive as the evil forces of CCF. It's not really conducive to writing a balanced article.Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm tired, and I'm through talking with you. Arthurberkhardt 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Productive editing

Please don't keep reverting each other or calling each other vandals. Wikipedia operates on consensus and we all need to accomodate each other in a collegial manner. Please find compromise language that is at least acceptable to everyone. -Will Beback · † · 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Arthurberkhardt has reverted my edit numerous times, and has made no attempt at all to do any actual editing of the page. This is impossible to work with. Nssdfdsfds 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've also reverted his edits. Rather than assiginng blame please reach out to other editors to find common ground. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, which edits would those be [29]? They are all reverts. There's nothing to work with. Nssdfdsfds 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that his revert of your edits was an endorsement of the previous material that you removed. Please try to edit in a collegial manner. That goes for everyone. -Will Beback · † · 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Due tot he revert warring by various editors I've protected the page from editing until folks can agree on the content. Please discuss changes on the talk page. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nssdfdsfds, I wanted to discuss any major changes of the article before actually doing them; thus, I only reverted your edits. I tried discussing the matter with you here, but we didn't seem to agree on anything. Let me give this issue some thought, and hopefully we can come up with compromise language that is satisfactory to all. I will post my compromise suggestions shortly. Arthurberkhardt 06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not about language, it is about the use of unsourced statements and data that doesn't contribute anything to the article. The statement that they are funded by "food companies" is one thing; a list of donors that contributed in 1998 doesn't add anything of value. We don't have donors or shareholder lists for anything else on this site. Nssdfdsfds 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I don't understand. Nssdfdsfds, you quote the Washington Post article[30] as a reputable source regarding alleged funding of the CCF, which is fine. But if you read the article, it quotes the group PRWatch as the source for this information. If you visit the PRWatch website[31], you can see that it's a project of the "Center for Media and Democracy". Likewise, if you visit the Sourcewatch website[32], it also clearly says that it's also a project of the "Center for Media and Democracy". THE WASHINGTON POST IS USING THE SAME SOURCE THAT YOU ARE CONDEMNING. So I don't understand what the problem is here. Arthurberkhardt 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article says: "PRWatch, a nonprofit critic of the public relations industry, lists [b]what it claims[/b] are the Center for Consumer Freedom's sponsors on its Web site." However, the Washington Post is clearly *not* saying that PRWatch is a verified source on this, as it is very explicitly saying that these are claims from PRWatch, and is not endorsing them. So the Washington Post is NOT - absolutely not, as you seem to be implying, saying that whatever PRWatch says about CCF must be true. Moreover, the sentence that was edited said that CCF is funded by tobacco companies. The Washington Post article doesn't support this. NOTHING supports this. We know that the group was founded as Guest Choice Network to campaign against smoking bans. The Washington Post agrees with this. This is not controversial. However, they changed name and focus some years ago. The statement is that CCF is funded by tobacco and food. Verifiable sources are needed to support this. If they don't exist, the statement is plain wrong. Nssdfdsfds 09:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The CCF still advocates for big tobacco from time to time, one example being from a 2004 article (years after the demise of the GCN). [33] Of course, the word "alleged" is very important in that context of citing PRWatch funding lists. If you see my edit below, I quoted the CCF's statement about who they are funded by. We can't say that they are currently funded by tobacco companies, but we also cannot say that they are funded by restaurant operators, because we have proof of neither. However, I don't think it would be wrong to cite allegations in a separate criticism section that they are funded by tobacco. This way, the article is not asserting that they are funded by tobacco, but is just acknowledging the criticism from several groups. Arthurberkhardt 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this is being discussed still. DO you really regard that link as advocating big tobacco? That article is about labels on unhealthy food, and only mentions tobacco by way of analogy. If that's CCF's advocating big tobacco, then big tobacco should really ask for their money back. Furthermore, I still haven't see any allegations that they are funded by big tobacco, except by you, here. Where are these allegations???? Nssdfdsfds 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that last comment made me laugh :-). Um, you're familiar with the animal rights movement? Just about every animal rights group, and many other groups, including anti-tobacco and environmental groups, have posted on their websites that the CCF IS funded by the tobacco industry. Here are a few (but not all) of the links: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] (<--from 2006) [39] (<-- from 2007) ... etc, I'm not listing every link, but you get the idea.

