Talk:Consumers Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organizations (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent editing[edit]

What was the reasoning behind the recent editing of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmharrison (talkcontribs) 17:36, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

While I can't really know what Simishag was thinking, most likely it was because it did not meet the criteria of a neutral point of view. -Dawson 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

SHI is a political campaign and should be described as such. Promotion of the campaign, beyond a simple overview of the stated political goals, is not appropriate here, particularly when no unbiased sources are cited for reference. Simishag 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To User:Hmharrison: Whether you like it or not, SHI is an attempt to influence legislation, making it, by definition, a political campaign. Please stop removing references to that fact. Please also stop removing quote marks around directly quoted material. Simishag 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to demand for "no more links."[edit]

If this is an online encyclopedia, the public is entitled to read negative as well as positive comments about Consumers Union or any other organization. Similar critical links exist on other Wikipedia pages. My link to (Seeking the true face of Consumers Union) was deleted twice. I can imagine that an employee of Consumers Union has the job of deleting anything that doesn't show the organization in a good light. I do not intend to let that happen. CU should not have censorship rights over this page. And who else but CU would object to the information I provide? My page on CU, as far as I know, is the only critical page on the Internet on this subject. It provides facts about CU and its policies that are available nowhere else. I feel that the public (which donates money to CU) is being misled about how their money is used, and they have a right to know about it. So, if there is a monitor of this war of link addition and deletion, the way to end the war is to put back the above link. Otherwise you are engaging in censorship. That is common in the general media, which does not want to offend anyone who has big money, but censorship has no place here. Donald Rehm, President, International Myopia Prevention Assn. Official website: Impa 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Impa (talk · contribs), and welcome to Wikipedia! I understand our policies can sometimes be confusing to newcomers, so let me give you some suggested reading before we continue this conversation. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. If, after doing so, you still have questions as to why the link to your website was removed (first by two other editors, then by me), I would be happy to answer them.
And, by the way, I am not an employee of Consumer Union. While this was my first edit to this article, I have made over 6,700 edits across approximately 3,900 articles and pages on Wikipedia.[1] Thanks, Satori Son 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Satori. I don't understand your function. Do you do this just as a hobby? Do you just roam the pages looking for ways to improve it here and there? Or, do you have some special authority in determining what can be linked here? What do you do if someone does not agree with you and re-adds a deleted link day after day? That is a waste of everyone's time, but I imagine that it has been done. I can tell you that in a foreign country that I won't mention, the Wikipedia page on myopia has only one external link. It goes to my site which really tears into the optical industry. And I wasn't the one who put the link there! I came across it by accident. So, based on that, I see no reason why an external link to my page cannot be used here. I have gone over the guidelines you mentioned and find them difficult to interpret and headache-inducing. What I have to say is obviously too lengthly to put on the Wikipedia page. That's why the link is needed. And it provides balance to a page that is otherwise putting CU in a saintly light it doesn't deserve. Are you saying that I need to reword my page? I can certainly do this if it will do the trick. Can you tell me specifically what I need to do to get this link past the critics? Impa 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did put the link in the article five different times,[2][3][4][5][6] which is a violation of our Conflict of interest policy. Please do not do so again.
As far as my status, I am a volunteer editor like virtually everyone else here (there are over 3.8 million editors on the English Wikipedia, but only 3-4 paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation that hosts it). But as an experienced editor and active member of WikiProject Spam, I do spend quite a bit of time removing inappropriate external links from the Project. (I only gave you my edit count because it sounded like you were insinuating I was an employee of Consumer Union; very sorry if I misunderstood.)
Regarding the link itself, I do not see how it meets the inclusion standards of WP:External links, and it appears at least two other editors agree with me, but I would certainly be interested in hearing the opinions of other editors for this article. -- Satori Son 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Satori: This is a flawed system. I don't mean to be cruel, but I can imagine that some editors get into this activity because it makes them feel important as they throw their weight around. It is not realistic for you to ask me to continue revising my contribution until such time that every self-appointed editor has no objection. I don't see any further comments by other "editors" anyway. I intend to appoint myself as an editor and add information that is badly needed by the public. The important thing is that the information is factual, valuable, and provides content that is not readily available elsewhere. CU appeals to the public for contributions. It gets tax dollars from our government. This page is misleading as it stands because anything that questions CU's true motives is being censored, just like in mainstream media. In fact, an external link is not enough, so I will add a paragraph to indicate that factual information is available elsewhere that is too lengthy to be covered here. If you wish to get together with other "editors" and come up with something that will be acceptable to all of you, I am not unreasonable about making some changes. Until then, I will continue to do my job as an editor and add information that is needed to give a fair picture of this business-oriented organization.Impa 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have really tried to be more than reasonable and polite in explaining various policies to you. Let me state it once again unequivocally: Your continuing to add the link to your advocacy website violates all of the following Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please stop.
I have also left a related notice on your talk page, as required by our anti-vandalism policy. -- Satori Son 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki's guidelines say that no rule is set in concrete and common sense must be used. Second opinions have a place here. Impa 16:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I offer my second opinion. Please do not add these links to your advocacy websites. --BozMo talk 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Impa, you may file a request for comment to attract neutral editors who are familiar with the topic, and who may decide to add a criticism section. Until then, your job as an editor is not to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your own website. In place of a final spam warning on your usertalk, consider this a last offer for mediation, but add your site once again to the article and you will be blocked. Femto 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion I don't think the link is appropriate either. While criticism sites are not universally banned, they usually do not meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fourth Opinion I agree that an external link to this site is not appropriate. If you feel that the article itself does not exhibit a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view then I would suggest discussing on this page how the article could be changed to make it more balanced. The RFC route that Femto suggested is a viable possibility, too. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Other links[edit]

