Talk:Consumer Reports/Archive 1

Tone
Given that someone flagged this article as biased, I went through, removed all CR advertising material, resectioned it to fit the wikipedia guideline of a short intro, deleted some CU material that's already on the CU page anyway, and tried to keep ALL non-advertising material intact. I hope I helped. I did not, as far as I know, inject any of my own personal opinions. Nearly all my work went into the first part of the article; I don't think I touched any of the controversies, etc. Davert 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where else to put this:

In 2005 Consumers Union launched the service Consumer Reports Best Buy Drugs, which takes publicly available (but difficult to comprehend) studies on pharmaceutical effectiveness and combines them with pricing information in an easy-to-read format.

"difficult to comprehend" and "easy-to-read" are not NPOV, if they are in a source name the source if they aren't reword it somehow. Possibly "Using medical terminology" and "In laymans terms" I think it's more objective to decide what's "medical terminology", but maybe not, any ideas?(69.76.197.156 08:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Settlement and dismissal
Someone added "and dismissed" to the notice of settlement. Cases are settled OR dismissed, with the latter implying lack of guilt, which does not appear to be the case here. Davert 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording was taken from the link inserted. Remove the wording if desired but leave the link.  I'm not sure I understand your comment 'which does not appear to be the case here'.  The settlement does not appear include any admission of liability or error. 130.156.29.101 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Finished some more searching. There was actually a court filing for the DISMISSAL of Litigation, so this term is likely correct. http://www.projectsamurai.com/suzuki-cu_agreement.html 130.156.29.101 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Auto test controversy
I have reverted the previous 2 edits to the Consumer Reports article. The first edit changed:

Consumer Reports' tests and ratings of automobiles are highly respected in the automotive industry.

to

Consumer Reports' tests and ratings of automobiles are highly controversial as some have charged that they are often biased against U.S. automobile companies. Further as reliability ratings are often based upon the opinions of subscribers and are subject to their opinion the accuracy is often called into question.

...a wild difference unsupported by the editor using cites or even a comment when making the edit.

The second edit (by the same editor) was the addition of: Consumer Reports is also called into controversy for it's failure to completely delineate the risk involved in some forms of birth control in it's February 2005 article Birth control: More & safer choices  and it's advocacy of medicinal marijuana.

This edit is also unsupported with a cite or a comment.

I have changed the "spirit" of the article back to the form it has had since its inception. I am looking for guidance as to the correctness of this action.

Keryst 02:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

User:24.188.119.102 Please provide citation for your repeated editing as above. The change you make to the article is too huge to make without some proof (either cite or comment). Keryst 04:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have researched a fair bit on google and cannot find reasonable sources for your edit. There is alot of chatter about biased automobile reports on various forums, but nothing that would warrant your statement as fact. Even Comsumer Reports supposed largest critic: Distored Reports ( http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/consumer_index.html ) does not mention it.


 * What about http://www.allpar.com/cr.html ? What about this rather damning piece of evidence from the LA Times - "In a setback to the nation's most popular consumer magazine, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that Consumer Reports' publisher must stand trial over Isuzu Motors Ltd.'s claim that the magazine rigged its vaunted vehicle-handling test in a deliberate campaign to destroy the reputation of the Isuzu Trooper sport-utility vehicle." ? User:Davert

Perhaps we should remove any reputational comments, since they don't really provide real information and are so controversial. Davert 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been a long time and I've seen no answering comments... Davert (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a known fact that Consumer Reports has had a history of bias against American automakers. When every other publication ranks a vehicle ahead of all others but CR ranks it below Japanese imports, you know there's a problem. There are way too many articles and examples to cite. I can, however, tell of a recent report in which CR provided alternatives to Chrysler's $2.99 gas guarantee and recommended ALL Japanese cars without a single American vehicle. This is especially obvious seeing as how the Chevy Cobalt and Chevy Malibu now have best in class fuel economy, yet two Japanese vehicles were recommended for best fuel economy. Suspicious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.213.28 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What more proof do you need? Just read this. Obviously biased against Chevrolet. Why would you blatantly advertise the Camry in an article about the Malibu? "In our testing of the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ, we found that visibility is dreadful when backing up in parking lots, and you need to crane your head down to see traffic lights. Also, the tiny A/C, recirculation, and defrost buttons are ill-conceived and hidden in the fan speed knob. Some of our testers said the seats are hard and a bit flat but give reasonable support. We all agreed that cabin quality is on the cheap side, with a lot of gray, hard, and hollow plastics. Also, the base engine is the most refined four-cylinder General Motors ever had, but it’s a bit buzzy, crude-sounding and lacking in low-end torque. Steering was vague, with poor on-center feel. Rather than spend the high $25,000 sticker price for this new Chevrolet, we wonder why the consumer would not rather consider the new-for-2007 Toyota Camry. Redesigned for 2007, the Toyota Camry is a well-rounded, roomy sedan with a comfortable ride, agile handling, and smooth, refined powertrain. Electronic stability control is standard on all models, and crash-test results are impressive. It's one of the highest-rated sedans we’ve tested, and the Toyota successfully blends sportiness and luxury to offer an inviting overall package. It has an exuberant powertrain, agile handling, and a well-crafted interior. It is priced at about the same as the Chevrolet Malibu, too."

--Consumer Reports

My personal experience with Consumer Reports and their alleged bias against American made cars.

I have a personal opinion to express. I am not for or against Consumer Reports. I have bought products that lived up to their recommendations and bought products that have not. I also have no knowledge to add to how well they do their testing. I do want to point out, that if the publication polls their subscribers about their personal experiences with using vehicles that are part of their review, I think that is a legitimate source of helpful information. I don't see how that is interpreted as bias. If Consumer Reports seems to show bias against American car manufacturers, perhaps it is the product that was consistently inferior for many years that shows the bias and not the CR organization?

I had personal experience for 20 years with American made cars when I picked up my first Consumer Reports magazine in 1979. That experience was abysmal with a number of brands of American made cars, over a twenty year period for 2 members of my family and for 15 years for me personally. And we had a LOT of American made cars. Then I read a report in Consumer Reports 1979 recommending a foreign manufacturer and made a purchase based on that. And I never looked back. The experience was like night and day. That first non American made car lasted me 8 years without a major repair and with basic annual maintenance which was without any difficulty in any way. I have bought exactly four cars since 1979, all foreign made cars, having lasted me for years, trouble free. It would be very difficult to persuade me to even try another American made car because of my personal experiences.

So, does that make me biased against American made cars? Yes. Was my bias caused by Consumer Reports? No, it was caused by my experiences with American made cars compared to a foreign made car I chose based on their reports. My experiences supported what Consumer Reports reported about them. I have subscribed to Consumer Reports every year since 1979, because they proved capable of pointing me in the right direction to own a car that didn't disrupt my life for years on end. Since then, I've learned they aren't always right, but I often try their recommendations and sometimes find gems. I rarely make a purchase without consulting Consumer Reports first. If manufacturers were not ignoring the faults of their products and instead produced a great product, then there would be no reason for Consumer Reports to exist.

If there is some kind of evidence that Consumer Reports is unfairly biased, or is being unduly influenced to report positively or negatively without legitimate cause, I would love to hear what it is.

