Talk:Consumers Union

message: What was the reasoning behind the recent editing of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
thread_title: Recent editing

message: I propose that this video be added to external links.
*Consumers Want to Know, a 1960 Documentary about Consumers Union. part 1, part 2 - 30 minutes total
 Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget that - it is public domain. I uploaded the video and put it in the history section.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now half the video is there - I did not realize that in uploading it. I have the full documentary but it is 166mb, which is beyond the 100mb limit. I am not sure what to do right now and have no further plans to take action at this point. I think it would be cool to have the entire documentary here.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Other links

message: My name is Lane Rasberry and I am employed by Consumer Reports. I just renamed the article and in doing so just added non-notable information to this article and I would like to give a rationale here.
The change which I made was to replace the name "Consumers Union" with "Consumer Reports". Historically, Consumers Union was the publisher of the magazine Consumer Reports. Since January 2012, Consumers Union legally began doing business as Consumer Reports, so now Consumer Reports is the publisher of Consumer Reports. This fact does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria as set forth in WP:Notability, but I cited it from a self-published letter from the president of the organization.
The reason why I would like this information to be in the article is that it is verified by the article's subject through the citation which I provided and because having this fact makes it possible to develop the article. Since the organization is called "Consumer Reports" now, when it is in the news it will be called "Consumer Reports" and not Consumers Union. Because organizational legal filings are so boring, there will likely never be external sources describing the name change, despite the organization regularly being featured in external news coverage. Additionally, many historical sources since the organization's founding have also called the organization "Consumer Reports", despite that not having been its name until 2012. This is because the public often calls publishers by the name of their publication, and not by the publisher's actual name. Clarifying the name of the article's subject makes research on notable activity possible, whereas this would not be possible if contributors could not determine the name of the organization.
There is a department in Consumer Reports which does political advocacy and lobbying in government. This subset of Consumer Reports is now called Consumers Union. I propose that the entire history of Consumers Union be renamed into this article named "Consumer Reports", and that all further external news coverage of this new Consumers Union organization be put in a subsection of this article. 
I assert that I believe that what I am doing is not controversial and that what I am doing is best for the natural development of this article. Identifying the name of the organization even without external reliable sources or proof that the name change is notable, is appropriate in this case. Perhaps this is a case to ignore a rule because I see no benefit to Wikipedia in not clarifying the confusing meanings behind this organization's names. I am open to comments if anyone has them.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jimbo Wales did the same thing here. The situation was that someone in person asked him to change the Wikipedia article about them, which was giving their name incorrectly. He did this. The community had a discussion about the legitimacy of this.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article Consumer Reports for the publication.  Should the information on the publisher Consumer Reports (formerly Consumers Union) article be combined with the publication Consumer Reports article?  I would think that is the best approach, and then this article can be deleted or be a redirect. 72Dino (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That does seem like a reasonable approach. If there is one article, it should be Consumer Reports with this being a redirect. If there is a second article, it should be on the publication and not a sub-organization of Consumer Reports which is what Consumers Union is. A merge and redirect here would not be inappropriate, though, and if the merge looks confusing then it could be forked again into a publication article under a different name, perhaps Consumer Reports (publication).  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: I work for this organization. The organization changed its logo recently. I uploaded the new logo and changed it here. If anyone has questions or comments then I am around.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there was a picture of the headquarters which showed the sign and logo. I updated that picture to show the current logo.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed logo 

message: Hi, My name is Doug. I work with Consumer Reports and I plan to make a few edits to the page to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the content on the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Love (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Update - Timeliness and Accuracy