| Revision as of 03:16, 8 April 2007 editHondasaregood (talk | contribs)1,736 edits Criticism← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:46, 14 May 2007 edit undo68.41.142.172 (talk) →Potential conflicts of InterestNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| == Potential conflicts of Interest == | |||
| What do we think about linking in a discussion on conflicts of interest? J.D. Power faces a silimar conflict of interest that appears in other industries as well. For example, accounting firms are paid by the very firms they objectively audit - potential conflict. Also, there are ratings firms (Moody's, Fitch, S&P) that rate the debt of companies and get paid by the companies that issue the debt - potential conflict. I think this is the broader issue that should be linked in. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == Tag == | == Tag == | ||
Revision as of 22:46, 14 May 2007
Lots of unsupported slamming going on
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.
This article is unbelieveably biased. It should be deleted and redone.
Huh?
"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 216.207.246.230 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Merger
There is another article for "J.D. Power". Shouldn't the two be combined, and one deleted?
- yea i just found it. they should be merged. 70.111.251.203 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.
24.110.60.225 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Consumer Reports
HAHA. What eveidence is there that they are "not for profit"? Utter nonsense. CJ DUB 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. Exia 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.
-- Epimetreus 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. -- Beland 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 {{Noncompliant}} for cleanup.Hondasare 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 {{OR-sect}} and {{POV-section}} due to this.Hondasare 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)