Lizzytish321 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ATTN: Company-Bashing
I had to do a minor edit on this article mainly because there has been a clause which excessive company-bashing took place. Consumer Reports is definitely an organization that has been liable for many company bashing implications in the past. There are some people who might be touchy about what Consumer Reports write, and others might be offended by what Consumer Reports deduce, but when mentioning any lawsuits, please be very touchy about the sources that you use. I have found out that right after Bose and Consumer Reports have finished a nasty legal fight, many "Anti-Bose" trolls have materialized since then, causing a flame war between Bose and Consumer Reports. It is very important that the edits you perform here does not instigate into a flame war and/or what I would call "a nasty verbal war over the Internet". Therefore, I really suggest that you be very touchy on what you add and/or edit and try to keep things NPOV and try not to encourage acts of trolling and/or flaming in this article. Also, I appreciate it if you kept all links updated and make sure that the referer websites does have contacts because there has been some websites that had e-mail links removed, which is not acceptable IMO. The intellexual.net link that I have seen is outdated and the webmaster cannot be contacted for any reason, so I was forced to remove that intellexual.net link to curb trolling and/or possible flame wars. &mdash; Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of Bose I have added information detailing the case with links to the actual court reports and to cases that refer to the ruling when citing precedent. There have been reports in the press that the libel verdict was overturned by the US Supreme Court but this is eronious... the US Supreme Court upheld the verdict of libel but reversed the descision to award Bose damages as Malice could not be proved (see links in the article).ASH1977LAW 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm making the same changes as on the Bose page, for reasons discussed on the talk page there (in short, legal discussion does not make sense).Jedgeco 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Suzuki case, didn't a court find CR had indeed exaggerated their findings and found them guilty, but only penalized them $1? Yes, here it is - http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2003/june/nw0627-7.htm - 'The three-judge panel -- whose decision still stands -- had concluded that "the timing of the course modification" and "the fact that the Suzuki was tested until it tipped" suggested that CU "rigged" the test "in order to cause a rollover." Evidence that CU needed to boost revenues through a "blockbuster story" lent credence to the allegation of rigging, the court also found. In addition, the panel said that CU's failure to examine its testing methods after a government safety agency said that certain aspects of those tests were flawed could constitute evidence that it purposefully avoided learning that its rating was inaccurate.' That's pretty damning evidence and I think it should be included on the page, not swept under the rug. User:Davert


 * I noticed that several journalists understood that Isuzu had lost their lawsuit because they received no money, which is true (I think they did get a dollar or something), but the finding of fact was that CR had indeed essentially lied; this was widely reported at the time and is in the FULL NY Times article but not the abstract. User:Davert

Use in advertisements
''Consumer Reports does not ... permit the commercial use of its reviews for selling products.''
 * I think the article could use an explanation about how this is even possible. That is, under what law do they claim the right to limit the dissemination of facts published in their magazine. It can't be copyright law, as copyright only protects the form by which the facts are presented, not the facts themselves. See Idea-expression divide for more on this. Otherwise, what's to prevent U.S. News & World Report from prohibiting Yale University from advertising that their law school is ranked number 1? Btyner 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a good question. Now that I think about it, they probably use trademark law (e.g. by suing people who use the Consumer Reports logo/name in their advertising) to prevent their name and logo from being attached to products.  I'm not an expert, just reasonably well versed in trademark law.
 * As I see it CU is able to prevent others from using their logo in advertising--possibly their name as well. However they can't prevent advertisers from mentioning the fact that it was highly-ranked.
 * To illustrate: When I was in 9th Grade or so I saw a CR issue on house paints reccomending Lowe's American Tradition paints.  A few weeks later I saw a Lowe's salesperson on videotape (from somebody's class project, not in a TV commercial) saying that the American Tradition paint recieved first place in tests by a "leading consumer testing magazine", but not mentioning Consumer Reports by name.
 * I don't know whether this use of trademark law would stand up in court, it does seem sort of a stretch, but I have never seen the Consumer Reports logo or ratings being used by name in advertising, so as far as I know they are successful. --TexasDex 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source but I remember that somebody used Consumer Reports as a source in an ad, and CU sued them, and CU lost, but despite this hazy memory, one certainly does not see it happen normally, so obviously someone who's knowledgeable should insert material on this in the article. Tempshill 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that this page is more of an advertisement for Consumer Reports than an objective description. No mention is made of any real challenge to CR despite evidence for problems in their methods and objectivity (e.g. allpar.com/cr.html). Their "demandingn tests" have often been critiqued as have their choices for products to review - a bias towards more expensive, upscale products as opposed to their 1970s-1980s preference for the best value, least expensive items. You are more likely to find a $600 vacuum, for example, than an $80 vacuum tested; ditto for cars where the entry level gets relatively little play. At the least I think perhaps some of the more glowing praise shoudl be toned down. (By the way, taking no advertising is hardly evidence of lack of bias. When Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken speak for free, are they therefore unbiased?) Davert

As a longtime subscriber to Consumer Repoirts I should state that the claim that they have bias toward expensive products is simply false. Also among their ratings they often include a "Best Buy"rating based on quality AND price. Alloco1 (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cite sources and support your allegations and add them to the article. Tempshill 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.allpar.com/cr.html for one. Davert (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

fraudulent tests
I seem to recall a fraudulent test on Toyta vehicles in the 80s that caused Toyota to revoke a line of cars.

Didn't see any info about that in the article though.


 * You might if anybody else remembered it. Gzuckier 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

CR has been involved in a large number of "questionable" tests over the years. And any attempt to mention them in this article are quickly removed. The Suzuki Samuri report being the most obvious one. But every time somebody mentions it, they get NPOVed. 72.161.217.83 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you can thwart the all-powerful Consumers Union cabal by providing a reference, site, etc. to document said questionablity of the tests. Gzuckier 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "In a setback to the nation's most popular consumer magazine, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that Consumer Reports' publisher must stand trial over Isuzu Motors Ltd.'s claim that the magazine rigged its vaunted vehicle-handling test in a deliberate campaign to destroy the reputation of the Isuzu Trooper sport-utility vehicle." http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/oct99/consumer_lat0923.htm davert


 * Thanks, that's a good start. I followed it up, though, and found that in the end, CR won. But I'm not on some kind of whitewash crusade here, if you find any other links send them here and we'll see what we can do. Gzuckier 16:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall CR only "winning" in that the judgment was $1 - they were still found guilty. davert


 * No, that was the Bose case, where they lost but the appeals court reduced the damages to $1. I thought that had been in the article, maybe it got edited out. Or maybe it was never in there. Gzuckier 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Might have been both. There was definitely a finding of fact against CR in Isuzu case. davert

Other discussion
Is there a reason why we have that definition of what consumer reports are in the UK? Davert 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the definition in the UK is different from the US definition, which should be mentioned in the article. If someone came to the article looking for the meaning of consumer reports they would then be enlightened as to both of it's possible meanings. ASH1977LAW 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Event?
Is an organization really a current event? Zian 09:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Zian

Other errors or issues
In the section "Other errors and issues" there is the following quote:

"In July 1996, "Consumer Reports" tested motor oils in a fleet of taxi cabs. In their article, they noted that "Big-city cabs don't see many cold start-ups or long periods of high speed driving in extreme heat. But our test results relate to the most common type of severe service - stop-and-go city driving." They were unable to see a "meaningful" difference between any brands of oil which carried the API starburst symbol, but suggested that synthetic oil is "worth considering for extreme driving conditions high ambient temperatures and high engine load or very cold temperatures." [12]"

Please identify the error or issue that caused this article to be referred to here.


