Talk:Center for Organizational Research and Education

ELs - how many needed?

Below moved from my talk page:

Hi, we seem to have a disagreement in our interpretation of this guideline with respect to this edit. Can you explain how these websites meet WP:ELOFFICIAL, especially the section about minimizing external links? Keep in mind that we generally only link to one or two "official" websites in our external links, and not every website that the article's subject is in control of. Thanks, ThemFromSpace 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the ELs that you deleted based on WP:ELOFFICIAL. Normally, if all these links were just different aspects of a group or organization, I think your interpretation would be correct. However, with this group, a main part of their activities involves creating web sites to attack groups or individuals with whom they do not agree. Perhaps these should be under a heading, such as Organizational websites, or something, instead of ELs; but however, I think that they are a valuable part of the article.

You also deleted a link to sourcewatch, which I haven't yet gone to, but I imagine is a main source critical of CCF. If that web site is well referenced, I see no reason for it being deleted. Bob98133 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To satisfy our encyclopedic purpose of informing the reader, we should either link to all the known websites sourceable to CCF or else link to a high-quality, trustworthy reliable site that lists them all in one place. This is a small, manageable list of sites with very tight inclusion criteria, and it is very helpful to an interested reader to be able to use the external links page (or some other organizational device, like a list) to track them all down. I think that's permitted by the guidelines, but if not, keep in mind that the guidelines are there at the service of our desire to present useful information, not the other way around. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The result of the above discussion seemed to be a consensus to remove the links, so I've done so.[1] - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits/reverts

Ten Thousand Bullets - I don't disagree that Sourcewatch is not a reliable source, however I just think that you're throwing out the baby with the bath here. I'll look around for real refs for some of this stuff. I agree, much of it is POV, but a lot could be reliably referenced. Bob98133 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Strictly from the perspective of article quality I think the section wasn't as encyclopedic as it could be - it focused too much on analysis and opinions and not enough on the simple facts. "Person X has opinion Y" may be sourceable (preferably to a third party, not person X's own words), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worth repeating here. And it is probably better to rework the section from start to finish, so removing it for the moment is okay if you mean to go through it. The question of POV becomes murky when we're reporting on an astroturf organization of this sort - we don't need to hit people over the head with it, but we do need to convey that it is a single-man operation that gets paid by businesses to engage in aggressive political advocacy. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. When I have a chance I'll take a look at see what might be reliably referenced and should be included. Bob98133 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes w/refs

CCF frequently criticizes the officials and actions of the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other organizations.

Above from lead should also include govt agency attacks. Suggest below:

CCF frequently criticizes the officials and actions of the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and government agencies such as The Centers for Disease Control, The Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation

The CCF has argued against smoking bans and for keeping the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers at 0.10. It questions the dangers of red meat consumption and pesticides.[9][10][11][12] The 2nd ph under Activities, should include:

• denies benefits of organic foods
• opposes minimum wage increases
• argues in favor of payday loans
• denies govt warning about dangers of mercury content of fish
• supports genetically modified foods
• denies dangers of transfats
• denies obesity epidemic is related to diet
• denies dangers of high fructose corn syrup

All of these can be referenced and should be included to indicate scope of topics taken on by CCF Bob98133 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

References

"Known" personnel

I found this page while I was looking around for information related to the PETA page, and I noticed a section called "Known personnel". Shouldn't it just be "Personnel", in that the "Known" wording implies an allegation of secrecy? I'm just asking, because I'm not that familiar with the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed that header.[2] Whether or not they really are secretive, we don't have a citation saying they are or a good reason to imply that by innuendo. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Tone

`In reading this article and comparing to articles for organizations the CCF is critical of, I couldn't help but notice that the tone of this article is more negative toward the subject covered. If read objectively, the tone of this page, and that of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, are very different. This article is almost critical of CCF, whereas the CSPI article is almost friendly. Does anybody else notice this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.69.252 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's perhaps because CSPI is a legitimate mainstream organization, whereas CCF is an astroturf set up by a lobbyist in order to attack his clients' opponents. Unlike some newspapers, we don't try to balance the WP:WEIGHT of every two organizations that may be in a dispute. We report what the preponderance of reliable sources have to say about a subject. The facts speak for themselves, and if the facts look negative to the reader, so be it. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever you say. So, in other words, smears directed at the CCF from organizations opposed by the CCF will be treated as the gospel truth, whereas anything positive will be viewed suspiciously. As for the legitimacy of the CCF, exactly what makes it "legitimate" or "illegitimate"? Anyone with such blatant bias has no business coming anywhere near this entry. The following is a perfect example of how ridiculous this entry is:" while commentators from Rachel Maddow to Michael Pollan have treated the group as an entity that specializes in astroturfing". So, in other words, two people with almost identical political views agree with each other about the CCF. Wow, you've convinced me. Given Maddow's history of labelling groups who disagree with her as "astroturf" organizations, one is hard-pressed to understand why her opinion is given any weight on this matter. But hey, you go on telling us how neutral you are, and we'll go on laughing at such a transparently ridiculous claim.72.49.235.222 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest reviewing the organizations 990 if you really care that much. The tax form shows that it receives little money from individual donors and gives most (more than half) of its revenue to Berman and Company, which is Berman's for profit firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36F0:6770:C0AE:E2B3:820B:9C86 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of tone

I agree with SlimVirgin here.[3] The edit keeps the underlying facts in place while removing some extraneous words and phrases that were not encyclopedic in tone. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have reverted the recent changes made by JimmyBoyHiggins (talk · contribs) because they appear to violate neutrality by giving undue weight to criticisms of this organization. Please discuss here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

your reversion seems unfair, WikiDan61. At least you ought to examine some of the edits in serie. Many involve the addition of recent third party articles, from major publications, which give due shrift to the group and its targets. I also edited for content, resituated material in which I thought was a productive way, and more. This wholesale reversion undermines the modernization of the entry to account for recent clashes between CCF, the Restaurant Opportunities Center, HSUS, and more, all well documented in the major newspapers. What's up with that? JimmyBoyHiggins (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)JimmyBoyHiggins

Reason

The group uses this name on some of its websites as here [4] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center for Organizational Research and Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151221205653/http://www.cspinet.org:80/booze/WashingtonRpt0305.htm to http://www.cspinet.org/booze/WashingtonRpt0305.htm#ABI

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sugar sources

Here are two more sources on the group and its funding. $3.5 million went to Berman & Company, of which $3.2 million went to support the Center for Consumer Freedom, apparently mostly for an ad campaign the sponsor did not wish to be directly associated with. HLHJ (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References