I propose that this video be added to external links.

  • Consumers Want to Know, a 1960 Documentary about Consumers Union. part 1, part 2 - 30 minutes total

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Forget that - it is public domain. I uploaded the video and put it in the history section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Right now half the video is there - I did not realize that in uploading it. I have the full documentary but it is 166mb, which is beyond the 100mb limit. I am not sure what to do right now and have no further plans to take action at this point. I think it would be cool to have the entire documentary here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


My name is Lane Rasberry and I am employed by Consumer Reports. I just renamed the article and in doing so just added non-notable information to this article and I would like to give a rationale here.

The change which I made was to replace the name "Consumers Union" with "Consumer Reports". Historically, Consumers Union was the publisher of the magazine Consumer Reports. Since January 2012, Consumers Union legally began doing business as Consumer Reports, so now Consumer Reports is the publisher of Consumer Reports. This fact does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria as set forth in WP:Notability, but I cited it from a self-published letter from the president of the organization.

The reason why I would like this information to be in the article is that it is verified by the article's subject through the citation which I provided and because having this fact makes it possible to develop the article. Since the organization is called "Consumer Reports" now, when it is in the news it will be called "Consumer Reports" and not Consumers Union. Because organizational legal filings are so boring, there will likely never be external sources describing the name change, despite the organization regularly being featured in external news coverage. Additionally, many historical sources since the organization's founding have also called the organization "Consumer Reports", despite that not having been its name until 2012. This is because the public often calls publishers by the name of their publication, and not by the publisher's actual name. Clarifying the name of the article's subject makes research on notable activity possible, whereas this would not be possible if contributors could not determine the name of the organization.

There is a department in Consumer Reports which does political advocacy and lobbying in government. This subset of Consumer Reports is now called Consumers Union. I propose that the entire history of Consumers Union be renamed into this article named "Consumer Reports", and that all further external news coverage of this new Consumers Union organization be put in a subsection of this article.

I assert that I believe that what I am doing is not controversial and that what I am doing is best for the natural development of this article. Identifying the name of the organization even without external reliable sources or proof that the name change is notable, is appropriate in this case. Perhaps this is a case to ignore a rule because I see no benefit to Wikipedia in not clarifying the confusing meanings behind this organization's names. I am open to comments if anyone has them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales did the same thing here. The situation was that someone in person asked him to change the Wikipedia article about them, which was giving their name incorrectly. He did this. The community had a discussion about the legitimacy of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
There is already an article Consumer Reports for the publication. Should the information on the publisher Consumer Reports (formerly Consumers Union) article be combined with the publication Consumer Reports article? I would think that is the best approach, and then this article can be deleted or be a redirect. 72Dino (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That does seem like a reasonable approach. If there is one article, it should be Consumer Reports with this being a redirect. If there is a second article, it should be on the publication and not a sub-organization of Consumer Reports which is what Consumers Union is. A merge and redirect here would not be inappropriate, though, and if the merge looks confusing then it could be forked again into a publication article under a different name, perhaps Consumer Reports (publication). Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)