 * Their test can't distinguish between Mobil 1 and K-Mart brand because it does not test cold starts, which is when most engine damage occurs. However they felt free to say that synthetic could be helpful, without any supporting data; and despite the obvious fatal flaw in their testing, concluded that there's no difference between oil from any manufacturer (with API symbol). These are conclusions that cannot be made based on their inane experimental design. Unfortunately CR supporters have made that paragraph much less meaningful.


 * Is there a link to this report somewhere? -Grammaticus Repairo 08:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Claims of objectivity
Currently every statement in this section lacks citation, apart from "court rulings have found bias". Is there anyone who can provide a suitable citation? ASH1977LAW 08:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The "Objectivity" section needs to be strengthened. Seems ironic that the only citation in that section (currently) refers to consumerreports.org itself. Danielx (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Objectivity
Excepting the intro, this entire article is about either the 5 or so mistakes Consumer Reports has made over 70+ years and the 5 or so times they have been sued. They have absolutely nothing to do with what the magazine is about, and belong on a subpage, am I right? This article should describe what the magazine is, its approximate circulation, what types of products it reviews, what the sections of the magazine are, who it's editor is, etc. Why so biased? --CastAStone|(talk) 19:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's because any time someone points out a problem, they get a ton of rocks dumped on their head and nitpicked to death. Davert (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they have the capability to ruin a manufacturer or a product with an unfavorable review, essentially posessing quasi-judical powers. Therefore they can be expected to show an officer's conduct when facing their own testing errors or bias. Ruin sales of a japanese car model with a negative review - if that review turns out to be faulty, you bow and kneel in public and disembowel yourself with a samurai sword, that's what I expect for a minimum. For comparison: after the german ADAC did a malicious roll test review of the Renault Dacia Logan car and scandal broke out, all the top honchos were fired with disgrace to prevent forced dissolution of the association and they had to presonally apologize to Renault bosses. We should not be lenient towards testing organizations! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of negativity
This article seems unbalanced....so much info on errors, as if they were the defining quality of the magazine or the organization. No question that they have pulled a few bloopers. But I don't believe that they are defining and in fact capture attention only because they are so unexpected and out of character. It would make more sense to keep errors and bloopers balanced and in context. NuclearWinner 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The tone of this entry is negative. --24.249.108.133 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should go through every wikipedia article and do the same. We can delete all the controversy from the main Air America Radio page, for example. As it happens, CR is generally respected but unquestioned, and when questioned, they are often found to make questionable decisions. This is something that needs to be included for balance; otherwise Wikipedia could just post a nice CR advertisement in this spot. Davert 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think NuclearWinner and 24.249.108.133 are right, the fact that the majority of the page consists of controversy is a severe violation of WP:UNDUE which states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". For a magazine that has a long history of publication and has reviewed tens if not hundreds of thousands of products, a handful of controversies deserve to be maybe 15% to 30% of the article, not 80% as is now.  The preferred way to fix this would be to expand the rest of the article, but that's not easy to do, and I think the controversies section could use some streamlining and trimming anyways.  -- Te xa sD ex   &#9733;  06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that the tone was so ... well, let's just say the article used to read like a great big advertisement. I'm sure people could pick on many more CR reviews and articles, but there are NPOV limits and one can only report on others' critiques, and then only when there is a lawsuit or some other major publicity around it. As an example there are many arguments at http://www.truedelta.com/ and http://www.allpar.com/cr.html which cannot make it into this page, and that's fine. My point is that (a) it's not Wikipedia's job to uncritically echo the advertising copy of a magazine, and (b) "For a magazine that has a long history of publication and has reviewed tens if not hundreds of thousands of products, a handful of controversies deserve to be maybe 15% to 30% of the article, not 80% as is now" is misleading - because if we really got into it, we could drag many more hundreds or thousands of critiques into the picture. Also, of course, anything over a few years ago becomes irrelevant. If there were controversies in 1975, for example, they would be ignored and unreported because that's just too long ago to be relevant to today's CR/CU. Davert (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Omni and Horizon
I remember there was a dustup when CR put a big "Not Acceptable" stamp over the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon on the cover. It was the first time a car had gotten a "Not Acceptable" rating. Chrysler disputed the validity of the test, same as Isuzu did. If anyone can cite sources on the controversy it'd be a notable inclusion, I think. Tempshill 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias again
The current reading is "Consumer Reports does not print outside advertising or permit the commercial use of its reviews for selling products, and it states that this eliminates one possible source of bias." This is however not true; CR claims it has NO bias. It was added in an odd NPOV comment (odd because while the editor claimed he was removing a biased comment about bias, but it was more accurate than the current one.) I personally think CR's untenable claim about removal of bias is an indication of its general willingness to ignore statistical principles, and that this IS an important edit, but I do not desire a flamewar or edit-war and invite discussion here. Davert (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've certainly have invited discussion with some of those comments, particularly by expressing a belief in a 'general willingness to ignore statistical priciples', but let's focus on your edit for now. I also do not desire a edit war, so I've left the current version with one important word inserted.  Any future modification will be discussed here. However, your previous version was flawed.  State the facts on the subject, and let the readers draw the conclusions.  Statements like 'cannot, in itself, remove all sources of bias' surely reaches an end the reader might not otherwise arrive at.  As for your statement that CR claims it has NO bias, if you can accurately reproduce and source the language they use to express that notion, you might want to include it in the article, and led the reader conclude from it what they will.  130.156.29.249 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is there a higher burden of proof on me than there is on anyone else? In any case I have no problem with "potential" being added, with the stipulation made that you should probably read the Wikipedia section on bias to see that excluding external advertising and buying their own samples - which are two excellent processes for eliminating the fun and games that exist in other publications today, and in the latter case were at their height in the 1970s, when some cars submitted for review were quite heavily worked on (today I'd be pretty sure they're almost all stock, save for Volkswagen's alleged tire-switching) -- do indeed possibly eliminate two egregious sources of bias but by no means provide freedom from bias. (I'll have to go back to find their advertising of "no bias" since I can't find that on their current web site.) ... in any case, if you want a more scientifically minded discussion of bias, feel free to visit http://www.allpar.com/cr.html or even the comments at http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Commentary/What_You_Said_About_CRs_Bias.S192.A4802.html?pg=2 which bring up numerous bias issues that are never addressed by CR itself. Davert (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your links, you’re not showing me anything I haven’t seen. I have to smile every time someone mentions that allpar article, which, from a review of this page, you’ve seen to have done more than once. On many Internet forums, that seems to be the Bible to anyone who wishes to questions CR's integrity. As for your claim that it is a 'scientifically minded' discussion, I'll wait until it under goes some type of peer review before I'm willing to grant it that praise. Don't misinterpret this as asking for a higher burden of proof, I'm only asking it undergo what other scientific claims must.
 * Now let's get down to the real issue, the content of the article. Asking you to accurately reproduce and source the language used is simply good practice, not holding you to a higher standard, although given your admitted distrust of CR, one might argue you should be held to a higher standard. Regardless of that viewpoint and regardless of what the Wikipedia section on bias says and doesn't say, allowing readers to reach their own conclusions is also good practice. So while the intro is fine as it is, it would likely be even better with this format. State CU's claims, state the reasons they give for making the claims and the methods they profess to follow, and allow readers to determine for themselves if the can make good on their claims. 130.156.29.249 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your smiling at issues raised, I suggest you look at Wikipedia's article on bias and consider it seriously. The idea of peer review is laughable, as I'm sure you know -- what journal would even consider an analysis of bias in Consumer Reports? and who has the time to write such a piece with all proper references and formatting? It can take weeks to write a short-short for a peer-reviewed journal. Your method is fine but it would end up reading like an advertisement, if the claims could not be rebutted at all and no dissenting viewpoint was noted. (I can point to the discussion at the Fox News page regarding their "fair and balanced" claims -- they can claim that all they want, but it doesn't make it true. Likewise, CR can claim freedom from bias.)

