Talk:Center for Consumer Freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1].

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Forgive the outburst, but mercy

This page is, quite frankly, very outrageous. I have to reiterate the people above. CCF is not a "front group," I think they go to incredible lengths to plaster "we are a non profit created by and financed by the food industry" on every page of their website. It's pretty obvious to anybody who goes to their page where their interests lie. The massive difference between them and groups like PETA is that they're honest with their disclosure of where their money and support comes from. I'd go as far as to say that PETA is a front for groups like the ALF or ELF, however that's my personal opinion. Can someone please go through and clean this page up? I don't see why a vast list of their personel is needed or appropriate, you don't find those things on wikipedia pages for other non-profit groups. If there are no objections I'm willing to go through it myself, but I don't want to be presumptious. :) --mixvio 20:00, 06 Jul 2005 (UTC

[edit] 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." [2] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Word-of-Mouth Campaign?

Just wondering: how many of you who are slamming this entry are WOM shills for the food, tobacco, and/or alcohol industries? Or have you just been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh (or folks who are so determined to think for themselves that they call themselves "Dittoheads")? It DOES matter who "sponsors" a site--what their motivations are and where their money comes from. I can't believe that anyone old enough to type is naive enough to believe it doesn't. This isn't a group of idealists who are concerned with "consumer freedom and responsibility." Get a clue!

[edit] fixes

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

[edit] 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)
[[3]] "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 [[4]] 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: [5]. 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)

[edit] Biased edits

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&diff=27986674&oldid=27485273

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the Guest Choice Network) is a non-profit US corporation funded by food companies, restaurants and individuals [[6]]. It describes its mission as defending 'the right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves'.

becomes under SlimVirgin

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly called the Guest Choice Network, represents the interests of the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Created in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, it was initially funded by the Philip Morris tobacco company, but now has a number of corporate sponsors, such as Monsanto, the Coca-Cola Company, and Wendy's International, Inc. It describes its mission as defending "the right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves." [7]

The difference:

  • CCF is written off as an industry mouthpiece ('represents the interests of ... industries'). This is a simplistic characterisation, and therefore POV, as plenty of people disagree with it. The original paragraph was totally and 100% factual and contained no opions. It implies CCF are just there to do the evil bidding of corporations. This is simplistic. CCF's goals are supported by plenty of inviduals (information deleted by SlimVirgin). Furthermore, activities such as petakillsanimals.com go a lot further than simply representing the interests of food companies. Equally, with activistcash.com. This site has a lot of info on violence and extremism within animal rights, and is a useful source for people opposing extremist groups. E.g., http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/04/ccf_pcrm_reveal.html.

Another one:

The group is also opposed to various activist groups, in particular animal rights organisations, and funds a number of websites that endeavour to show groups in a bad light, documenting the financial backing, controversial views and criminal activities of those involved ([8]). It is also particularly active in opposing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

becomes

It funds a number of websites that portray certain activist groups in a bad light; for example, activistcash.com, which describes the financial links between animal rights activists and certain groups. [9] CCF is particularly active in opposing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Activistcash.com doesn't simply describe financial links. Check out say http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/408 or http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23. This is not much about financial links, and plenty about extremism. That's what they do, don't delete information.

Finally, SlimVirgin had inserted this paragraph into the intro:

The concept of the group, according to a letter to Barbara Trach, then Philip Morris' 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 ..." The purpose of CCF 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.'" [10] (pdf)

This paragraph was actually already in 'History' (so the edit summary 'restored deleted information from the intro' was incorrect, because there was no information actually added). Again, this move was a POV thing to do. It's designed to make CCF look like a corporate mouthpiece that can be ignored accordingly. The paragraph was in History, because that's where it should be: GCN changed to CCF, and the organisation has changed as well. Quotes from 10 years ago should go in History.

Another interesting change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&diff=27986980&oldid=27986912

the words 'it describes the financial links betweeen acitivst groups' acquires the words 'what it says are' before 'the financial links'. Again, an anti-CCF change (even more compared with the original words above describing activistcash). They actually say they have based their research on 500,000 IRS documents, so the implication that their claims in respect of finance are perhaps inaccurate (an implication only enhanced by the preceding paragraphs where they are written off as representing the interests of corporations) - a suggestion I haven't heard made.

