Talk:Consumer Reports

message: The article says this:
:CR also forbids the use of its reviews for selling products; for example, it will not allow a manufacturer to advertise a positive review. CR has gone to court to enforce that rule.
I checked the first of the two cited sources, and it does not say anything that resembles what the sentence says. I do not know what the second cited source says (since it is paywalled), but these two sentences seem obviously incorrect on their face. As far as I know, the manufacturer of an evaluated product has no contract agreement with CR, and therefore has no enforceable constraints that govern its actions. Therefore, as far as I can tell, CR has no right nor any legal mechanism to control what a manufacturer (or anyone else) can and cannot say about their reviews (at least not in countries such as the United States where a principle of freedom of speech exists, at least as long as the manufacturer's statements are truthful and are within the bounds of fair use regarding copyright and trademark rights). Whatever this is trying to say, can someone please correct it? In the absence of a reaction, I plan to delete those statements, since they seem clearly incorrect.
I see some prior conversation about this in  and .
—BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reference I can see regarding this is under CR's Commercial Use policy, which forbids "excerpts".  I take this to basically mean a product's manufacturer cannot cherry-pick reviews for its benefit.  To the first sentence in question, a manufacturer would not be allowed to only advertise a positive review (while ignoring negative reviews).  Hope this helps. 3veritas3 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent misstatements 

message: Please remove the following text. This information is a misinterpretation. Also the sources associated with it are self published instead of third party sources.
-----
but its website has retailers' advertisements. 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. Consumer Reports publishes reviews of its business partner and recommends it in at least one case.
-----
Please see the above request for removing content. Where that content was removed please add this information.
-----
Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization. It accepts no money, test samples, or gifts of any kind from any commercial source. Products to be tested are purchased at retail prices by anonymous shoppers around the country. Consumer Reports doesn’t publish any advertising from outside parties.
Douglas Love (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suspend this request for a while. Thank you.--Douglas Love (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a problem. When ready to proceed, please be sure to reactivate the request template. And going forward from here, if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding the article, please feel free to post them here as well. This talk page exists as a forum for the improvement of the article, and I want you to feel welcome in raising any issues or concerns here as you see fit. If I, or another editor, don't know the answers to those concerns or ideas, then we will find someone who does. I appreciate your time in helping to improve the article. Warm regards,  Spintendo  02:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request for removing content

message: * I've combined the two requests into one for clarity, and because they deal with the same passage of text.
# One of the claims given in the article states that  The source given for this claim is an archived page from ConsumerReports.org which states:  One of the services being recommended on that page was the PriceGrabber.com search engine. 
# The reason provided with the request for this change states that the claim regarding the editor's note is a "misinterpretation", but this has not been clarified as to how and in what way the statement is a misinterpretation of the editor's note. Please advise. 
# Another claim proposed to be removed is that  The source given for that claim is a passage written by Jim Guest, which states  
# If the term "misrepresentation" also applies to this claim, then it should be additionally clarified as to how and in what way that claim is a misinterpretation of the Guest statement.  
* When ready to proceed with your clarifications, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from  to . Thank you!
Regards,  Spintendo  14:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suspend this request for a while. Thank you.--Douglas Love (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a problem. When ready to proceed, please be sure to reactivate the request template. And going forward from here, if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding the article, please feel free to post them here as well. This talk page exists as a forum for the improvement of the article, and I want you to feel welcome in raising any issues or concerns here as you see fit. If I, or another editor, don't know the answers to those concerns or ideas, then we will find someone who does. I appreciate your time in helping to improve the article. Warm regards,  Spintendo  02:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 8-OCT-2019

message: What is the criteria for the admissibility of specific studies? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Heinzam (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST 463 Consumerism in Modern America