I will, when I have some time, attempt to find their old claims, but I'm sure you understand that this does not involve a trivial amount of time. Davert (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Another scandal worthy of addition.
In 2006 there was a scandal, when CR ran a comparison of computer antivirus software products by in-house creating 5500 brand new variants of existing malware codes and testing against those sets. The antivirus software industry protested this loudly, because their conduct book prohibits creating actual malware even for educational or testing purposes and they refuse to hire people who have ever been involved in actual malware creation. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

General note
I have noticed that defenders of CR claim they are exonerated by wins in court cases - but I noticed when reading over this page that the decision usually hinged not on absence of bias or absence of falsehoods, but on a presumed absence of malice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davert (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because that's what the law is. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. If you can't even prove that there was malicious intent in the publication, it doesn't matter whether it was true or not. Libel actions against statements made about public figures (and corporations are public figures) face a three-prong test - Was it false? Was it published? Was it published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth? Often the courts will consider one "prong" of the argument first, and if the claim entirely fails one prong, then they won't bother to rule on the other parts. As a matter of law, they don't have to.
 * Furthermore, these cases are often dismissed in pre-trial motions, and in pre-trial motions, the arguments in the plaintiff's complaint are given the benefit of the doubt - they're presumed to be true unless proven otherwise, reversing the burden of proof. So what you can end up with is a ruling something like this, "Even taking the plaintiff's argument at its word that the report was false, the plaintiff has shown no evidence that CU either knew it was false or published it recklessly, therefore the suit cannot stand and is dismissed."
 * The "actual malice" requirement protects publications which, in good faith, publish information they believe to be true about public figures. If publications could be sued for millions of dollars every time they made a mistake, there would essentially be no free press in this country. The chilling effect would be overpowering. FCYTravis (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the idea, but judges have a lot of leeway. They have found that CR made false accusations, and should have known better, but still gave them absence of malice outs. I'm fine with the idea of absence of malice, and this isn't the place to debate whether it is good or bad, I'm just noting that CR has not been "found innocent" when absence of malice is the reason given by judges after they find clear "mistakes." Davert (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You've 'noticed' this where? In doing my own read of this page, I can't find where 'defenders of CU claim they are exonerated in court cases'.  As for the notion that 'the decisions usually hinged not on absence of bias or absence of falsehoods, but on a presumed absence of malice', in reading the article page I see four court cases, two of which meet your statement and two of which do not.  I wouldn't characterize that as 'usually'.  203.177.74.135 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Zillions
No mention is made of the ancillary publication "Zillions" which in 2000 was turned into an online-only publication. The former Consumer Reports for Kids I feel deserves at least a passing mention in the ancillary section. I doubt due to the short length of time it was published that it rates it's own separate article.69.181.55.239 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I Believe that "Penny Power" (which began publication in 1980) should be mentioned as well. This is the name that the magazine had before being named "Zillions". The history of both of these magazines is signifigant, as me and my friends read it quite a bit, and it helped us as kids to chose what things we would purchase with our allowances. You can find Some info at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/history/printable/1980/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.33.245 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oil yet again (reversion explanation)
It's fine with me if you want to reword the changes I made -- however, deleting most of it and then removing all credibility of the criticism by throwing it off as coming from a "Chrysler fan site" goes too far. The criticism is quite valid and Consumer Reports itself said, in the article, that they knew the lack of cold starts was a real issue. That's what makes the criticism as serious as it is. Going from memory, Consumer Reports said they knew synthetic oil was superior but that the test did not bring it out and they suggested the lack of cold starts was probably the reason; perhaps I'm mistaken in my memory, but I do know THEY brought up the issue of cold starts.

If they could not tell the difference between regular and synthetic oil, how valid was their test? Likewise, if they found no evidence for it, why do they still recommend synthetic for some drivers? Could it be that they botched a test but still wanted to make an editorial deadline?

Can we have some discussion here? My changes were fairly minor compared with yours. As it is, I think most people would read the version you posted as "some fanboy site threw some mud." Davert (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to omit the source of the criticism. Simply saying that there is "criticism" without telling readers who criticized the report is meaningless and intentionally obfuscatory. We know exactly who made the criticism - a Chrysler fan Web site. We are not making any value judgment about the criticism - we are giving readers information about it, and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. If you think it removes the credibility of the criticism to say that it comes from a Chrysler fan Web site... well then, you think it has no credibility.
 * As for the second part - I'm just not seeing how your wording of it works. This section - ...they did not see any difference between standard and synthetic oils yet concluded that there were no meaningful differences between standard oils though synthetics could have benefits does not make any sense. FCYTravis (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me make this clear.

1) They see no difference between different brands of standard oils and claim this is a valid conclusion. 2) They see no difference between synthetic oil and standard oil yet know synthetic oil is superior in some cases. 3) They see no conflict with this logic. 4) They test taxis that never get cold - according to their own article - yet believe this can be generalized to vehicles that are started from cold at least twice a day, that is, normal cars used by normal people to go to and from their workplaces.

Do you see ANY problems with all this? If not, then we shouldn't be bothering with this discussion because obviously I'm only arguing out of loyalty to a fanboy site.Davert (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense, but I still don't get it. The other items in this section of the article (hybrid savings, pet food) describe something CR reported, then identify some aspect of CR's reporting that was shown (and conceded by CR) to be factually inaccurate. For the oil item, what is the asserted factual inaccuracy in CR's statements? Is the point that it is logically inconsistent to report that no difference was observed (under one set of conditions), but that synthetic oil might be a good choice under a different set of conditions? If so, that seems like a different kind of issue than the errors described. In any event, it would be helpful to have a better understanding of what point this paragraph is supposed to make. Bassomatic (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot reversion -- the aol source is quoting a reputable (if self-interested) source.Davert (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I'd like to raise a general issue with this article. It is far too unbalanced and negative. It is just one lawsuit after another. What's going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoloCantata (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur, and from reading the comments here, we're not the only ones. I'm tagging the article for NPOV and suggesting we create a seperate article for lawsuits.  Also, in the section 'Other errors and issues', I suggest removing the section about synthetic motor oil, no error or issue is evident from the text. 24.190.146.6 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Going into details about lawsuits, etc., is unnecessary, I think. Just have one paragraph covering all of it, with maybe one or two sentences covering each item.  If someone wants details, they can read the sources.  I also agree on the oil; as it is written now, there does not appear to be a point being made.