Accordingly, revert SlimVirgin's biased edits. Unsigned by 87.74.12.83 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. I've merged the two disputed intros in what I think is a good compromise. It reads quite well now. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, whoever wrote that, please sign. SlimVirgin: I think it's better, I still would add that CCF is funded also by individuals.. I still get the vibe that (as an old version said) CCF is nothing more than a "corporate front-group". --Kvuo 03:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
We can add "and 1,000 concerned individuals" to that sentence (which is what they say on their website), but that's going to make them look even worse, because obviously the amount of funding 1,000 private individuals could donate compared to Monsanto, Coca-Cola, and tobacco companies is going to be a drop in the ocean. Do we have an accurate breakdown of their funding? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
There's a whole section of the article devoted to their corporate donors. "1000 concerned individuals" is something. --Kvuo 03:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
And I think I'm done with this article, it numbs the mind. I think I'm just gonna go and gnome out some typos and such elsewhere on wikipedia. I've run out of steam. I need to remind myself to stay away from political articles. --Kvuo 03:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The only information available lists corporate sponsors, and their advisory panel is made up entirely of corporate representatives. The only thing we have about individuals is their claim to receive money from "1000 concerned individuals," which isn't very many and wouldn't amount to much funding. They could easily exist without their 1000 concerned individuals, but couldn't exist without the corporate funding. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I edited a little more. We've already said they are funded by the food etc. industries, so I removed 'but now has a number of corporate sponsors, such as Monsanto, the Coca-Cola Company, and Wendy's International, Inc.', and just said the initial funding came from Philip Morris. I also removed 'The concept of the group, according to a letter to Barbara Trach, then Philip Morris' 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 ..."' because this original research is quoted in three places in t he article and is a little excessive. Unsigned by 87.74.12.83 (talk • contribs)
I also changed 'the purpose of CCF' to 'the purpose of GCN', because they were not CCF at the time. I also added 'but also claiming the support of 'more than 1000 concerned indviduals', because it does appear to be factual.
To the anon, please don't water this down any further. The version I put up was a good compromise between the two intros. You've left out the letter to Barbra Trach, which is important, because it comes straight from the horse's mouth. If it's quoted elsewhere, it can be deleted from those other places. And why would you want not to name their big corporate sponsors?
Including the 1,000 "concerned individuals" makes them look bad, in my view. We can find a way to include it but it has to be written carefully so as not to make CCF look ridiculous, while at the same time making clear that there are no third-party sources for the information. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, please sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
1000 concerned individuals is what they say on their own website. They obviously don't feel it makes them look ridiculous, so it should stay there. We don't need to specifically name the big corporate sponsors in the intro, because the intro already says they are funded by food and tobacco companies and there's already a long list elsewhere. Despite what you say, the letter to Barbra Trach does not have to go in the intro, as there is already a history section. The intro should describe who and what they are, not quote selective paragraphs from a letter in 1995 taken from a site called 'disinfopedia' whose purpose is to undermine any credibility they have. 87.74.12.83 11:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which website the letter was posted on. It's an internal company letter. It speaks directly to what their mission was when they were set up, and by whom they were set up, both very important issues and clearly worth mentioning. You seem to be trying to whitewash them. Why? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a History section, describing how they were set up. I had all the content in the history section previously, so it was mentioned. I don't think that amounts to a whitewash. I just think that one quote from the establishment of GCN is enough for the _introduction_ to an article.87.74.12.83 11:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh now I realize: you're the same anon who was causing trouble at SHAC. You seem to have an axe to grind. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Please leave out the ad hominem attacks, they are very tedious. It has already been established that you do not have a neutral point of view in relation to these issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geni#SlimVirgin, so I don't think it's very sensible for you to resort to attacks on me. Your edits on SHAC and Huntingdon Life Sciences are one-dimensional in respect of HLS, and did not cover anything positive about HLS at all. It is quite clear that you have been grinding your own axe here for a considerable period of time. 87.74.12.83 12:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Slim- not everyone who disagrees with you has an axe to grind. I agree with some of your points in the comments here, but I gave a copy of this article and a copy of the PETA article to one of my colleagues with the question "does this article paint the subject in a positive, neutral or negative light". For this article he said negative, for PETA he said somewhat positive. From this information, I have to agree with the people who say this article is heavily POV. Wikipedia should strive for neutrality, which this is not. --129.173.105.28 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain all reverts here (including mods)

I changed:
and "more than 1,000 concerned individuals," according to its website. [11]
to
and a stated "more than 1,000 concerned individuals." [12]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] PETA website

An anon has added a new website about CCF, apparently set up by PETA, called Consumer Deception. [13] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] ==activistcash redirect==

The main article had very little information outside of self-references, a merge was proposed but I didn't see anything worth merging. I've redirected it here.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/n/Talk%7ECenter_for_Consumer_Freedom_2978.html"