Talk:Which?

BBC Article

The BBC have written an article on Which?'s history at [1], which may be useful for people seeking to improve this article. Mike Peel 18:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article attributes influence to "Dorothy and Ray Goodman". After five minutes searching the web, I could find no further information on this couple. It does seem that the lady Dorothy Goodman is not the one and same, so I removed the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psheld (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Biased article

Biased article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.125.78 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What, the aforementioned BBC news article is biased? Or the Which? article here on Wikipedia? If the latter then you need to provide some detail. Until then, I'm removing the NPOV tag, which was added by a different user without explanation. Open4D (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Consumers' Association and Which?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was pages merged. The Consumers' Association page was a coatrack, for Which? and neither page asserts in any way that there's a difference between the two. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

---

'cos the Consumers' Association article is just a smaller crappyer version of the Which? article --Dak (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, as long as Consumers' Association redirects to Which?. Agingjb (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. Almost since it began, a degree of confusion between Consumers' Association, and its major publication Which? magazine has existed both inside and outside the organisation. The two main activities: campaigning on behalf of all consumers and publishing material for its subscribers were grouped under Consumers' Association and Which? banners respectively. This separation was also useful for claiming charitable status for its consumer research activities. The brand Which? is now used to cover all activities. Therefore a single entry for Which?, with a redirection from Consumers' Association, might most accurately reflect the current situation. Burbagette (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The two activities are not the same. Some people read the magazine, as a shopping aid. Others want to campaign against specific unfair or misleading trading practices. When I want Which, I put that in the search term. When I want Consumers Association [of which I am a member], I put that. Please keep them separate.

Giles Cattermole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanner48 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish that the phrase "Consumers' Association" were more used by Which; sadly it is now virtually absent from printed matter and online material, including campaigns (it is used in the Financial section of the Annual Report). But I can't see a NPOV way of presenting this change in emphasis. Agingjb (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality of Article

As of 24/5/2009, Which? charge £7.75 a month plus VAT for their services. The tone of this article is that they are a charity supporting consumer choice and it feels very supportive and complementary of Which? Their subscription fee, I believe raises concerns that consumer protection is not their only concern but generating revenue from that species of easy prey, the consumer, is probably very high on the agenda for them too. I am amazed that they are allowed to remain a charity personally, but I know that this is only my opinion. I do however think that I have a point when I say that the slightly warm tone of this article is subtly biased towards painting which? in a non neutrally good light. I believe that this article should be rewritten with a more neutral tone to better fit with Wikipedia's stance on neutrality. I would start by describing which as a subscriber service and not as a charity in the first sentence as that is more germane to what they do. The fact that they are a charity is something of an aside (and is probably in reality a which exploiting the nature of their business as a tax saving measure). Their focus is their subscribers and not consumers as a whole (evidence? the fact that you cannot access their reviews without paying them). That is the action of a private service and not what most people understand by charity. 21:17, 24 May 2009 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek1975 (talk • contribs)

I agree - article seems as if it was written by a "Which" employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.252.175 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Seconded This reads like an advert, not critical at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.189 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 5 July 2013‎

Anyone can delete any part of any article which does not comply with community guidelines. Feel free to develop this article as you like. I would like to see this article become better but without good sources to cite I cannot do that, and I have been unable to find any good third-party sources talking about Which or Consumers Association. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a major problem with finding good third party sources regarding Which?. Partly this is because of the 'sacred cow' nature of the organisation, and partly because its early years were driven by a rigorous outlook. But that's changed in the past ten years. Panoptes Mars (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The definition of a charity is very well defined and governed, and the organisation is deemed to qualify. As for selling a product, charities don't run on thin air. Each and every one needs income from donations and / or revenues. The publications are sold to subscribers. All consumers benefit from the organisation's campaigns (see super-complaints). --Psheld (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Advert

This article is one long advert at present. I have made some changes but it could be a lot more encyclopedic. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As with elsewhere on Wikipedia, information which is not backed by a source should be removed. Removed unsourced information would keep this article from seeming like an advertisement. I just added a couple of sources to a "further reading" section which give the history of this organziation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Which? and The Consumers Association

• There needs to be a clearer distinction between the brand name Which? and the CA.
• Which? should only be italicised where it is referring to their magazines.

Philafrenzy (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I work for Consumer Reports and the same problem exists for us as we have Consumer Reports the organzation, Consumer Reports the magazine, and then another organization called "Consumers Union". As you say, this is confusing, but I have no solution to this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to make it clearer. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought they had dropped the Consumers' Association name, but the article still uses it frequently, e.g. as the publisher, and not just in an historical context. What is the actual position?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Which?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120108023806/http://www.beuc.org:80/Content/default.asp? to http://www.beuc.org/Content/Default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)