Talk:Buy Nothing Day/Archives/2019

Adbusters say...

Adbusters states that it "isn't just about changing your habits for one day" but "about starting a lasting lifestyle commitment to consuming less and producing less waste."

This is based on a press release published by an industry lobby group as a source and reads as special pleading: we're not a newspaper, we don't give people the last word based on a press release when their claims are challenged. Guy (help!) 15:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARY source discussing the subject and it's perfectly acceptable. Restoring again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a press release promoting their views. As such, it cannot stand in rebuttal to criticism. And as a press release, it's not even a rebuttal: to frame it as such is WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 15:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What JzG says. FWIW, the entire criticism section is damn shoddy and I will re-write 'morrow. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a press release about who they are. It can clearly be used to support a statement about who they are. However, it's not germane to a discussion about Buy Nothing Day, but about the organization. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Blatant Advertisement

There is an irony that the whole "Buy Nothing Day" article is a blatant advertisement. This isn't formatted like a standard wiki article, and is clearly attempting to balloon out a much smaller event. I'm not saying it isn't noteworthy, but it's certainly being made bigger than it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whartbrockport (talk • contribs) 10:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not formatted like a standard article? In what way? It has an infobox, which is standard. It has a project template, which is not uncommon. It has an image, articles are encouraged to have them. It has prose, sections, including a see also and references section. You'll have to be more specific. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

So what happened to the criticism section? It would appear that someone didn't like the things that were said and so just removed the whole thing. Which is problematic, because the tone (not the 'format') of the rest of the article is clearly favorable towards the program, and reads in a way that is clearly meant to inspire people to think 'hey, how cool, I should join that!" It should be re-written as plain facts by a person who is impartial to to the subject and willing to discuss issues like "how much impact does this actually have?" and "is this actually meaningful protest, or just a fun game for some people to play one day a year, allowing them to feel like they've 'done something about consumerism' right before picking up their iphones and heading back to Starbucks wearing their brand-name clothing, to spend the other 364 days as usual...buying a lot of stuff they don't actually need and complaining about how consumerist the US is". These are relevant topics. It describes this novel "new" program where people bring in and exchange winter coats instead of buying a new one, as a "protest". Around here we have done that for decades. It's called a "drop and swap", and like rummage sales and other things, these were very common once upon a time, and are possible to do without hyping and "protesting" capitalism. Often it's a way for people with money to go out and buy a new coat every year, while reducing their guilt by handing their old one in for a poorer person to wear. It would be better yet for people to actually just buy a coat and wear it until it is too old to wear, not because it's a year out of style. But that would be an actual sacrifice, a lot harder than just not shopping for a day out of the year (of course most of the "shoppers" that get harrassed in stores are actually people who are just out looking for a few necesseties, not habitual shoppers who spend two days a week in the mall. But they all get accused of "commercialism" anyway if they are buying something, especially on the day that it has beed decreed that they shouldn't).

Idumea47b (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Restore it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)