Talk:Center for Science in the Public Interest/Archive 1

Essential info. about Center for Science in the Public Interest

Some very strongly pro-CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) individuals -- perhaps employees -- don't want readers to know about some of the activities of CSPI:

The so-called Center for science in the Public Interest has identified a number of foods as unacceptable: "Chinese [1], Italian [2], Greek [3] and Mexican [4] dishes; oatmeal and peanut butter cookies; pizza and pasta alfredo; soda, diet soda, coffee and tea; tuna, chicken and potato salads; movie popcorn; potato, corn and tortilla chips; french fries; red meat; whole and 2% milk [5]; butter and margarine [6]; mayonnaise; jello; beer, wine and alcoholic drinks; granola bars; candy bars; hot dogs and hamburgers; pretzels; baby food and baby formula; ice cream and salad dressings -- basically, anything with sugar or fat, or processed" [2].

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has identified ten foods people should never eat: Quaker Oats 100% Natural Granola Bugels Contadina Alfredo Sauce Entenmann Frosted Donuts Nissen Cup of Noodles and Shrimp Burge King French Fries Campbell red and White label condensed soups Frito-Lay Wow potato chips Dennys Grand Slam breakfast [3][4] It also alerts its readers to avoid Original Lay's, Ruffles, Cooler Ranch Dorritos, Nacho Cheesier Doritos, Lay’s Mesquite Bar-B-Q, Tostitos, Fat-free Pringles, Fat-free Bar-B-Q Pringles, and Fat-free Sour Cream and Onion Pringles [7].

In addition, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has criticized many, many foods, of which this is only a partial list: [5]: Alfalfa sprouts [8], “Any fried seafood” [9], Apple pies [10], Baby back ribs [11], Baby food [12], Bacon [13], Baked potatoes with sour cream, Baked stuffed shrimp [14], Baklava [15], Beef, Beef burritos [16], Beef chimichangas [17], Beef nachos [18], Beef tacos [19], Beer [20], Belgian waffles [21], Berries, BLT sandwiches [22], Biscuits & gravy [23], Bologna [24], Brie, Brownies [25], Buffalo wings [26], Butter [27], Buttermilk biscuits [28],Caffe latte, Caffe mocha, Caffeine, Candy bars [29], Canned fish, Cantaloupes, Cappuccino, Cereals [30], Cheese [31], Cheese quesadillas [32], Cheesecake [33], Cheese fries [34], Cheese manicotti, Cheese nachos [35], Cheese ravioli, Cheeseburgers [36], Cheesecake[37], Chef's salad with dressing [38], Chicken breast strips [39], Chicken burritos [40], Chicken enchiladas, Chicken fingers [41], Chicken nuggets[42], Chicken pot pies [43], Chicken salad sandwiches [44], Chile rellenos [45], Chimichangas, Chocolate cake, Chocolate candy [46] Chocolate chips, Chocolate mousse, Cinnamon rolls [47], Clams, Condensed soup [48], Condiments [49], Cookie dough, Cookies [50], Corned beef sandwiches [51],, Country fried steak [52], Crackers [53], Cream cheese Cream of broccoli soup, Creamed spinach, Croissants [54], Cupcakes [55], Danish pastries [56], Desserts, Dips, Donuts [57], Egg salad sandwiches [58], Eggnog [59], Eggplant Parmigiana [60], Eggs, Enchiladas [61], Fat-free cakes, Fat-free cookies, Fat-free ice cream, Feta cheese, Fetticcine Alfredo [62], Food coloring, Frappuccino [63] French fries [64], French toast, Fried calamari [65], Fried chicken [66], Fried clams [67], Fried fish [68], Fried mozzarella sticks [69], Fried rice, Fried shrimp, Fried whole onions [70], Frozen dinners [71], Frozen turkey, Fruit cocktails, Fruit drinks, Fruit juice, Fudge brownie sundaes, Garlic bread, General Tso's chicken [72], Granola bars, Greek salads, Grilled cheese sandwiches [73], Gyros, Ham sandwiches [74], Ham & cheese omelettes [75], Hamburgers [76], Home-canned vegetables, Homemade eggnog, Homemade frosting, Hot dogs [77], Hot fudge sundaes, Ice cream [78], Ice cream bars [[79], Ice cream bites [80],Kung pao chicken [81], Lasagna [82], Lettuce, Lo mein, Luncheon meats, Macaroni and cheese [83], Manicotti [84], Margarine, Mashed potatoes [85], Mayonnaise, Meat [86], Meatloaf [87], Meat-stuffed grape leaves, Melons, Microwave popcorn [88], Milk both regular and 2%) [89], Milk shakes [90], Movie popcorn, Muffins [91], Moo shu pork [92], Mushrooms, Mussels, No-chicken broth [93], Oat cereal bars [94], Olestra [95], Omelets, Onion rings [96], Orange beef [97], Oysters, Pancakes [98], Pastries [99], Patty melt [100], Pie [101], Pizza [102], Pork chops [103], Pot pies [104], Potato chips [105], Pork ribs [106], Poultry [107], Pound cake [108], Prime rib, Pudding, Rotisserie turkey, Saccharin, Salad dressings, Salads, Salt [109], Sandwich crackers [110], Sandwiches, Sausage [111], Scones, Seafood [112], Shellfish, Soft drinks [113], Sour cream [114], Spaghetti and meatballs, Steak [115], Steak fajitas [116], Stuffed potato skins, Sugar [117] Sweet and sour pork [118], Taco salad [119], Toaster tarts [120], Tuna salad sandwiches [121], Turkey pot pies [122], Veal [123], Veal Parmigiana, Waffles, White bread [124], and Wine [125].