 * There is one criticism that I've read of and tend to agree with, but is not mentioned here: they typically test a single item of each model, which means that if a CR buyer happens to buy an item which is damaged or defective but the problem is not obvious, the entire product line gets slammed. --Scott McNay (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes to this section, perhaps more work could be done. I don't think it would be a problem inserting the criticism you mentioned as long as it could be reliably sourced. 75.99.160.42 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Actually, if anything, I would think this article is too positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlightracer (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Too POSITIVE? A good part it concerns lawsuits and issues.  What specifically makes it too positive? 75.99.160.42 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

iPhone
A paragraph has been written about the iPhone issue. While it is sourced, it does not appear to be a major item overall in Consumer Reports. We may want to remove per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering how much attention this story has got in the Media (BBC, Sky, Major Computer Magazines etc.), I do believe that this subject is important enough to be included in the article.Beeshoney (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Tire review
Anyone notice how the only tire DOT approved for severe snow got a terrible rating for snow this year?? Anyway to add that little nugget of info. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At least, you would have to document whatever it is you're talking about. By document, I mean a reliable secondary source, not someone's blog entry or something you think you've discovered by reading the magazine, which would be original research.  Even then, a single product review would likely not be notable unless it resulted in a product change, lawsuit, or significant publicity.  The last phrase refers to mainstream media attention, not the usual hand wringing on message boards.  ThatSaved (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand. I was in a hurry when I posted that and hoped someone would fill in the blanks or do the work for me.  Of all the tires they reviewed the only one that tirerack said is rated for severe snow and ice is the General Grabber AT2.  And it came in last and got mediocre ratings for snow and ice.   I may not be the person to do this as I see the 2011 tire review as being completely flawed.  Fowards and backwords.  But if someone wants a fun project this would be it.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is General Tires site about the AT2 where it states its rated for Severe snow . In order to check out Consumer Reports site you have to be a member.  I really do be believe this needs to be added.  This is the only tire they tested rated for severe snow, and it didn't even do good in snow according to CR.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no issue here. The test of the Grabber AT2 first appeared in Nov. 2008 edition.  It did finish last among the all-terrain tires tested, but it was rated very good for snow traction.  The size tested was P265 70R17, which is not rated for severe snow.  ThatSaved (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My local library has a 2011 issue of some nature rating the tires. And that's why I posted it.  Any person who has ran the AT2 and any other AT tire can tell you this is not a mediocre tire.  But that is hearsay.  I don't even know where to begin as far as gathering the right facts and info to add to make a legit paragraph to add. Traction, noise, wear, etc.  It excels.  Google search what people think of it.  CR has this tire pegged wrong.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Consumer Reports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090701104335/http://www.ibiblio.org:80/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/13/zillions.html to http://ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/13/zillions.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070308101850/http://www.mobar.org:80/fecee336-a405-41e8-9647-fe5deb9cba1d.aspx to http://www.mobar.org/fecee336-a405-41e8-9647-fe5deb9cba1d.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Labor Dispute/Possible Arbitration
I've heard recently there's an ongoing labor dispute at Consumer Reports because they've closed ShopSmart Magazine and laid off 11 union workers without any kind of warning. The NY Guild is talking about how they might be possibly brought to arbitration. Is this worth noting in the wikipedia article? It has been been reported and confirmed by many reputable sources, including the NY Post. 72.89.42.58 (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is. If you are with the NY Newspaper Guild then message me and I can arrange for Wikipedians to present at the guild hall about this and any other labor issues. Lots of Wikipedians in the area follow union issues and would be happy to start a partnership.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Pricegrabber
I would like to request that the following changes be enacted. In these proposed changes, I remove several statements backed to sources which are self-published by Consumer Reports and the sources themselves. The content is about a 2009 business relationship with PriceGrabber. I also modified text sourced to The New York Times to describe a similar relationship with BizRate.
 * see proposed changes

The communications department here requests these changes because the content is inaccurate. From a Wikipedia perspective, I am proposing that this content be removed for being an original research interpretation of sources which do not meet reliable source standards. Thanks to anyone here who would comment on this proposal.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor-in-chief change
The Wikipedia article lists "Ellen Kampinsky" as editor-in-chief of the magazine and cites 2014 source to confirm this. I would like to update the editor name to "Diane Salvatore" and to cite this 2015 press release to confirm the change in position.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This change has been completed. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, "this change has been completed". I'll close this. Reopen if there are issues. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 23:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reform of this article and Consumers Union
I work for Consumer Reports as Wikipedian in residence. Some people may be aware that the Wikipedia community has had problems for a long time with editors with conflicts of interest. I am disclosing my work affiliation to reduce problems.

Right now, there are Wikipedia articles for two organizations here - Consumer Reports and Consumers Union. Since I work here, I have insight that Consumers Union was the former publisher of the magazine called Consumer Reports, but now the organization goes by the name "Consumer Reports" when publishing Consumer Reports, and leaves the name "Consumers Union" mostly for its advocacy activities which are managed in an arm of the organization. There are no articles for the organization's products, including a publication called Consumer Reports. I think I would like to propose that there be an article for Consumer Reports and all its related organizations, like Consumers Union, then another article for all publications of the organizations.

To do this, I would propose to make an article, Consumer Reports, which gives information about the organization. The article Consumers Union would redirect to this. Then I would make an article Consumer Reports (publication) in which any information about the organization's publications could be placed. I might like to do this while adding no information to the articles, but rather to execute this only by dividing the existing information in these articles.

I would do this under the premise that there is no question of the notability of either the organization or its main publication, as both have been discussed enough to meet notability criteria. The organizations "Consumer Reports" and "Consumers Union" are independently notable also, but I feel that it would be less confusing to just have an article for the organization, and then another for products until and unless there is a reason to fork content and make sub articles.

I am just thinking for now. Honestly I do not like the idea of having conflict of interest discussions and would like to be hands-off, but on the other hand, I like my organization a lot and wish to share information about it in so far as it gives others insight about what we are doing.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Two weeks without a response to your thoughtful proposal, Lane. How is Jimbo's "Bright Line Rule" working for you? - 2001:558:1400:10:F835:FA27:C3CE:2934 (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Blue Rasberry. While I believe I fully understand your background information, I am not sure I understand completely what you are proposing. It seems to me that articles should be as follows:
 * Consumers Reports (organization) - publisher of the Consumer Reports magazine, performer of testing, and the organization that took on the activities related to its flagship maganize (except for advocacy activities)
 * Consumers Reports (magazine) - the magazine itself
 * Consumers Union - the advocacy arm of the Consumers Reports organization

Any objections? Did I miss something in your proposal? Mercy11 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I propose to merge Consumers Union into Consumer Reports then make Consumers Union a redirect to Consumers Reports, which is different from your 3-article description. After a merge, I propose to make a new article, Consumers Reports (publication), by taking all information in the merged Consumer Reports article which is about publications and putting it into its own article. Right now both articles contain information about both the organizations and the publications, and I propose to separate the existing content into separate articles for each.
 * I think that separate articles for Consumer Reports and Consumers Union are unnecessary as they are mostly the same organization.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is usually simpler to create a new article than to merge articles. While your concern that the two existing articles, Consumers Union and Consumer Reports, both contain some information that actually belongs in the other article, accomplishing that is a simple matter of moving blocks of information from one to the other, whereas merging articles generally requires a more tedious merge proposal process. BTW, what you call Consumer Reports (publication) is what I have been calling Consumer Reports (magazine), and although I don't personally have any particular preference for either one, I believe the (magazine) disambiguation qualifier may be more common practice than the (publication) qualifier in Wikipedia (and it is also more specific than "publication" so you may want to think about that too). To avoid confusion, here is what I had proposed above but with more detail (as well as a spelling corrections):


 * Consumer Reports (organization) - publisher of the Consumer Reports magazine, performer of testing, and the organization that took on the activities related to its flagship maganize (except for advocacy activities) ; this article title would be a new article
 * Consumer Reports (magazine) - the magazine itself ; this article title already exists (Note: we put article titles for articles about publications (magazines, books, newspapers, etc) in italics, and the current article correctly shows this already)
 * Consumers Union - the advocacy arm of the Consumers Reports organization ; this article title already exists


 * Note I say "article title" instead of "article". Since the article location accuracy contents of the articles are currently in question, I didn't want to create potential confusion by inadvertedly giving the impression I was approving of the textual contents of the articles as consistent with/for the current article title.