I've said SEVERAL times on this page that it's UNKNOWN whether or not the CCF currently takes tobacco money, and we both know this. Regarding the article above, it's called subtle advertising; that article was clearly meant to point out the plight of the poor little tobacco companies. Here is another gem, remarking on how the tobacco companies are victims of the greedy trial lawyers: [40]. And note that this article mentions the date "June 2003" (again clearly after the demise of the GCN). After all, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... Arthurberkhardt 08:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That biography is about an anti-obesity lawyer (it's still not a pro-smoking article). If you espouse a right-wing viewpoint opposed to regulation and the like, then criticising in passing that an anti-obesity lawyer has previously been involved in anti-smoking lawsuits is a natural expression of your point of view. You would expect it from any number of libertarian commentators - it doesn't mean theye've all been blasted with tobacco cash. Nssdfdsfds 10:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested edits to introduction (first 3 paragraphs) of article (1-24-07)

Since there are so many points of dispute, I guess we should start from the beginning. Here is my suggestion for a compromise here; please post something else if you have a better idea:

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly called the Guest Choice Network, is a non-profit tax-exempt 501(c)(3) [41] U.S. lobby group. The Center for Consumer Freedom does not publicly release its funding sources [42], but the group states that it is “supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals”. [43] [44] The CCF describes its mission as defending the "right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves." [45] Stressing individual responsibility over government legislation, CCF opposes compulsory warning labels on food, bans on smoking in restaurants, lawsuits against restaurants that sell fattening foods, and similar activities. It runs media campaigns and gives out annual "Nanny Awards" to "those groups and individuals who would protect us from ourselves." [46]

The group was created in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company.[47] Internal documents from Philip Morris have shown the company donated at least $2,950,000 to the CCF during its first three years of existence.[48] It is unknown whether or not the CCF currently takes money from tobacco companies.

This paragraph is wrong. "Internal documents have shown the company donated at least $2,950,000 to the CCF during its first three years of existence". It was not the CCF, it was GCN, and the group's original aims & activites are substantially different from the current group. This whole paragraph should be moved to the "History" section and rephrased. Otherwise, this first section is ok. Nssdfdsfds 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're correct in pointing out that mistake. Though I'd argue their tactics (i.e. "shoot the messenger") haven't changed all that much, but that's a POV statement that doesn't belong in the article. That's fine if you want to move this to the "History" section, but how do you wish to rephrase it? Arthurberkhardt 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CCF has campaigned against positions held by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It funds a number of websites, such as ActivistCash.com. Arthurberkhardt 03:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise regarding History and Activities Sections (1-24-07)

The “History” section appears unchanged by Nssdfdsfds, so there isn’t any dispute here. Arthurberkhardt 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I take the above comment back, for now, regarding the "History" section. There has been discussion on this board about adding/changing material in this section. Arthurberkhardt 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Nssdfdsfds, you said you wanted this moved here:

The group was created in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company.[49] Internal documents from Philip Morris have shown the company donated at least $2,950,000 to the Guest Choice Network during its first three years of existence.[50] It is unknown whether or not the CCF currently takes money from tobacco companies.

That's fine, but how did you want to reword it? Arthurberkhardt 08:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Try this, in place of the first paragraph of the History section now:

The group was created in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company.[51] The concept of the group, according to a letter by Richard Berman to Barbara Trach, who at the time was Philip Morris's senior program manager for public affairs, was "to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists ..." Its purpose, according to a planning document by Berman, was to encourage operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support [the] mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice'." Internal documents [52] from Philip Morris reveal that it donated $2,950,000 to Guest Choice Network between 1995 and 1998.

BTW, I had a look on pmdocs.com and I find it strange that although there are GCN-related documents from as late as 2002, there's no donations after 1998. Nssdfdsfds 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph looks good to me; the way you worded it is definitely improved. That's a very interesting point you brought up about the GCN and pmdocs.com; I'm not quite sure how to interpret that fact. Are there any other changes you wanted to make to the history section? If not, then I have no dispute over the content of the history section. Arthurberkhardt 09:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the “Activities” section:

This sentence needed citations, so I added them here:

CCF has argued against smoking bans [53], for retaining the permissible driving blood-alcohol level at 0.10[54], and questions the heavily debated dangers of red meat consumption[55], and pesticides.[56]

And one addition, which Nssdfdsfds said was okay to add above, was the actual link to the YouTube video [57] removed to due to copyright violations.

I have no other qualms with the “History” (sect. 1) or “Activities” section (sect. 2). Adding the “other domains” section (sect. 2.3) is also perfectly fine by me. Arthurberkhardt 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so the version of this section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&oldid=102704418#Activities is ok by you, with the addition of those five links? Nssdfdsfds 09:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the activities section is fine by me with the addition of the necessary hyperlinks/footnotes. Arthurberkhardt 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Funding Section (1-26-07)

This really is the main source of the dispute. I will post suggestions for this section within 24-48 hours. Arthurberkhardt 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the funding section is OK by me, as is Section 3.1 (Domain name disputes). Arthurberkhardt 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Section 3.2 - Corporate sponsors: Since the funding table has been removed, I believe it is fair to insert the following sentence, especially since the Washington Post article used the exact same source in its article.