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has also criticized Greek restaurants [126], Chinese restaurants [127], family restaurants [128], , fast food restaurants [129], Italian restaurants [130], Mexican restaurants [131], sandwich shops, seafood restaurants [132], and steakhouses [133] [6].

It's easy to understand Center for Science in the Public Interest president Miichael Jacobson's assertion that CSPI is proud of having criticised almost everything.Emma Jacobson 19:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)— Emma Jacobson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Intriguing. What's their objection to lettuce?

Please do not keep reinserting long passages of quoted material that relate more to User:Andrew P Lin's crusade against soft drinks than to the CSPI organization. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted it again. 66.173.192.96 02:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

the whole article is pov.. I couldn't even find it at first.. how do you do those fancy "redirects" from say, "CSPI"?? --Kvuo 23:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The format for a redirect is #redirect [[article]]. It should be the only thing on the page to be redirected. I've created one at CSPI as requested. - RedWordSmith 06:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Adding POV-check: While CSPI may take positions that people find disagreeable or negative, it seems the article mentions only these perceptions. 24.46.122.98 08:37:00 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm I the only one who find it slightly amusing that all this stuff CSPI (or maybe even their employees!) supposedly doesn't want us to know is sourced directly to their website and press releases? Jean-Philippe 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, I've just looked at the date on that thing. Maybe we should archive this for posterity ^^; Jean-Philippe 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they don't want their blind followers to know that they're actually just another Rockefeller front group. Wvoutlaw2002 (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

alcohol

why did someone remove the mention of CSPI's anti-alcohol policy??? They ARE anti-alcohol, after all. [[134]] --Kvuo 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

saturated fat vs. Trans-fatty acids

The Center for Science in the Public Interest doesn't seem to want to recognise recent research that suggests that theses two fats, one natural, one mostly artifical don't seem to be equaly bad. anyone wanna try to tackle a NPOV addition? 66.173.192.96 02:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I got a paragraph from Trans-fat and included it over here 66.173.192.96 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Facts

CSPI was incorporated (became a corporation) in 1971. And according to its website "CSPI is primarily funded by the 900,000 subscribers to its Nutrtiion Action Newsletter and individual donors." That clearly makes the Newsletter a "major source of income" as correctly reported.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverglade (talk • contribs) — Neverglade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

According to their funding page, they receive a lot of money from some very powerful lobbying groups, the most prominent of which are the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, and the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Wvoutlaw2002 (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Although this article has a pro-CSPI bias, it's not strong enought to warrant a "nonconformity" label.

Grammatical error in external links section

• CSPIscam.com is a site which receives funds from some in the food industry to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

^ I got a headache trying to read this. I can't tell what it's trying to say either

Nunquam Dormio 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I've rewritten it to what I think it's trying to say

This article have a strong anti-CSPI stance, and also the only critics are capitalistic and libertarian in nature. There is surely critics or defence on the left to counter this heavy bias, no? Where are they?

Honesty and accuracy required

To criticise foods as "unsafe," "dangerous," and "food porn," as does the CSPI, is to do much more than the bland "commented on" sugggests. Perhaps we should say that Adolf Hitler "commented" on Jews.Sandy Beech 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)— Sandy Beech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Interesting comparison. Hitler is reponsible for 30 million deaths and the CSPI none.

- I wouldn't say that CSPI is saint-like. Seems to me CSPI is just as much a front group for Big Pharma as the CCF is for Big Food, and all you need to look at is CSPI's involvement with the Codex Alimentarius Commission which seeks to ban ALL alternatives (including vitamin/mineral supplements) to Big Pharma's killer drugs.User:wvoutlaw2002 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is about the CSPI, not other groups

This article is about the CSPI -- it's mission, goals, beliefs, methods, actions and statements -- not about other groups.Enrique Perez 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)— Enrique Perez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree, but as with any other article you need to have criticisms to mantain a npov and thats where the other groups come in.--Soliscjw 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

citationneeded

Dear Enrique, it appears you are trying to insert a Harvard style reference. Such references, which are also known as the author-date system, consist normally of an author and a date. Your reference cites the Center for Science in the Public Interest as author - which seems unlikely, since the quote contains harsh criticism. Please correct the citation to show the correct author. Instead of the Harvard style, I would recommend the footnotes style, which is used for most citations in this article already. For the time being, I will reinsert the "citationneeded" tag. Thank you, Common Man 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi CM- CSPI is the corporate author of the document in which it tells activists that they can support their claim that alcohol advertising targets children by documenting the location and number of alcohol-related billboards found near elementary, junior high, and high schools. Of course, for many logical and methodological reasons the resulting information is totally meaningless and cannot prove the claim. Its use for that purpose would be highly misleading. This isn't a point of view but a fact known to researchers. Thanks.Enrique Perez 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)— Enrique Perez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ah, I see what you mean. You could make your point clearer by writing something like the above in the article. However, your argument is not convincing. You say "This isn't a point of view but a fact known to researchers". Can you back this up with a citation? (This is the kind of citation I expected.) As it stands, we would have to take your word for it. The term "misleading" is misleading itself. There is nothing wrong or even unscientific with collecting publicly accessible and verifiable data. You can not be scientific and truthful and censor actual data. Common Man 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks or your suggestion.Enrique Perez 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)— Enrique Perez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is becoming a farce! Apparently all you did was Googling for "research methods"! IF you found anything to back up your claim, please provide quotes (and page numbers for the books). Common Man 03:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Article written as series of lists -- should be written in narrative style