 * BTW, independent of the herein discussion, I noticed that the Consumers Union lede has not been updated to reflect the fact that such name is now for the advocacy group only and not for the parent organization of the Consumer Reports magazine, which is what I understand you have been saying. That update should had been done years ago, but apparently the article doesn't have many editors watching it - or was simply overlooked - so it hadnt been done.


 * Finally, there is an aticle named Consumers' Research that should also be looked at and possibly considered in this discussion to ensure any proposed overhaul (as well as any text content updates) is thorough. Mercy11 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . The name of this organization is not easy to understand even for people who work here, so I understand that it would be difficult for anyone else to understand either. Even people in my own organization would disagree with what I am proposing, and many would support what you are proposing. It is my opinion that no reliable sources conclusively sort this out either.
 * About CR (magazine) versus CR (publication) - as best I can tell there is no guidance on Wikipedia for what to do when a publication exists both as a website and a magazine. CR has been a magazine since the 1930s. Since sometime in the 2000s the subscriptions to the website surpassed the circulation of the magazine, but from the perspective in house the magazine and the website are similar publications. On Wikipedia I thought it would be excessive to have Consumer Reports (magazine) and Consumer Reports (website) as separate articles even though both could individually meet notability criteria and be very short articles about the same writings. Beyond the main publication, the organization publishes books, subscription newsletters, The Consumerist, and independent journalism which may not be part of the magazine or website, which is why I thought to just group all publications together as CR (publication) so that there could be one article listing anything published. Some comparable examples might be National Geographic (magazine), which I feel also is less a magazine and increasingly an online publication, and Wired (website) and Wired (magazine), which are two articles which I think are about the same publication.
 * About CR the organization versus Consumers Union - the organizations share a budget, staff, offices, publications, management, and everything else that different departments of an organization might share. The biggest confusion is that the originally everything was named Consumers Union and the magazine was named Consumers Union Reports. Later the magazine name was shortened to Consumer Reports, but the org did not legally change its name. Many people started calling the organization Consumer Reports because that is its public face because of the magazine. A few years ago the organization "Consumers Union" changed its doing business as name to "Consumer Reports". However, especially in legal issues, the organization sometimes goes by Consumers Union.
 * If there were separate articles on Consumer Reports (organization) and Consumers Union then they would either be copies of each other, as most information, history, and projects that one does the other one does also, or otherwise the Consumers Union article would continually refer to the other. It is not clear to me what activities are solely managed by Consumer Reports and which are managed by Consumers Union, which is why I suggested to merge the articles. I could be wrong, as I said, and even most people in this organization would want to have two articles. The best reason I have for merging is that I cannot identify a reliable source which makes a distinction between the work of the organizations. CU does lobbying and advocacy, but based on the research and publications of CR. I would not know how to differentiate them.
 * The reason why I say that Consumer Reports should be the main article and just be called Consumer Reports is because as best I can tell, most reliable sources about Consumer Reports are discussing positions and work of the organization. In the current article drafts there is no information about the organization which does not apply to both CR and CU. Except in the few instances of proper names used as brands, all instances of either "Consumer Reports" or "Consumers Union" are interchangeable, as both CR and CU often use the name of the other.
 * About Consumers' Research - Consumers Union/Consumer Reports was founded by staff who quit Consumers' Research in 1936. They were early rivals and share some interesting stories but are different organizations with distinct histories.
 * What you propose is not wrong and is backed by some sources, but especially with the recent name change of Consumers Union to Consumer Reports, older sources which use the name Consumers Union are referring to what now is Consumer Reports.
 * Thanks for your time and consideration. I regret that I could not be more concise.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "as best I can tell there is no guidance on Wikipedia for what to do when a publication exists both as a website and a magazine...On Wikipedia I thought it would be excessive to have Consumer Reports (magazine) and Consumer Reports (website)." We generally do not have separate articles for printed vs. online sites of same publication. What we do is to have a section about the online site within the text of the print publication's article. On, "The best reason I have for merging is that I cannot identify a reliable source  which makes a distinction between the work of the organizations. CU does lobbying and advocacy, but based on the research and publications of CR. I would not know how to differentiate them." If the CR/CU website states this, then this would not be a problem since the CR/CU website is considered a WP:RS as it falls under the WP:SPS exception, and thus we could cite their site. On, "especially with the recent name change of Consumers Union to Consumer Reports, older sources which use the name Consumers Union are referring to what now is Consumer Reports." I don't see this being a problem either: we can just say so in both articles. For example, we could say things like "In February 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration mandated the use of seat beats for all vehicles in the United States, thanks to the efforts of the Consumer Reports, then known as Consumers Union." In any event, there can be some information repeated in both articles, but the majority of the information in the articles should be different (i.e., specific to the article's subject). BTW, I modified the lede to the Consumers Union article; did you get a chance to see it? Mercy11 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for continuing to talk. Even I am confused.
 * I think that as you say Consumer Reports (magazine) is best, and what I said about Consumer Reports (publication) is not best. I agree with you that the precedent on Wikipedia is that if a publication starts as a magazine, it is usual to group all of its other publications in the magazine article. The magazine is the most famous product of Consumer Reports and if there is intent to avoid forking off other publication articles unless necessary, and specifically including the website in this magazine article, then using the magazine article as the hub for everything seems best.
 * This is the only mention anywhere so far as I know, that Consumers Union changed its name to Consumer Reports. What you wrote in the Consumers Union article is a thoughtful explanation which I would think is what most people would imagine if they checked available sources - sources seem to say Consumers Union is independent from Consumer Reports. You say "Consumers Union created a spin off company named Consumer Reports", which can probably be backed by reliable sources but it has never been correct. There was no additional organization founded. There is one organization, or if there are other organizations, I think they all share common infrastructure and intend to have the same public face. Consumers Union is doing business as Consumer Reports and suing business as Consumers Union. I could be wrong about this, and there are people here who would not even want me talking about this and I do not know the official organizational position, but as best I can tell there is nothing that Consumer Reports and Consumers Union do not share except some legal use of different names. If the name "Consumers Union" were replaced with "Consumer Reports" in every instance it is written in the Consumers Union article and vice versa, then both articles would still be correct except in the parts about name changes and any parts about names on legal documents. This is why I thought to merge the articles.
 * I am not sure what is correct or what the brand is as defined in reliable sources. I just asked around a bit and some people, apparently, get paid by Consumers Union here rather than Consumer Reports. I do not know what to say. You say " the majority of the information in the articles should be different specific to the article's subject" but I do not see information in either which does not apply to both. Even in lawsuits both are involved. I am not sure.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to suggest that Consumer Reports (CR) and Consumers Union (CU) are independent entities. Indeed, the CR article had avoided any mention of CU until, without explanation, one appeared about halfway through the article. I just modified the introduction (hopefully correctly) to indicate that CR is, indeed, published by CU. I did this based on the last page of my current print issue of CR, which includes basic, standard information about the magazine (e.g., price,, permissions, postmaster instructions). Here, it is stated, "Consumer Reports [ISSN #] is published monthly ... by Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. ..." [emphasis is mine.] Taken at face value, this statement within each issue of CR suggests that CU is its publisher. Unfortunately, the Consumer Union's website itself seems to be somewhat schizophrenic about the relationship between CR and CU. No wonder the rest of us are confused, too. Perhaps CU/CR should take a cue from the advice it often gives within the pages of CR by clarifying how the two entities are related in a way that most consumers can understand. Drbb01 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Board Members / Vote
Article should be updated soon with the new board members, from https://survey.consumerreports.org/isa/HPLXDVABJBBPEYIHGRBTCRLOEAGYBXPH/2016/ballot_bio.html/ http://archive.is/hU7Cg (the vote result looks to be a foregone conclusion - only one slate - only a yea/nay vote.)-- Elvey (t•c) 21:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Funding
The article goes to great lengths to declare that they are unbiased and free from influence because of their "non-profit" tax status but does not actually disclose who funds the organization. It would appear that they are funded by a political advocacy group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Research_Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B11E:9E5D:8D5C:EAD6:3B7D:A207 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Logo update
I work for Consumer Reports.

