| Revision as of 22:46, 14 May 2007 edit68.41.142.172 (talk) →Potential conflicts of Interest← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:31, 15 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,249,239 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Automobiles}}, {{WikiProject California}}, {{WikiProject Companies}}, {{WikiProject Marketing & Advertising}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (45 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|
==Lots of unsupported slamming going on== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Automobiles|importance=Low}} |
|
Clearly no "supporter" would ever say anything like that. Simply doing some basic research shows that J.D. Power has always been an independent company that's managed to piss off lots of the big car companies (along with other industries) by giving a venue for customer experiences, both good and bad. Companies would nearly always rather keep that kind of information under wraps -- too bad for them that the 'net and places like this make that impossible to do, particularly when the research of proven independent firms like J.D. Power can be accessed by anyone. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|la=Yes|la-importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=Low}} |
|
This article is unbelieveably biased. It should be deleted and redone. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Marketing & Advertising|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
==Huh?== |
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:J.D. Power/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
|
"JD Power supporters however point out that their surveys are influential and therefore it doesn't matter if they are reliable." |
|
|
-that "supporters" viewpoint doesn't sound very supportive, if I knew what supporters actually thought I'd change it, but I didn't even know there was a debate ] 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Merger== |
|
|
There is another article for "]". Shouldn't the two be combined, and one deleted? |
|
|
: yea i just found it. they should be merged. ] 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Odd... == |
|
|
|
|
|
I always figured they were owned by a certain crappy US car company. |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess direct ownership would be too obvious. They probably get paid under the table. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Consumer Reports == |
|
|
|
|
|
HAHA. What eveidence is there that they are "not for profit"? Utter nonsense. ] 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The publisher of Consumer Reports ("Consumers Union of United States") is a nonprofit corporation. It is registered as such with the Internal Revenue Service of the US Government. ] 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== References? == |
|
|
|
|
|
No cited references except for the company's website, and no cited source for the "Criticism" section. I don't dispute or support anything in the article, but it would be improved by some external information on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
-- ] 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Unreferenced criticism == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the Criticism section because the claims could be considered libel if false, and they are unreferenced. There were also counterclaims randomly inserted in the text, which made it a real mess. -- ] 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Tag == |
|
|
|
|
|
Due to all the issues with sources pov, conflict of intrest, ect., I have tagged the article with {{Tl|Noncompliant}} for cleanup.]<sup><font color="green">]</font> (])</sup> 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism == |
|
|
|
|
|
The criticism section is very poorly written. It's obiously some kind of edit war with two biased opinions. I have tagged it with {{tl|OR-sect}} and {{tl|POV-section}} due to this.]<sup><font color="green">]</font> (])</sup> 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