The article needs to be written as a narrative, not a series of lists. Mattisse(talk) 14:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I came over after cleaning the POV mess at Michael Jacobson/Michael F. Jacobson, to see what CSPI was about and somehow I'm not surprised by what I see. This was ridiculous, so I've trimmed the fat. I'd like to see what argument people will have against that. Jean-Philippe 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section

The criticisms section is clearly for ciriticisms that have been made about CSPI and its actions. It's not a place to criticize organizations that have criticized CSPI. That's unacceptable POV.Bryant Wright 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)— Bryant Wright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you please give me one such example? Jean-Philippe 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Enduring negative POV pushing.

A quick look at the article history reveal that ever since this article was created last year, the article has been under pressure from one source attempting to drown what little information on the subject exist in favor of a massive amount of negative information. It's an open secret that 90%+ of those edits come from one source using a multitudes of sockpuppets. A simple look at the contribution histories confirm this. [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]

I'm open to assuming good faith. Criticism most certainly belong on any controversial topic and from what little I know of subject of the article, it basicly scream controversy. Ideally, it should be weaved carefully, neutrally into the narrative of a subject. Here's a nice little graph that someone (with whom I disagree but is almost always right afaik) made a few days ago. I'll leave the graph as is out of respect, so replace "Peta" with "CSPI".

This is how it is right now.

• PETA
  • General info about PETA
    • History
    • Campaigns
    • Policies
    • Relationships
  • Why PETA sucks!
    • Criticism of campaigns
    • Criticism of policies
    • Criticism of relationships

This is what it should have:

• PETA
  • History
  • Campaigns

    Criticism of campaigns

  • Policies

    Criticism of policies

  • Relationships

    Criticism of relationships

Now we have a dilemma here. There is no narrative to speak off in the first place! The article is barely more than a stub. I suspect any attempt at writing one have been disprupted by the POV pushing source, but that's just speculation on my part :P So we have a problem. We have an article that says very, very little on the actual topic and so very much criticizing it, by as much to 5 to 1. I know little about the topic myself, but I'll research it and should come up with something by the end of next week hopefully. No promise as I'm quite unreliable ^^ In the meantime, I won't hesitate to seek and probably obtain article semi-protection to protect the article if the POV pushing gets out of hand again. Remember, criticism is well and good when appropriate, well sourced and written neutrally, but giving it undue weight is inherently NPOV. Jean-Philippe 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversial page

It looks like this is a very controversial subject and that many people have strong opinions about it. Now J-P assumes ownership, threatening people, and promising that he will bring a neutral point of view to the article. Let's hope he can prepare a much-needed balanced and neutral piece. His proposed outline looks very good and suggests the possibility of a good article. It will be difficult to accomplish because his editing history suggests a strong bias. (See his lack of neutrality regarding PETA, Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder of PETA), and animal rights.) I wish him success in a difficult task.Bryant Wright 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)— Bryant Wright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Does that mean that the next time we speak, you'll be using a different sockpuppet? That's a shame :P Jean-Philippe 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

?? J-P, as you work to improve this page, here's something to consider. I thinks it would be a good idea to exclude criticisms that are simply "name-calling" and include only those dealing with matters of real importance. For example criticisms directed to the credibility of the organization, to charges that its activities may be influenced by monetary or other considerations, etc.

It looks like there has been an effort in some editions of the article to editorialize or "explain away" criticisms along he lines of: "XYZ, a special interest organization, claims that CSPI sometimes presents junk science in supporting its recommendations. CSPI has refuted tat charge as baseless and without any merit whatsoever."Bryant Wright 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)— Bryant Wright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Workshop in progress

I've started a little workshop on CSPI, anyone is welcome to toy around and add to it if you want, of course. I've been mostly going around reading about them and taking notes, there is some first-party links, but nothing third-party like the media or critics yet. I'm not sure what to make of "attacks on their credibility". It sound shady to me. Critics on their positions, now sure that would be great and you could maybe help me by looking around or salvaging some stuff from the lists I removed and posting them in the appropriate sections in my workshop. Well, you do what you want :) Jean-Philippe 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This workshop looks like a good idea and the outline is logical. (In the hypothetical example I gave above, if CSPI used junk science to support a recommendation, that fact might reasonably be used by someone in criticizing the position being promoted. Some might argue that using questionable evidence, especially if it occurs frequently, raises questions of integrity. I'd be inclined to argue that only one example might simply constitute an unfortunate error and only be relevant to the position in question)Bryant Wright 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)— Bryant Wright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We can't say org Z claim that org X use junk science. It's POV, out of context and provide only one side of an argument which can't be refuted without doing WP:OR. We can say org Z state that org X misrepresented fact A, using reliable source B. Simple enough. Hopefully, this way, a good editor who has a particular criticism in mind which he think's important to be added to the article will simply provide both side of picture, in context and without breaking the "flow" of the article. Jean-Philippe 04:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point and agree.Bryant Wright 22:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)— Bryant Wright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Allegations of sock puppetry — Confirmed!!