The logo of the organization changed. Also, the issue of the magazine shown in the article is from 2005 and outdated. I exchanged these outdated images with new ones that are up to date.

I am noting this change as a "request edit", but actually, I am just requesting review of what I already did. I think these changes should not be controversial. Check this edit to see the change. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  12:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Assuming all the tags on the files are correct, this looks fine. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I made more logo updates. The logo in front of the building changed, and I changed the image of the building to show the new logo. The logo which was at Commons had a minor problem too which I address by uploading a new version of it. I think these are small changes but I wanted to note them here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Reports. 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/20061022103136/http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/january/nw0105-7.htm to http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/january/nw0105-7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review article
Long article on Consumer Reports, their financial challenges, layoffs, and competition with Wirecutter.

https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/consumer-reports-wirecutter.php Testing out a new future for Consumer Reports By Karen K. Ho CJR June 18, 2018

--Nbauman (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Page Update--Timeliness and Accuracy
Hi. My name is Doug and I work for Consumer Reports. I plan to make a few edits to the page to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Love (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for disclosing. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Consumer Reports Unbiased
There is sufficient discussion and evidence that Consumer Reports is no longer "unbiased." I would like someone to investigate this. I have provided several citations and a revision to the article but a random user rejected my revision. The user emailed me and tried to make this political. Wikipedia is not a place for politics I informed the user. Consumer Reports is in fact biased. That is a fact.

The word unbiased should be removed. In addition:

"Consumer Reports" gave up its mission of unbiased public education by taking liberal stances against health care reform and net neutrality and emailing millions of its subscribers. There was no similar stances against Obamacare which also left millions without care.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaddatzD (talk • contribs) 02:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no way that what is obviously a political opinion is going to be inserted into the article as fact, as you suggest. If there are good WP:RS sources to support removing "unbiased" then that is possible. They would need to be far better than the above though. Their claim of being unbiased is presumably based on their not being biased towards any one company or product that they report on. Having an editorial line on what sorts of public policies are beneficial to consumers is not bias in the sense that it is being used here.
 * For example. Let's say I have a blog that reviews washing machines and claims to be unbiased. If I routinely give good reviews to one brand that is no better than the others then that is bias. If I publish an editorial saying that the government should do more to prevent the sale of washing machines that burst into flames and burn peoples' houses down then that is not bias, even though some brands may have had more fires than others and even though the proposal may align with the policies of some political parties and not others. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The refs are all unacceptable. Please review WP:RS. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on September 6, 2018 by Consumer Reports employee
Hi Wikipedians - I would like to propose two edits for review. To be completely transparent, I am disclosing my work affiliation, as a Consumer Reports employee, to alleviate any issues or concerns you may have.

First, I would like to correct the membership number from 7 million to “more than 6 million members.” As the number has decreased, this should not be considered self-promotion. I suggest dividing the sentence into two parts to improve readability and add proper citations.

I propose changing “As of April 2016 it had approximately 7 million subscribers (3.8 million print and 3.2 million digital) and an annual testing budget of approximately US$25 million.[2]” to “Consumer Reports had an annual testing budget of approximately US$25 million as of April 2016. The organization had more than 6 million members in July 2018. ”

Second, I would like to request an update to the end of the “Product changes after Consumer Reports tests” section, as a plethora of news has surfaced around a recent product change resulting from a Consumer Reports’ review:

On May 21st, 2018 Consumer Reports said it could not recommend the Tesla Model 3 due in part to concerns about the car’s long stopping distance. Rather than objecting to the criticism, Elon Musk tweeted that the issue could be remedied with a remote update to the firmware on every Model 3 on the road. After speaking with Consumer Reports’ lead automotive tester, Musk issued a remote software update to all Model 3 cars on the road that improved the vehicle’s stopping distance. The update was released within days of Consumer Reports’ first review. Following the over-the-air software update, Consumer Reports retested the car’s brakes, confirmed the better stopping distances and gave the Model 3 a “recommended” rating.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can review this request and make edits. Please comment if you have any questions or concerns. Douglas Love (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply 06-SEP-2018

 * 1) ✅ The subscriber numbers were updated.
 * 2) ❌ The information regarding Tesla was not added because the text was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. (See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.) All additions to the article must be placed in an editors own words using the editor's own phrasing.
 * Regards,  spintendo   00:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved all the circulation information to the body. I'll implement the tesla thing, summarizing better.  this is done. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on 27 September 2018 by Consumer Reports employee
Hi Wikipedians - I would like to propose a few additional edits for review. As a reminder, to be completely transparent, I am disclosing my work affiliation, as a Consumer Reports employee, to alleviate any issues or concerns you may have.

First, the page states that Consumer Reports’ website has retailers’ advertisements, but CR does not allow any advertising in its print magazine or on its website.