"The Sourcewatch project of the Center for Media and Democracy has also compiled a list of alleged corporate contributors to the Center for Consumer Freedom [58]." Arthurberkhardt 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules say other wikis should not be cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet Nssdfdsfds 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair-enough, but I believe that citing the actual PR Watch site [59] (non-wiki) falls under the "Self-published sources" exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources

John Stauber is the founder and Executive Director of PR_Watch, and Stauber is a "well-known professional journalist". Though he may not have written this post, he clearly authorized this to be on the group's website. And this information has been quoted in various "credible, third-party publications", including the Washington Post and the New York Times (Warner, Melanie. "Striking Back at the Food Police", New York Times, June 12, 2005). Thus, I believe it appropriate to include this link in the "Funding" section. Arthurberkhardt 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Personnel Section (1-26-07)

1) The name "Berman" has been misspelled in the first paragraph, a minor concern of course. Arthurberkhardt 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2) The hyperlink to the actual 2004 IRS Form 1990 appears to have been deleted [60], so obviously this should be added back. Arthurberkhardt 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should go back and check this more carefully. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&diff=102640992&oldid=102628070 The hyperlinks to all three documents were there TWICE. I changed this to be once. You don't want it there twice surely? Nssdfdsfds 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about a small detail like this; I'll take your word for it. Arthurberkhardt 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

3) Added necessary citation to the sentence: David Martosko has been described in news stories as CCF's director of research. [61] Arthurberkhardt 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this is? This section appears to be designed to link CCF to the Republicans/tobacco, but this guy doesn't appear to have any such links. Nssdfdsfds 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove the Mike Burita and Tom Lauria citations, I don't have a problem with that. But David Martosko should stay, because he is a very prominent figure in CCF. Martosko is in fact a more public figure for the CCF than Berman is today. Justin Wilson should also be added as a CCF Senior Research Analyst[62], as he just recently appeared on CNBC to represent the Center for Consumer Freedom in a debate regarding the subject of "trans fat bans." Arthurberkhardt 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

4) As for the past directors and advisory board, if we cite the Sourcewatch article in a separate criticism section, then there is not need for this information here. Arthurberkhardt 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No other qualms with this section. Arthurberkhardt 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

5. "Affiliated Organizations", 6. "Notes, and 7. "External links" Sections (1-26-07)

5. Affiliated organizations: This section was unchanged, so it isn’t disputed. Arthurberkhardt 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Notes: This section is just the footnotes, so this isn’t disputed. Arthurberkhardt 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

7. External links: Perhaps we could add a few more links, such as consumerdepection.com, the sourcewatch article[63], activistcash.com[64], and the Conservative Voice article[65]? All four sites balances each other, keeping to the Wikipedia NPOV standard. Arthurberkhardt 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The SourceWatch article is *not* a good link, because all that content was copied and pasted here and has been worked on here. It's just a historical version of this article. Nssdfdsfds 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Criticism Section (1-28-07)

Since most of the anti-CCF links have been removed from the beginning of the article, and because the CCF is a controversial group to some, it is necessary to insert a criticism section here, in order to keep with NPOV. The PETA article contains several criticisms of the group, so I don't feel it's inappropriate to put one here. Here are my suggestions for the section, feel free to comment on this:

The Center for Consumer Freedom has drawn criticism from several groups for its startup funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company, for its efforts to portray groups such as the Humane Society of the United States as "violent" and "extreme", and for its opposition to banning the use of trans fats. [66][67][68][69][70] The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has also questioned the CCF's validity as a non-profit tax exempt lobby group. [71]

The Center for Consumer Freedom responds by stating that they "file regular [tax] statements with the Internal Revenue Service, which are open to public inspection."[72] In addition, the CCF cites the concern from the American Heart Association that banning trans fats could lead to the "use of oils high in saturated or animal-based fat if healthier oils are in short supply."[73] Arthurberkhardt 07:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nssdfdsfds, since this article has now been unprotected, I have added this section to the article. I realize that we did not discuss this section here, so if you have any major qualms with the section, feel free to add/remove objectionable material and discuss any problems here you have with this section. Arthurberkhardt 08:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your edit is much better now. All the changes seem reasonable and balanced, although I have removed the prwatch.org link, because it clearly says "source [a wiki]", which isn't allowed. Nssdfdsfds 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems balanced. FGT2 04:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection removed