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited this page (see above). I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. Please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A check user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin has shown "that Wright, Creighton, and Wise are sockpuppets". These accounts are Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise. Other suspected sock puppets are too old to check. I will keep everyone informed of progress. Nunquam Dormio 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, and Stu Wise have been blocked indefinitely. Nunquam Dormio 09:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Is citation style template still justified?

The article currently looks pretty clean to me. Verdatum 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV needed

Attacking critics betrays a lack of neutrality and the existence of an agenda to protect the organization against criticism.Almondeater 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added an article by Walter E. Williams in the criticism section called They're Coming After You («Walter E. Williams denounces the CSPI "zealots" as having "tyrannical designs" and as being "chief among the [nation's] food tyrants."») Asteriks (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Lobbyists Berman and Company at work

This article has been edited anonymously by Berman and Company, who are lobbyists for amongst others the American Beverage Institute, the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Center for Union Facts and the Employment Policies Institute.

IP address of 66.208.14.242 traces to Berman and Company, see the Whois report. I Spy With My Big Eye (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

There is no reason to remove most of the criticisms section. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the individuals or groups involved, these are the criticisms that are levied against the CSPI and they deserve to be mentioned.

I've removed all but one, again. The reason for removal was stated in the edit summary. This time I've removed them one by one, giving reasons. Please don't edit war to enforce a fringe WP:POV or to re-introduce information that is trying to argue a point and/or based on unreliable sources. The fact that a partisan advocacy group advances fringe theories (e.g. trans fat and soda are not unhealthy) disputes something does not make it controversial.Wikidemo (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

These are the criticisms, it doesn't matter whether you consider them to be fringe or not. All the individuals and organizations mentioned are prominent critics. The section does not argue for their point of view, but merely outlines what they have to say. I'll give you that perhaps the specific criticisms can be removed and people can view them from the links available. But whether you agree with what these critics have to say or not is irrelevant.

You cannot criticize these individuals and organizations as being "unreliable sources". Whether their information is valid or not, they are not being sourced for the information they carry. They are completely reliable sources for the fact that they express these criticisms towards the CSPI. That is what they are being sourced for. This is valid information that belongs in Wikipedia, please do not remove it again.

I have, per my earlier argument. You have repeatedly added inappropriate material from discredited attack sites, mostly fronts for the Center for Consumer Freedom. That is a discredited fringe group, and its efforts to go against mainstream scientists aren't something reasonable to legitimize as criticisms. The account you are using is a single purpose account that has done nothing but edit war over this material. Yet you seem to have some knowledge of Wikiepdia, its policies, etc. This raises concerns of sockpuppetry, particularly given that socks from that organization have contentiously edited this and other aticles before. Please tell me, have you ever edited Wikipedia under a different account, and do you have anything to do with that organization? Wikidemo (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with the Center for Consumer Freedom or any of the other groups or people I mentioned. I have only recently created an account at Wikipedia, but I have edited articles anonymously in the past. Most recently I added the criticisms section to Cold-fX.

Your portrayal of the Center for Consumer Freedom as a "discredited fringe group" is highly unsupported. The Wikipedia page on this group shows absolutely no indication that mainstream scientists have discredited the information that they supply. The main criticisms listed have to do with their funding, and questioning their objectivity.

I do not argue with any of the criticisms listed there, and I am not here to portray the CCF as completely right about everything they say. But deleting their criticisms of the CSPI as well as those individuals and organizations who agree with them is unwarranted. They are a prominent critic of the CSPI, and deserve to be mentioned in this article along with Hanson, Milloy, and the American Council on Science and Health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot0123 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The CCF article (which I helped restore neutrality to, incidentally) portrays CCF as an astroturf organization run as an adjunct to a single paid PR guy's efforts. It takes on outlandish, unpopular causes like disputing that mercury, trans-fats, and sodas are bad, that Americans are getting fater and that's unhealthy, anti-drunk driving laws, etc. It runs mean spirited personal attacks on people who they see as opponents. It's simply not a serious organization and its so-called criticisms of mainstream science are not significant enough to mention, certainly not in a section as long as the article in main attacking a mainstream scientific organization. Paid political attacks are just not bona fide criticism. Wikidemo (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of some of the CCF's mean spirited attacks, but most of the cases it takes on are nowhere near outlandish. Do you have any information discounting their arguments on mercury, trans-fats, or soda? If so, perhaps we can continue this discussion over email. Are you open to that?

