Talk:Center for Organizational Research and Education/Archive 2

Personnel
Another section that reads funny at best, is weirdly accusatory at worst, and strikes me as unencyclopedic as well is Personnel. It quotes from a financial disclosure in 2004, which may well be out of date for one thing. Another source comes from a YouTube clip. Lastly, the way this seems investigatively reporting makes it all seem to fall on the wrong side of WP:NOR (particularly citing the IRS form). So is this section necessary? My inclination is that it is not. Open to other views, so please share. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I checked Guidestar and found updated info for 2006 and added it. Non-profits are sometimes slow returning 990 forms, or Guidestar takes a while to get them online, but 2006 is "current" info, so I think it should stay. CCF has refused to reveal either their staff, clients or donors, but I think this small bit of verified info should stay since it is referenced to IRS docs. IRS 990s are public information so there is no accusatory aspect to citing them. Also, if the only place that CCF employees reveal their identity is on TV (or You Tube), I'm OK with that being included too.


 * I was surprised to see how much Berman & Company earns from CCF (almost $2 million US in 2006). That seems like a lot for a private company owned by the principal of a non-profit to be receiving from that non-profit, particularly since in the past Berman has positioned CCF to do misleading, positive publicity in his clients' interests. This is documented here with .pdfs of original documents detailing the deal Berman worked out with Philip Morris Tobacco to set up CCF. None of this is WP:NOR - it is all documented with original docs from Philip Morris. Bob98133 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, looking at the WP:PRIMARY guideline essay again I don't see a problem with using the 2006 forms. I hadn't seen them before, but I did find them, added them as a direct citation and reworded the information to be more straightforward.


 * However while looking around I found that some of it is indeed out of date, for example see this press release showing John Doyle left the firm in December of that year. So I have removed references to him.


 * I've also changed my mind about the YouTube link, which is not the ultimate source. I was mixing this up with the External links guidelines.


 * As to other issues, I believe the salary info of individuals has no place here. What does its inclusion add to the article? Is this frequently included in articles about non-profit organizations? My survey of other articles shows most do not even have a personnel section. Berman's own salary on his own article would be understandable, but just becaus someone works for a non-profit and their salary is available is not reason enough to include it. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE.


 * The section is also redundant as to Berman people's involvement, especially the second paragraph, so I've trimmed it a bit for brevity, while leaving all the relevant facts. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good improvement to me. Thanks for explaining.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep - reads much better. Bob98133 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the comments and assistance. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening section
Another area where I see issues is the opening section, mostly having to do with the order of information.

The first one is that the very first bit of info about it is that it was once the Guest Choice Network. This is explained in the history section, as it should be, but I don't think the first important thing about it was at one time called the GCN. Maybe GCN should have its own article, but that's not what it has been for a number of years. I propose taking this out.

The second issue is the second noted thing in the paragraph, that its funding is discussed before its mission. I would propose either moving the funding to after the part describing its mission, or simply taking that out. All non-profits derive their funding from somewhere, after all. I see that plenty of Talk page discussion in recent years has been about its funding, but this appears to be no secret. As one person wrote in 2007, "Upon further examination, they do make it fairly clear on their website that they are supported generally by businesses." Unless this is common practice on non-profit articles (most of which don't discuss funding) there is no compelling reason for this to be here.

One more thing is this: "CF opposes compulsory warning labels on food, bans on smoking in restaurants, lawsuits against obesity, and similar activities." I am not aware of CCF ever opposing warning labels on food or smoking bans in restaurants. Anyone else have a source? Warning labels aren't mentioned anywhere in the article, and the smoking issues seems to be a GCN thing. So another reason maybe for a separate GCN article. And "oppose ... lawsuits against obesity" just doesn't make any sense. I think there is a better way to phrase the second half of the paragraph. I had removed it when I first came to the page, and I still think it's not great but I don't have a counter-proposal in mind yet. I would say remove the quote above in this paragraph and then reword the part that lists groups CCF has tangled with. Comments? --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the order in the opening section. It is important to keep the GCN info in the article since that non-profit organization was entirely financed by Philip Morris Tobacco, and set up by them and Rick Berman to obscure negative health data about cigarette smoking. PDFs of Berman repeatedly asking for and getting money from PM for GCN are here: . In addition, of the $3 million PM gave GCN, most of that money went into Berman's private public relations company. It was also though GCN and Berman's early efforts that Newt Gingrich was hauled up on conflict of interst charges. Berman defined his operational procedures - which have followed with Unionfacts, CCF, and all his other organizations, so it is important for this background inforamtion to be included.