I suggest updating the sentence from “Consumer Reports does not allow outside advertising in the magazine,[3][4] but its website has retailers' advertisements” to the following:
 * “Consumer Reports does not allow any external advertising on its website or in its print magazine. ”

Second, the page says, “Consumer Reports states that PriceGrabber places the ads and pays a percentage of referral fees to CR,[6] who has no direct relationship with the retailers.[7]” but this is no longer true. Consumer Reports currently uses the Price & Shop function, provided by Amazon and the eBay Commerce Network. Additionally, source 6 is not an active link, so it should be removed. I propose deleting the sentence about PriceGrabber and adding the following sentence on the Price & Shop function: Additionally, the page says "Consumer Reports publishes reviews of its business partner and recommends it in at least one case.[8]", but source 8 is no longer active. I propose deleting this sentence.
 * “Consumer Reports uses the Price & Shop function, provided by Amazon and the eBay Commerce Network, to allow consumers to buy a product online when searching on the Consumer Reports website. ” and adding “All revenue goes back to fund the nonprofit’s mission. ”

In order to move the former relationship with PriceGrabber where Consumer Reports’ other former relationships are listed and remove Amazon from the former relationships list, I propose editing the following sentence, "CR had a similar relationship with BizRate at one time[9] and has had relationships with other companies including Amazon.com,[10] Yahoo!,[11] The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post,[12]BillShrink,[13] and Decide.com.[14]” to the following:
 * “CR had a similar relationship with BizRate at one time and has had relationships with other companies including PriceGrabber, Yahoo!, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, BillShrink, and Decide.com. ”.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can review this request and make edits. Please comment if you have any questions or concerns. Douglas Love (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply 28-SEP-2018

 * 1) The request includes the properly formatted references which it proposes to add to the article, but it does not include the properly formatted references it wishes to have deleted from the article. In their place, the COI edit request combines a mixture of WikiFormatted reference notes (e.g., [2] [5], etc.) along with unformatted notes consisting of unlinked numbers placed within brackets (e.g., [6], [8], etc.)
 * 2) These references are especially needed in the case of this edit request, in that some of the reasons provided for having certain claims and references deleted is that they are non-functional. Yet these non-functioning references are not identified by name—only by numbers which may or may not correspond to those used in the article.
 * 3) Kindly reformulate your request so that it includes the missing information, and feel free to re-open that request at your earliest convenience.
 * Regards,  Spintendo   11:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated: Request edit on 28 September 2018 by Consumer Reports employee
.

Hi Wikipedians - I would like to propose a few additional edits for review. As a reminder, to be completely transparent, I am disclosing my work affiliation, as a Consumer Reports employee, to alleviate any issues or concerns you may have.

First, the page states that Consumer Reports’ website has retailers’ advertisements, but CR does not allow any advertising in its print magazine or on its website.

I suggest updating the sentence from “Consumer Reports does not allow outside advertising in the magazine,[3][4] but its website has retailers' advertisements” to the following:
 * “Consumer Reports does not allow any external advertising on its website or in its print magazine. ”

Second, the page says, “Consumer Reports states that PriceGrabber places the ads and pays a percentage of referral fees to CR, who has no direct relationship with the retailers.[7]” but this is no longer true. Consumer Reports currently uses the Price & Shop function, provided by Amazon and the eBay Commerce Network. Additionally, this source (reference 2 on this section of the talk page), , is not an active link, so it should be removed. I propose deleting the sentence about PriceGrabber and adding the following sentence on the Price & Shop function: Additionally, the page says "Consumer Reports publishes reviews of its business partner and recommends it in at least one case. ", but the following source (reference 6 on this section of the talk page), , is no longer active. I propose deleting this sentence.
 * “Consumer Reports uses the Price & Shop function, provided by Amazon and the eBay Commerce Network, to allow consumers to buy a product online when searching on the Consumer Reports website. ” and adding “All revenue goes back to fund the nonprofit’s mission. ”

In order to move the former relationship with PriceGrabber where Consumer Reports’ other former relationships are listed and remove Amazon from the former relationships list, I propose editing the following sentence, "CR had a similar relationship with BizRate at one time[9] and has had relationships with other companies including Amazon.com,[10] Yahoo!,[11] The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post,[12]BillShrink,[13] and Decide.com.[14]” to the following:
 * “CR had a similar relationship with BizRate at one time and has had relationships with other companies including PriceGrabber, Yahoo!, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, BillShrink, and Decide.com. ”.

I have identified the non-functioning references by name as they are listed in the article as requested.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can review this request and make edits. Please comment if you have any questions or concerns. Douglas Love (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply 28-SEP-2018

 * 1) The 2 mentioned links may be dead, but they are also archived:"➡ ➡"
 * 2) The article has been updated to reflect these archived pages.
 * 3) As the information from those links is not dead, the information ought not be removed, but merely rephrased to reflect both past practices as well as current practices. Please reword your request so that it incorporates both of these elements, taking care to re-word all practices as"'From 2009 to 2016, the practice of CR was to ____. In 2018 this practice changed to include ____.'"This way both items of information (CR's past practices and its current practices with regards to advertising and/or relationships with manufacturers) may be retained.
 * 4) Also note to delineate where and in which location information is to be placed. The directions stated by the COI editor:  is imprecise, because there is currently no section in the article titled Former Relationships List. Please clarify and advise.
 * Regards,  Spintendo   00:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on 30 November 2018 by Consumer Reports employee
Hi Wikipedians - I would like to propose a few additional edits for review. As a reminder, to be completely transparent, I am disclosing my work affiliation, as a Consumer Reports employee, to alleviate any issues or concerns you may have.

+++



Douglas Love (talk)

Reply to edit request 05-DEC-2018
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.  Spintendo   16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you for your help. Please see below for the 4th edit I proposed with a bit more clarification, as requested.


 * Current Text: Also, at times CR allows manufacturers to review and respond to criticism before publication. [4]


 * Proposed Text: Also, when CR finds safety or performance issues with products that will be mentioned in a review, CR contacts the manufacturer before the review is published with the test results, production and purchasing information, testing protocol, and photos if appropriate, and asks them for a comment.

Douglas Love (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
My name is Douglas Love and I work for Consumer Reports, Inc. Prior to 2016, the organization’s corporate name was “Consumers Union of United States, Inc.,” though many people referred to us as “Consumer Reports,” the name of our well-known magazine. The company also used the name “Consumers Union” to refer to our advocacy arm. “Consumers Union” and “Consumer Reports” have always been two ways to refer to the single entity, with a single building, staff, budget, and mission. The organization has now officially changed its name to "Consumer Reports", and is phasing out the “Consumers Union” name altogether. Therefore, we would like to merge every part of the Consumers Union article into this article. The article could describe "Consumer Reports” as the organization "formerly called Consumers Union". If there is consensus for this, then I can draft a simple merge which retains all content and deletes nothing. Thanks for any feedback anyone can give. Douglas Love (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought you might want an alert. Douglas Love (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No one seems opposed to this merge. Proposer, User:Douglas Love, or other interested party should proceed with the BOLD merge.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 18:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Needforspeed888 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Finishing the merge
Here are the things that I am doing to finish the merge:

Douglas Love (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) instances of Consumers Union/CU to Consumer Reports/CR
 * 2) magazine and organization infoboxes
 * 3) organization to top, magazine lower

Relationship to employees
The article currently says that "at least one high-ranking Consumer Reports employee has gone on to work for a company he evaluated". I think it is clearly unfair and undue for the article to say this. Employees are not slaves. In the United States, an organization has no legal right to stop an employee from quitting and going to work for a different employer. Readers should generally understand that employees sometimes leave companies and go get jobs elsewhere. That is simply a routine part of doing business, and it happens at every organization. That is not a reflection on the former employer. There is simply nothing that the employer can do about that. Maybe the reason that Nissan hired that guy was that they were looking for someone who was passionate about automobile quality so they could improve the quality of their cars (although my personal experience as the former owner of a Nissan car indicates that the quality of their cars was good already). But whatever the reason was, it casts no legitimate aspersions on Consumer Reports, and the cited source does not say anything negative about that employee's career decision or about Nissan or CR. I plan to delete that statement, as it seems to be unfairly insinuating something and also appears undue. Employees quit their jobs every day. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)