Talk:ActivistCash.com

This seems slightly POV. If the only source of comment on this group is from another group which is also POV....then I find it very difficult to take at face value that the article here is NPOV. Also, the use of almost verbatium language for a POV source is another giveaway. I would suggest removing the term "front group" as it suggests covert motives, and changing the tone with respect to the corporations. 128.118.39.11 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Mark[reply]

Went ahead and created an account and Did the First edit on this article. Attempted to take the neutral road. Any comments are welcome as well as helpful suggestions. Chairman Meow 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Mark[reply]

You should try to avoid your own commentary, such as describing the Sourcewatch article as "biased". That said, it's better to have direct evidence on things like Berman's tobacco industry links than to use a secondary source like Sourcewatch and I've added this in.

Thanks for the advice. Additionally, I took out "which" because it was gramatically incorrect

merge?

It looks to me like this page should be merged with Center for Consumer Freedom. About half the info on the page appears to apply to the Center anyway, rather than the website. What do others think? --Allen 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth merging, there's just not enough references outside of the website itself. I'll redirect. Jean-Philippe 07:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]