I'm very glad to see editors working together towards consensus versions of the material. So long as that spirit continues there's no need to keep the page protected. Please let me know if there are any further problems. -Will Beback · † · 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I have made extensive edits to this article, but based on the history of this article, I tried not to remove any sources or material other than what was duplicate or repetitive. However, there are still way too many primary sources that should be replaced with third-party, independent reporting associated with reliable sources. The overabundance of ccf- and anti-ccf related sources is probably a leftover from the earlier conflicts, but I wanted to allow time for other feedback/edits to my edits before I started working on references. Flowanda | Talk 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Astroturf group

An editor has recently added and changed some information here, generally resulting in portraying the organization in a less positive light. Although I agree with the edits overall, and they are sourced for the most part, one edit in particular struck me as going too far. That was to put in the lead section a statement that CCF is an astroturf group, with citations to a New York times editorial, PETA, and a few others. Astroturf is a wonderful evocative word, and it seems to describe this group to a T. However that is a point of view, and even if we can source that other people have that point of view, we should not report that as a fact. The term is derogatory and thus inherently POV. I think it's certainly inappropriate in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of material in the article, not a contentious point or the sole location of a major claim. In the past this article has been subject to POV edit warring by supporters and detractors of the group, leading to edit protection, and it has oscillated between jingoistic praise and jingoistic criticism. We need a neutral, stable article here. Also, I'm not sure any of these sources actually use the word astroturf, so calling it that might be OR, opinion, or synthesis. In that case it's okay to put it in the criticism section - people have indeed criticized this group heavily and we can link to that. But accepting the criticism as truth isn't really supported. I haven't changed or removed any content other than to word it a little bit for clarity, just moved it to a more appropriate section. - Wikidemo 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CCF.gif

Image:CCF.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. John Nevard (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peta AIDS.jpg

Image:Peta AIDS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. John Nevard (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (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) 11:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CCF EL's

Is there really any reason to list and link to each web site operated by CCF? They are all listed and linked prominently from the CCF web page. There is already a section on CCF's web activism. Listing all these seems like a bad trend since most groups and companies operate multiple web sites. Since the main CCF website links to these, I think just a link to that site would be more appropriate.Bob98133 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. First, there is a section that discusses all of these sites in connection with CCF. Although many organiaitons have different initiatives and operate multiple sites, this one is rather unusual in that it is involved in so many seemingly unconnected issues, but brings the same bullying tactics to each issue. That's encyclopedic and highly relevant to the article's description of the organization as an over-the-top rabble rousing activist and lobbying organization that works on any unpopular cause it can get paid for rather than focusing on one issue. When an article talks about a site, it's useful to have the site linked so the reader can visit it. Of course a reader could always follow a link trail or use google, but that's true of every external link. The point is, it's a courtesy to the reader who wants to learn things as efficiently as possible. I think over-linking would be a valid concern (but in my opinion it's not too many). But they're definitely not spam links. I put them in, in the course of cleaning up the article...my intention certainly is not to promote the organization, and I doubt very many readers who follow the links from the article would be convinced by the political messages they find or tempted to donate or join. Wikidemo (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I didn't think they were spam, just unusual to list that way. Since several are mentioned in the website activism section I'd still like to just see part of your explanation above along with the links in that section instead of as EL's because the rationale for listing them would be included, but no big deal either way. What gets me about this CCF "group" is that they lose every fight they take on - starting with cigarettes. It looks like their only purpose is to slow things down so that their clients can make a fortune before their deadly products get regulated or banned. Bob98133 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Domain name disputes section

I was bold and made a number of changes that occurred to me yesterday, but turns out that there is some disagreement with them. So I'll take them one at a time in discussing them here. One thing for example is the domain disputes. The main problem I see is that the citations are all primary sources and one is in fact from one of the groups with which the Center is in conflict. If this is truly an important event in the Center's history, there should be a reliable secondary source. I did a search myself and found only blog posts, wikis and activist groups. If indeed this has not been covered in the news, I suggest that it be removed. Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On that specific point, I tend to agree. I have not looked at the specifics and may later on. Primary sourcing is okay if uncontroversial, e.g. to document events an organization itself thinks is important (e.g. an organization's self-published account of its own history or activities if neutral). But it's more of a problem if it's a weight concern or if people are trying to piece together a legal or business dispute from primary documents, so if challenged it is fair to remove unless adequate secondary sources are found (or better yet, if people object to the removal, to give people a few days to improve sources and then remove if not clearly against consensus). Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK then, sounds like there is a consensus to remove this much. I'll do so now then. Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)