As for the article, I think you're showing incredibly inappropriate behaviour by deciding what groups criticisms are inadmissable based on such thin criteria. But I don't have the energy to fight you any more on that one, so I'll let this stand. Parrot0123 (talk) 28:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very much interested in hearing any information that contradicts the CSPI's stance on mercury, trans-fats, or sodas. I have done a lot of research but have yet to find information that addresses and contends their points. Please let me know if you're knowledgeable about such things and can help enlighten me on why you view the CCF so negatively, I would be very much interested in pursuing this conversation with you in private. Parrot0123 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - -

Comments above that refer to CCF as a "fringe" group are incorrect. They are simply and objectively a self-identified PR group funded by food industry clients. Although they engage largely in negative-message PR, that is their choice and there's no law against it....

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

If Parrot0123 honestly struggles to remain objective and wants to know why CCF is a valueless source, see the following from the "fact-checking" organization SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

This is not a story of the little guy going against the conventional wisdom (for example, with evidence that consuming trans-fats is benign) and getting smacked down by the closed-minded or somehow biased experts. Even if that were the case, it would take time but *eventually* the data would come out and force a new interpretation -- too long for some people -- but that is what happens over the long run because of the nature of the peer-review system which scientists and academic nutritionists adhere to. It is not an adversarial system, and despite its faults, data matters and polemics do not. Instead, CCF is a rapid response, public relations group whose mission is polemical and to take advantage of the adversarial system that exits in journalism and in public media, with the intent to obfuscate and challenge information that may be deemed counter-productive to its paid clients.

Does intent matter? Think of why CSPI exists. To a small degree, they genuinely have a public education component to their work. But mostly they have taken on a self-declared "watchdog role" to counterbalance commerical interests that have the full weight of marketing and political lobbying and to counterbalance government regulatory agencies that function as bureaucracies. Whether you agree with CSPI conclusions or not, they adhere to citing research in peer-reviewed journals and they interview non-partisan scientists, academics, and nutritionists.

Now think of why CCF exists. As is publicly stated by CCF itself, it is paid by industry clients to engage in public relations favorable to their interests. In general, there is positive-message and informative PR, and there is negative-message and impeach-the-messenger PR. In this case, the staff of CCF sells the latter to their clients. Therefore they rarely cite research but instead most frequently cite editoral commentary, which they in turn, follow up by issuing more commentary where they mock their targets with the intent of discrediting the targets. And who do they interview? Largely, other other critics and PR people and rarely scientists and academic nutritionists. What about the data? They don't cite much scientific peer-reviewed research that supports their side because frankly it mostly isn't there. So their employment of negative message PR is perfectly logical and understandable. Just don't kid yourself into thinking they are simply providing the "other side" of the story.

Lapabc (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

David J. Hanson's criticism (now removed from the article) was sourced to his own personal website, which is undesirable. It is possible that some of his points might deserve further attention, but if these issues have been discussed in any reliable sources, it is better to quote the underlying sources directly. (I.e., use Hanson's opinion as a guide to what things to investigate further). EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WSJ

I think this sentence:

A Wall Street Journal editorial went farther, pointing out that CSPI's recent prior advocacy in favor of trans fats was the reason many restaurants had adopted them in the first place.

is problematic. It gives the impression that CSPI waged some kind of campaign advocating the use of trans fats, and then did an about face after retailers had taken their advice. Maybe there's more to the story than the sources let on, but it appears that entirety of CSPI's "advocacy" for trans fats is a single 20-year old article in one of their publications--hardly a campaign. The idea that McDonalds would switch their practices based on this article is laughable. The source used to back up the claim that CSPI waged some kind of successful pro-trans fat campaign is an editorial in the WSJ. Editorials are poor sources for facts, and the WSJ opinion page is particularly bad. So my point is, either we need much better sourcing and evidence that CSPI ran an actual campaign, or we need to soften the language we use in describing WSJ accusations. Something like:

A Wall Street Journal editorial went farther, noting that in 1988 CSPI published an article saying trans fat weren't dangerous, and arguing that restaurants started using trans fats in the first place in response to this article.

(or something worded a bit more elegantly.) Yilloslime (t) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My own personal recollection may have colored events a bit-- I remember CSPI staging a campaign to eliminate beef fat & palm oil to fry french fries, suggesting hydrogenated oils as a healthier alternative. On their own website, they claim the elimination of beef fat from around the same period dicussed as one of their victories. I will try to find some more solid support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnickel (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They may indeed have advocated against using tallow or sat'd fats back then, but that's not the same thing as specifically promoting trans-fats. Yilloslime (t) 03:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I softened the language. Please let me know what you think. The article already states (under the "Food Labelling" section) that "CSPI was also instrumental in convincing fast food restaurants to stop using animal fat for frying in 1989". However, I went ahead and included another reference from the SF Chronicle about McDonalds switching to trans fats at that time as their chosen alternative.Rnickel (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot better. Yilloslime (t) 20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section: A New Beginning

I have just completed a comprehensive rewrite of the Criticism section, drawing on reliable third-party sources such as the New York Times and Washington Times, and making passing reference to fringe groups, which are so numerous and vocal that I think a such a mention is appropriate. It is my belief that the criticism section is a vital part of this article-- prior to reading about CSPI on Wikipedia, I was unaware that anyone even questioned CSPI's research, findings, or policy recommendations. It is my sincere hope that this new Criticism section will meet the test that so many other attempts have failed.

Even if not, however, it is a serious and good-faith attempt, and I would ask that there be no wholesale deletions of this new material without discussion and consensus among the concerned editors.

