Talk:Consumers Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consumers Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Recent editing

What was the reasoning behind the recent editing of this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hmharrison (talk • contribs) 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)

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

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 myopia.org/consumersunion.htm (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: www.myopia.org 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 myopia.org 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)