 * CCF certainly has opposed warning labels on food, cigarettes, beverages. They also oppose using blood alcohol levels for determining ability to drive claiming that they discriminate against "responsible drinkers". They have also opposed raising the minimum wage, claiming that to do so would put those in the lower pay grades out of work since no one would pay any more than current minimum.


 * It is important to list CCF's funding sources, when known, since Berman acts as shill for these companies. He has created a string of non-profit astroturf groups that pay him and hire his private PR agency to advance the agenda (usually unhealthy) of his supporters. If you need citations for anything I have said, please ask, as they are all available. Just listing the groups that CCF has tangled with would take a full page since it includes everyone from the CDC to MADD to PETA, etc.


 * In all, I agree that this article could use a rewrite, but probably a lot more info could be added. Mainstream media have consistently slashed this group. See . Some of that might be included too. Bob98133 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New edits
Can we talk about some of these? A number of these edits have the effect of removing sourced material that portrays the organization as a political partisan group - which seems to be what it is. Claiming that this organization, which by all accounts is a semi-legitimate front, "criticizes" another organization, when in fact it is engaging in political attacks, is misleading. We should go through any of these things with a little more caution. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm about to self revert. 90+% of the edits are good... so I think it's best to use the revised version as a starting point.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just checked in and saw your changes. Thanks for taking the time to discuss, and in particular I like your changes to the lead. Made good sense. OK, so since you seem to disagree with some of my edits, I agree this one deserves some discussion:


 * One edit I would quibble with is about the weight registry, where you included a parenthetical "(counter to research findings)". This edit seems to put Wikipedia in the main as calling the debate before it has been explained, so the Registry's position should be summarized and cited, and not phrased as you've changed it here.


 * Likewise, I see you've replaced language I had removed which describes CCF as an "astroturf" group. Instead I had substituted language that more specifically explained this as a criticism that a food industry-backed group (this one of course) has claimed the interests of consumers as its raison d'etre. I think "astroturf" is an unhelpful word per WP:WEASEL that does not explain so much as explain away. So better to describe the various POVs here. Additionally, as when I first removed the term back in December, I noted that none of the cited sources used the word "astroturf". Even if one could be found, I don't think that adequately describes the main or serious criticisms of CCF (as an activist group itself).


 * And of course I've noticed from this Talk page that this article seems to be one that arouses passions, so I've tried to edit for describing both sides rather than taking a side. A good example of this: pre-existing language (so not one of my edits, I think) said CCF started PETAKillsAnimals "to oppose" PETA whereas you changed this to "denigrating" -- I think "denigrating" is less NPOV than the prior language. I propose changing this back. And where CCF criticized another group and then was criticized in kind, I moved this to "Activism" section -- I think this description point of view is the way to make this article more NPOV.


 * Does this all make sense? Let me know, and look forward to working it out. This article seems like a fun one. Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV means describing things as they seem to be, as found in neutral major third party sources. NPOV is decidedly not about trying to make both sides of a debate sound equally respectable, or downplay their partisanship.   The word "astroturf" is used frequently by critics to describe CCF, and one might even say that CCF (as depicted by its critics) is a defining example among astroturfs.  Saying that it lobbies for industry groups "under the banner of consumer freedom" misses the point of the criticism.  Although there is indeed criticism that they have been deceptive in naming an agenda (consumer freedom) that is not truly their objective, the crux of the criticism is that CCF claims it is a grassroots citizens' organization when it is really an industry front.  Indeed, they denigrate.  They are not merely opposing, criticizing, or countering - they are mocking other organizations, badmouthing them, accusing the leaders of dishonesty, etc.  This is not a case where there are two balanced sides to things.  CCF is a POV organization, and to describe it one must say that there is a POV.  The sources (and looking behind it, the incident) describe a case of CCF misrepresenting the Weight Registry's research findings in order to advance an unsupported claim that dieting and calorie watching do not lead to weeight loss.  The Weight Registry researcher called them on it.  This is not a case of two organizations being critics of each other.  The Weight Registry (probably not a notable organization in its own right) did not decide one day to criticize CCF.  Rather, CCF said some untrue things about their research, and one researcher responded.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I follow what you mean, and I agree Wikipedia should put things in context and proportionate. However, the first point is that these articles do not refer to CCF as "astroturf" and in any case, I think there is a guideline justification for my preference to describe the tactics rather than explain them away with a label. That comes from Words to avoid which lists a few examples of groups much worse than CCF being described with negative labels and says:


 * Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."


 * I Googled around and couldn't find anything but a few blogs referring to the group as astroturfing. If you have a good example of a reliable source using the term or describing how a particular campaign specifically tried to represent itself as grassroots-based, then I'd look at that. I'll remove the phrase now, since it labels without explaining, but if you have a citation that could help.


 * As for "denigrating" I still think this term is not as accurate as it could be. CCF does make allegations about the group that go beyond mere disparagement, but I haven't had time to research and see if I could elaborate. More to come then. Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And then I changed my mind partway through, noting that one of the sources did contain the allegation and a CCF denial, so I added the second and kept it in. But I did move it down, because from what I see this is not the main criticism of the group, rather that's more their arguments and tactics. I changed my own wording from "under the banner" which was a bit too colorful, not the most enclopedia-like. One thing I do wonder: are there maybe too many citations on the sentence now leading the section? Is there maybe one of those that would work by itself? What are Wikipedia's guidelines about this? Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although your article clean-up is in general a significant improvement, I think the repeated effort to tone down the language ends up misrepresenting the group as being more straightforward and legitimate than it actually is. It is clearly a single person's vehicle to set himself up in a role to get paid by industry for pretending to be a public interest organization and thereby generate press.  The word astroturf word was invented for such groups, and CCF is a landmark example of such a group.  That is the crux of the criticism.  Notable people and media outlets such as Michael Pollan in a New York Times editorial, Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and the San Diego Union Tribune all flat-out call CCF an astroturf group.  And some more partisan / think tank-ish people call them that, such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Consumerist, or Center for Media and Democracy (classifies them under "astroturf")  Wikidemon (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the concept of astroturfing, it's an activity undertaken by a group "seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous 'grassroots' behavior." From what I can tell, that doesn't really describe what CCF does. I think the Washington Post gets this wrong:


 * The Internet has made it easier for businesses and organizations to create advocacy groups -- virtual fronts -- that are not immediately connectable to the originator. For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom -- a lobby funded by fast food and tobacco companies -- has several anti-activist Web sites, such as PetaKillsAnimals.com.


 * All may be fair in winning hearts and minds, but purposeful deception for the sake of monetary gain, or access to information, could raise legal concerns.

But the PetaKillsAnimals About page says it "is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)" in the first sentence. The New York Times column claims that CCF is one, but offers no evidence for the assertion. Do they claim a wide base of support? (Their website mentions a few thousand donors, not many thousands of supporters.) Have they launched petition drives? I just don't see it. It looks to me like this controversial group is being lumped in with other controversial groups although based on the evidence I've seen, that doesn't seem to be their M.O. Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CCF is criticized as Astroturf. You say that based on your reasoning the criticisms are inapt.  That's all well and good, but on the article page we are reporting significant criticisms rather than endorsing them as editors, or stating our personal analysis.  We are not in the business of discounting reliable sources, or choosing between one opinion and another, based on our analysis.  To be included here neither opinions nor reliably sourced facts have to prove their case by offering evidence, they simply have to state it.  Writers for New York Times (Michael Pollan, a tenured journalism professor), Washington Post, and others criticize CCF as an Astroturf group.  We are not claiming they are right, but rather that it is a criticism of the group, which it clearly is.  As for whether all these authors got it wrong, perhaps they are not so clumsy as you think.  The definition of astroturfing that you use is that an organization must deceptively claim to be self-organized, or to obtain its funding broadly.  I do believe the CCF does that, certainly the second part.  But the criticism goes more to the impression it creates as being a public interest consumer watchdog organization when it is not.  Their website and PR, when they are not simply attacking rivals, says that their mission is to protect people from the "food police" - it does not claim that their mission is to protect tobacco, food, and alcohol companies from attempts to regulate them.  The name "citizens for..." (though such deception is common) gets to the heart of it.  It claims its constituency is citizens, when it is in fact the companies.  We are not making this claim directly on the talk page - because that is a point of view on the organization.  Rather, we are reporting that this is a major criticism of the group.  The word "astroturf" is used repeatedly by well-known people and major media publications to describe this, and seems to be the most concise, clear way to put it.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think my point is that this is not a significant criticism of the group, and that the Criticism section would be more accurate if it focused on the actual disputes vis-a-vis their tactics or arguments or clients.