Thank you, Rnickel (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's well done, balanced, and well researched - so I endorse your efforts. It needs some work on tone. We try to avoid throat-clearing or commentary regarding the facts - things like "not surprisingly" that read like an essay. Also, when you say something like "because the organization is an X,[cite] inevitably people say y[cite]" - you need the cite not only to support X and Y, but the causal relationship you are drawing. It may seem obvious that a group that goes after the food industry is naturally attacked by the food industry. But that assumes something about the motivations, tactics, and intentions of the food industry. That presupposes a world in which every business looks after its interests by attacking its critics, which is an assumption about politics that should actually be supported. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Rnickel for doing this work. I agree with Wikidemon about 'not surprisingly.' I suppose it is OK to cite blogs for their opinions (rather than relying on them for facts) but it may open the door to random addition of more blogs in the future. Some of the points mentioned by the blogs might be researched and then brought into the article directly. For instance, one of those cited suggests a flip-flop by CSPI on the matter of trans fats, and claims they never acknowledged their own role in creating a problem. If this is fair, there should be a lot of sources that could be found. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good feedback, thank you. "Not surprisingly" has been removed, and an attempt has been made at reworking the intro to eliminate the implication of cause and effect. Ed, I had actually already attempted to substantiate the specific claim you reference (about the flip-flop on trans fats), but was unable to find anything about the reversal in third-party sources. Rnickel (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Consider this reference: "The Bloomberg diet". Wall Street Journal. 9 December, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) It's a reliable source, even though it's an opinion column. Elaine Blume (March, 1988). "The truth about trans: hydrogenated oils aren't guilty as charged - trans fats". Nutrition Action Healthletter. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The CSPI article says,"Despite the rumors, there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats." I think the indignant opponents of CSPI would like CSPI to at least admit they played some role in the current level of usage of trans fats. Whether there is much more than a rhetorical point here is not so easy to tell. Judging the health effects of fats is not an easy task, and scientists have been trying to get the answer for years. David J. Hanson's blog argues that CSPI does bad science or misleads people about the current science, but I have not yet tried to find reliable sources on that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Referencing a list of Googled blogs

I reverted an edit in which all reference to the critical blogs & websites was deleted based on Reliable Sources. I was very careful not to include any claims from the websites because such claims would not be reliable. However, I think the existance of the many, many critical websites is an important part of CSPI's place in the world, and surely a website can be reliably cited as evidence of its own existance. Otherwise, we're in the world of the famous Monty Python sketch:

• Soldier: Bring out your dead!
• Citizen: Here's one.
• Corpse: I'm not dead!
• Soldier: Here, he says he's not dead!
• Citizen: Yes he is.

On the other hand, I can perhaps see an argument going to notability, alluded to by Ed above. How do we know which websites are notable enough to merit inclusion as references? Is prominent placement in a Google search enough to convey notability? Google placement, after all, is controlled by how many hyperlinks exists to a particular site. On the other hand, Google placement can be manipulated, and there is no way to verify that hyperlinks giving a site high placement are 'third-party' hyperlinks, and not just multiple websites run by the same entity all linking to each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnickel (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rnickel: nice work! I think your rewrite is a lot better that what was there before. I just made a small tweak on the opening paragraph, bringing it back to the way you originally had it, but without the editorializing. Consider it a suggestion--if you revert it back to your most recent edit, I won't object. Yilloslime (t) 14:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the quest for reliable sources, I note that we have a WP article, David J. Hanson, though nothing is said there about his critique of CSPI. Hanson has regular academic publications but in a quick scan of his output I also don't see anything about CSPI. If critics of CSPI are saying anything notable, you'd expect some of their statements to be occasionally picked up by reliable sources. The search goes on.. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

None of these websites are notable or meet WP:RS, and aren't the sources for the statement (but citing a Google search doesn't meet RS either)...we don't even know the parameters of the search conducted or where these webites were ranked. Drawing conclusions from a Google search is OR even if they're included without comment. The way Google judges websites is completely different from Wikipedia; Google search is a tool, not an authority. I'm sure even Monty Python has critical websites, but they're not notable just because you can Google them. Hanson's website has been thoroughly discredited as a legitimate source, and most of his self-added links have been systematically removed as spam. If these sites or viral/manufactured criticisms are notable, then the reasons why needs to be noted and sourced per WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about OR, although I can't help smiling over the irony: the "original research" cited in the article took a lot less research to find than the third party sources! That said, I think we do a disservice if we simply turn a blind eye to these critics: the Google search you asked about was on "Center for Science in the Public Interest", and the top anti-CSPI websites were listings #3, 5, and 6. (#1 and #2 were CSPI's own website; Wikipedia's write-up was #4.) People interested in CSPI are going to hear these voices, and some of them are going to look to Wikipedia's write up to know what to make of them. For example, if Hanson has made himself an unavoidably vocal critic, yet has been discredited, then presumably reliable third-party sources discrediting him should exist, and those could be cited in the article. In fact, I did a quick search for such information, but didn't find any leads. I'd be happy to run that down if you can get me started. I think rewriting/improving this material is very appropriate, but I don't think it simply deleting it out of hand is the best solution. (However I won't block consensus over the issue if I'm the only one who feels that way.)Rnickel (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No one has turned a "blind eye" to critics, especially Hanson's attempts to promote himself as an "unavoidably vocal critic". Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Aug_1#About_400_links_to_the_two_sites_of_one_individual before asserting that someone is an expert until proven otherwise. Please note that the website you're using as two references is considered to be a non-notable spam site.

