Talk:Center for Organizational Research and Education
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)
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)
- 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)
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)