 * If a significant matter, then where is the full article detailing CCF deception about the identity of its backers? Where are the articles showing that they got caught? To my knowledge, CCF takes credit for everything it does. These articles you cite are not about CCF but instead a trend where CCF is mentioned a few times at most but usually less. Don't you think these are very thin references to CCF being a supposed astroturf group?


 * What's more, your last comment seems to allow that CCF is hardly a shining example of astroturf, if even that. You say:


 * The definition of astroturfing that you use is that an organization must deceptively claim to be self-organized, or to obtain its funding broadly. I do believe the CCF does that, certainly the second part.


 * If "the second part" which I take to mean "obtain its funding broadly" is alone enough to define an organization as "astroturf" then the United States government is the biggest astroturf group in the world. Rather, the important part is "deceptively claim to be self-organized" which none of these citations actually say. If CCF in fact has attempted to deceive about its owners, a citation for that specifically should exist. I just haven't seen one. You also say:


 * The name "citizens for..." (though such deception is common) gets to the heart of it.


 * But none of the CCF websites or projects are termed "citizens for" anything. CCF is a "Center." That sounds like a claim to be institutional, the very opposite of a claim to spontaneous grassroots action.


 * Given all this, I don't understand the insistence on including something that is probably not true and would lend credence to a misconception. There are plenty of significant criticisms, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake on the outfit's name. The significance of the criticism is measured by looking at the weight of external sources, not what you and I think of it.  The narrow issue concerning astroturfing has earned editorials and analysis articles in New York Times, Washington Post, etc.  I pulled out links that specifically used variants of the word "astroturf" to show that this specific statement was made.  Although that specific neologism is not terribly crucial, it happens to be the most succinct way to describe CCF's purported disingenuousness regarding its funding sources and constituency.  Use of the word is encyclopedic in that we have an article on astroturfing - so it is the best way to hyperlink related concepts.  You are right that there is a body of other criticism relating to its tactics and positions.  There are plenty more full articles about CCF shenanigans more broadly.  Nearly every article critical of CCF says that it claims or creates the impression of being a consumer group when it is actually an industry front group ("front group" is a somewhat broader category that would include astroturfing).  As an example, CCF repeatedly put out a claim in press releases, which found its way into some publications, that it is "a coalition of more than 30,000 restaurants and tavern operators working together to protect the public's right to a full menu of dining and entertainment choices..."  This characterization has been repeatedly criticized as dishonest.  See, e.g., Sourcewatch, PRWatch (as reported in Salon),, afl-cio, Center for Science in the Public Interest as reported by the SF Chronicle, the New York Times article mentioned above, and a couple of the article's current sources that include the word in the title.
 * It is a debatable point whether or not to cover the specific criticism that CCF is astroturfing. However, the broader point that they are criticized as a front group, gets to something crucial about the nature of the organization.  We ought to either use some appropriate terminology, or as a second best describe the issue without using these terms.  As it stands now, however, the article misses the point.  Saying the criticism is for "lobbying on behalf of the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries while representing consumers" omits the claim that the group misleads people about what it is.Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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 July 2005 (UTC)

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!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kthxwms (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Philippe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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 []. 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."

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 . 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. 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.'" (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


 * 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


 * 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 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)


 * I agree with the anon, the edit SlimVirgin made were 100% biased agaisnt the CCF. --GuyWithGlasses23 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GuyWithGlasses - you do understand that you are replying to edits that were made almost 4 years ago? SlimVirgin does not appear to have edited this article in a long time. Bob98133 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)