Let's be clear: You are saying that you can't find acceptable sources to support your edits, but I'm supposed to either find them for you or provide sources to remove them. What happens if I just edit the section using information and links from an undefined Google search? It would be certainly a lot easier than doing your work, defending my edits or editing per established policy. Flowanda | Talk 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that consensus was and will always be the downfall of editors who fancy themselves as unavoidable vocal critics. It does take a long time to clean up the mess they leave behind, but there are plenty of mops. Flowanda | Talk 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just asking for your help improving the article. I think that's what we both want: a better article that is helpful, conforms to WP guidelines, and covers all the relevant material. EdJohnston had given me leads on a couple of articles to follow up on, I thought maybe you could do likewise, but apparently not. I quite frankly don't follow a lot of your most recent comment, but what's clear is that there is a rising level of hostility, and frankly my life was plenty stressful enough already. I'm taking out the offending two sentences now; consider me brow-beaten into submission. Rnickel (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to follow me to understand Wikipedia policy and etiquette. And a review of the discussions on this talk page will provide you with multiple examples of how hostility and stress are caused by editors who think they can sideswipe policy and editors who get in the way. Consensus, like sunlight, can be extremely painful. Flowanda | Talk 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care to read the above exchange - is this a tempest in a teacup? The anti-CSPI websites, promoted as they are by a notable institution, are in my opinion one of the rare instances where a primary source is self-validating. We can link to them without commentary beyond saying that an opposition group has created them. Better, it should not be hard to find a source that describes their creation and purpose. Surely, while we are conducting google searches there must be a reliable source out there somewhere that states that CCF has put up ant-CSPI websites. Although CSPI must view them as a nuisance, and indeed they are, that is the world as we find it, and it seems to be relevant if not terribly important to the story of CSPI that the industries it is trying to watch over sometimes do their best to bite back.Wikidemon (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with wikidemon. To merely prove something exists, and linking to their own site or blog, to prove they exist, is rare instance of an acceptable use of the source. Third party is a better source, but in the absence of that source, a primary source it better than nothing. And, it is completely legitimate and notably to note the existence or alternate opinions so long as though they are not ultra-minority. You just need to reword the section a bit, and remove the google part. Charles Edward 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth the effort to try to dig up any criticism that is now only citable to blogs and see if it can be cited also to reliable sources. While I have seen blogs used in some articles, and you can eke out a case for their use, the following line from WP:UNDUE suggests we should try to avoid it: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. If we get *all* of the criticism from reliable sources to begin with then we don't have to engage in this subtle balancing act of determining which blog criticisms are fair to include. Ironically, David Hanson's blog might be citable in alcohol-related matters since he has published academic papers in that field. He's published nothing CSPI-related that I can tell. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This SFGate.com article refers to the CCF website stratgy, but content added to this article needs to accurately reflect the context of what's is being reported in the article, not just to source isolated facts. CCF creates websites to disparage their "enemies", according the article. The NYT article was mostly a critical look at Berman's tactics, but is only used here to source the negative nicknames he uses. Hanson's site and the CCF are fronts, and their websites, placements or ranking success have never met WP:RS -- as evidenced by the almost constant removal of unsourced/poorly sourced POV -- but there seems to be enough news coverage to adequately source this section. Flowanda | Talk 02:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion, I have now reintroduced a section on the anti-CSPI websites. Thanks to Flowanda for finding a suitable secondary source. In order to steer clear of any accusations of sock puppetry or WP:OR, I have scrupulously avoided going beyond what's in the referenced article. I would have liked to mention which websites are part of the described CCF "cluster", so that people who find them and reference the Wikipedia article for perspective will readily be able to tell. There are three specific sites I would have liked to address, only because, as Google "Top 10" matches on a search for "Center for Science in the Public Interest", they are the ones most likely to be encountered by a casual researcher:

• #3, "cspiscam.com", is a CCF clone: it carries a CCF copywrite notice (apparently not citable, though... primary source?)
• #5, "alcoholfacts.org", is a Hanson site (I won't make the mistake of asking again for anyone who has a reliable source discrediting him, although I think the article would benefit, since, again, his self-promotion makes him hard to avoid if you're looking for info on CSPI, and it would be nice if Wikipedia could offer some perspective)
• #6, "activistcash.com", is a CCF clone: it carries a CCF copywrite notice (see above)

If anyone happens to come across a secondary source that would allow me to call out these cites as being, in essense, on-line sock puppets, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnickel (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that the websites of interest were listed in the Wikipedia article on CCF itself, so I just went ahead and linked there rather than repeating all the information within this article. Rnickel (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of Criticism

There is a difference in referencing advocacy groups (e.g., CCF, Hanson) versus sources with the intent of fairness (e.g., newspapers). The NY Times has been accused of leaning left and the Washington Times is self-described as leaning right, but both are journalistic and the attempt of fairness is built in. Obviously, citing an anti-CSPI editorial by Bob Barr in the Washington Times is a legitimate citation. But if the same Bob Barr screed were cited from a CCF source, it would not be a legitimate citation... even if the Washington Times source did not exist... because CCF is not a fair broker of information. It exists in order to oppose organizations like CSIP, PETA, MAAD, etc, and also to attack them. And it does not depend on impartial sources. Hanson, in my view, is in a different category because while he can be a strong partisan and make obnoxious statements, he nevertheless draws from impartial sources and his blog shows you what those are.

