User talk:Consumeradv

Your edits on Consumer Reports still need work, because they raise several issues, including reliable sources, undue weight, neutral point of view, and verifiability. Also, you're removing material cited in the New York Times regarding the important issue of the OUTCOME of the trial. I welcome your efforts to improve the article, and regret that in reversing your edits, I've removed some other material you've inserted that shouldn't be controversial. I'll recommend that you use the talk page to propose changes to the Suzuki section, and reinsert the other material. 130.156.29.229 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually removed that portion by accident. It could easily be added back. As far as the sources, how can you argue with a video showing exactly what happened? Perhaps you didn't watch the video? Pittle is on camera making his claims. How is this not a reliable source?


 * It's not simply youtube, it's the Suzuki enthusiast site linked. youtube is not forbidden, but one has to be careful in what is taken from them.  The videos you link does have some original footage, but also has comments and conclusions that are the creators' own.  Also, remember that part of neutral point of view means that all significant viewpoints should be represented. 130.156.31.170 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)