It is fine and entirely legitmate for organizations to be partisan and to oppose each other. For example, the think tanks Heritage Foundation (Republican) and Center for American Progress (Democrat) oppose each other and their constituencies all the time. But they do so by letting the facts and ideas speak for themselves, without mocking and degradation. HF and CAP are advocacy groups and they are PARTISAN, but they abide by FAIRNESS and both draw from IMPARTIAL SOUCES.

Sources should be treated differently. As I mentioned elsewhere, CSPI attempts to use peer-reviewed and non-partisan sources to draw its conclusions... inspect any article in their Newsletter and you will find citations to scientific journals. Agree with their conclusions or not, CSPI relies upon impartial sources and there exists a degree of fairness in the way they operate. Agree with Hanson or not, he draws on impartial sources. But Bob Barr does not obviously draw from impartial sources and he exhibits a kind of partisanship lacking in fairness, also, he's in yet another category for being a notable person in the public eye... but an unsupported opinion is still nothing more than an opinion. And CCF rarely uses impartial sources (and when they do, they use it to verbally flog their target). Like HF and CAP, it is partisan, but unlike HF and CAP, it is inherently unfair.

To simply restate without qualification attacks on CSPI by Barr and CCF in a Wikipedia article is to simply do their work for them. So in one of my versions of the Critcisms section, I included an editorial from one of Barr's homestate newspapers describing him as an extremist and I included a link to SourceWatch that details CCF's aims, support, and tactics. The re-write by Rnickel, in my opinion doesn't contextualize Barr and CCF enough. Sure, quote them, but it's not enough to hint that they are 'backed by industry' ... and what's so bad about being backed by industry if you are fair? The rewrite also discards Hanson, who I belive has a stronger leg to stand on. Basically, he's saying 'they look at data, I look at data, and they're full of crap.' That is a more legitmate criticism in my view, caustic as it may be.

Elsewhere on this page, someone wrote that attacking a critic violates NPOV. That is not the intent here. I am advocating a clear contextualization of critic, rather than hinting at something. If a lunatic and a genius both have something to say, it is not a NPOV issue to point out the deficiencies and merits of both... in fact it is a disservice to everyone to equate them by failing to point out the difference.

So thanks to Rnickel for trying to make this work... and it IS an improvement. Partisan as they may be (or not), I suggest the explicit anti-Barr and anti-CFF citations be put back and included alongside of the partisan anti-CSPI statments by Barr and CCF. And I'd ask Rnickel to find a way to work Hanson back in... (This may be an impossible and thankless task... "no good deed goes unpunished") Lapabc (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Heritage and Hanson and other advocacy/front/think tank groups aren't in the business to present impartial results so people can make up their own minds; their job is to create and promote research, analysis and commentary that advance the views of their organization. WP:RS exists so no one has to argue over what is the "truth" or "NPOV", or which group(s) is "lunatic" or "genius" or what editing deeds benefit from instant karma. But there is no need to worry about "working" Hanson's articles back into the article; his personal .edu pages funded by the alcohol industry have been blacklisted as spam. Flowanda | Talk 06:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My rationale on the inclusion of criticism by Bob Barr and CCF was a simple one and, as alluded to by Flowanda, ultimately relied on the "bright line" established by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To my mind— and Flowanda, please, no offense here, this is just my take— I think the waters become muddy if you use the term "reliable sources", because if your claim is "Billy Joe Bob Shabadoo says such-and-such", then citing Billy Joe Bob's own website where he says such-and-such is obviously reliable; no one is going to claim, "He didn't really say that." The problem is one of notability, and that is where secondary sources come in. We make them the referee. If a major, widely circulated secondary source has deemed that a voice is worthy of publication, then we deem, "OK, it may merit encyclopedic reference." That is why Bob Barr and CCF were included, and David Hanson was not-- I found secondary sources who had seen fit to publish the criticisms of the two former, and none that had published the latter. (Hanson also has a political problem here on Wikipedia: having engaged in a spamming campaign, his comments may have become unpublishable no matter how notable a source he is, because of the opposition he has generated against himself.)

As to the rationale for omitting more detailed refuting of Bob Barr and CCF: simply put, every article has to have a focus, and the focus of this article is CSPI. Various voices have criticised them, and those criticisms have been repeated in notable secondary sources, so those criticisms are part of their place in the world. I've given a quick intro to who the critics are, but a detailed treatment of the critics themselves belongs in their own articles. After all, CCF criticizes a huge number of political figures and organizations. It is simply not practical to provide detailed information about who CCF is within the context of every article on anyone they've criticized. The careful reader should be moved to sufficient suspicion, knowing that CCF is food-industry funded and (reading further down) that their executive director is a paid industry lobbiest, to click the link and read what CCF is really all about. Anything beyond that will ultimately lead to long wandering articles, duplicated information, and a maintenance nightmare. Rnickel (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)