Talk:Adbusters/Archives/2012

Why was the page moved?

I subscribe to the magazine, as as far as i know they do refer to themselves as "AdBusters" and not as "Adbusters". I think that the page needs to be moved back so that the title reflects the real name of the publication. Beta m (talk)

I've moved the page again, after thouroly (sp?) checking that i'm correct in my assertion that this is in fact the correct naming of the journal and the media foundation. Beta m (talk)

I have a copy of the Nov/Dec 2005 issue (#62 vol 13 no 6). Other than the title on the cover (which is all caps), the contact box on the last page states the publication name as "Adbusters (ISSN 0847-9047)". DerwinMcGeary

It opens a can of worms when you start trying to capitalize or punctuate proprietary names according to the way the proprietors do it: see http://www.theslot.com/webnames.html. Because of this, I think Adbusters is better than AdBusters. Skookumpete 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Merged with Adbusters Media Foundation

Added the text and the category from the Adbusters Media Foundation.

--pgeoff 00:08, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Change the current picture to one of the front covers of their magazine?

The current picture with the "UnBrand America" poster should be changed to one of their magazine issue's front cover. Why? It seems like posting the image of their advocacy poster seems like Wikipedia is promoting their cause according to my perception. I think it is just best to use a magazine cover such as [1] to keep sort of NPOV. --Anonymous Cow 06:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, since this article is no longer about magazine alone, but also about the Media foundation. Having a picture of a magazine would in itself be POV since that would create an implication that everything involving AdBusters is simply a wrapper around their periodical. But i would settle for a black dot or something like that. Beta m (talk)

I disagree with the black dot, since it should go on the black spot article instead. As to the image being POV, well AdBuster's has a POV that should be expressed in the article. I felt the unbrand America image protrayed that most clearly. A magazine cover does not do that as well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Yes, just keep the current image. Beta m (talk)

I can now understand RobRoy's reason. I don't have a problem with the poster, now. --Anonymous Cow 17:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-consumerism?

Does anybody else find it odd how this supposedly anti-consumerist organization tries to sell you something at every turn? Perhaps this should be incorporated in the wiki page?

No. I don't really find it odd at all. I don't think about it. More than anything, I'm bored by your re-hashing of a very old, very worn, conservative-boilerplate critique of anyone who sells anything and yet also has the temerity to critique the system. How frigging creative of you. Did you work on this criticism up all on your own or did you secretly have help from mom and dad?

_Easy now. I thought it was a good point, even if you disagree, no need to freak out.

Wikipedia:Civility

I noticed that, but i thought that it was simply a very funny ironic joke. Or maybe they're shameless profiteers. Or both? I mean, come on, how could Adbusters dropping an ISBN number in the middle of a sentence NOT be a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.45.242 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section sounds like somes personal rant. Can we get a citation for this? If we can't, I suggest removing this POV in disguise as objective writing. -- LGagnon 21:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Some critics say"-entries like this need to name their critics. -Willmcw 23:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say some critics say, it says some would argue, some would say..etc. Theres no need to change it, because theres nothing that suggest some acclaimed critic has said this. It's just providing a point of view. it makes clear that its a point of view. If you want to add a counterpoint to it go ahead, but according to wikipedia's rules i dont see why you should. Urthogie

Actually, in that case there's a very good reason to change it: to avoid weasel terms. -- LGagnon 21:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please you must site all sources for the arguments presented in this section or it will be removed, I'm all for criticism sections but as it stands now it is not worthy of an encyclopedia.--Fluxaviator 08:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Notable or not, we need to know who the critics are. We especially don't want construction like "some would argue". If they do argue it, then we can include it. Part of the reason that we like to know the names of critics is to make sure that they exist, and that the criticisms are just the opinions of editors. Another reason is that then we can make sure the criticism is correctly summarized. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think the criticism section as it stands cannot be seen as NPOV. I'm not sure how to make my argument, but I know that siting Adbusters Pro-Palestinean stance feels like the author is suggesting being pro-Israel as the morally correct stance. I feel like the criticism section should be reserved for examples of an organization/person doing something unjust, not what controversial stances has an organization/person taken on two sided issues. Rocknjosie

OK. I've removed it outright. I'd encourage any editor who knows of specific criticisms to write an NPOV, sourced section which summarizes actual criticism. -Willmcw 17:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

And now it's back again, courtesy of Urthogie. I still don't see any proof that this isn't his personal rant. Mind giving us some proof you didn't invent the whole thing yourself, Urthogie? -- LGagnon 21:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

If these are "common" criticisms, there shouldn't be much difficulty in finding sources for them. -Willmcw 21:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• • i cited three sources. and if you really want to be excessive and require more ill just start citing its own letters to the editors which feature these criticisms.Urthogie 15:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The letters to the editors would be a better source. The guideline Wikipedia:reliable sources strongly urges against using blogs similar websites as sources. Of three sources you provided two are blogs and two are anonymous. Also, the sources do not support the assertion that there are four chief criticisms that start with Adbuster's stance on Israel and Palestine. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Stay Free! is a nonprofit, Brooklyn-based magazine that explores the politics and perversions of mass media and American (consumer) culture. So ill keep that one and work on getting the others and the letters to the editor.
      • Can we find out who wrote the article in Stay Free!? -Willmcw 20:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

here ya go: its by Carrie McLaren as can be seen on this link[2]

The book The Rebel Sell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rebel_Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter is quoted at the beginning of the article but its not quoted in the criticism section even though its highly critical of ad busters and of the whole idea of culture jamming in general can i expand this area, whats the procedure ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.176.74 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Can we have proper citations for the references in the Criticism section? They should be done like the others in the Reference section. Also, we need to fix up the Issue 25 reference; it says nothing of the author, article title, or page number. -- LGagnon 17:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've re-written the criticism section to reflect the actual criticisms in the two sources provided. If we find additional notable sources then we can add their criticisms as well. -Willmcw 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • This page has come along way in a few weeks, i think its starting to look really good

Neo-luddism

This doesn't seem like a NPOV name for the section. Can anyone give an actual example of a technology that they are against? The claim that they are against new technologies is shaky without one. -- LGagnon 00:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Maybe luddism isnt the right word. They are against alot of technologies, alot of which are new. In their old mission statement it says: "...we are anarchists, guerilla tactitions, neo-luddites, pranksters...". I think their new mission statement is different though. If there is a better term, or a better way to organise these beliefs, cool.

• • In defence of the Luddites they weren't against new technologies per se either - just the use of tech to strengthen the hand of employers in comparison to workers so it could be argued that it is NPOV. However most people associate "Luddite" with "anti-progress" so maybe not. Fence is comfy, thanksA Geek Tragedy 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

History of adbusters

Anyone know the when, how, who, why, and what of the histoy of adbusters?

• i dont, i know their early magazines had faux advertisements, which i guess were hilarious

• I mirror the same interests as the original writer.. most specifically, when did AdBusters start? This should be included in the opening. Xsxex 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

somewhere i read that all pictures on adbusters.org where fair use, but i just ran into [this] page, are we safe using the two pictures we have? i added a picture of a traffic ticket adbusters uses, but i bet theres WAY better pictures for culture jamming. Spencerk 20:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response; that came from me and I attached it to this image description; as I received an e-mail saying that from the photography editor of the publication. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

cant find an adbusters article

Adbusters has responded to the criticism by The Rebel Sell in an issue sometime, and it would be great to get their response on here and the rebel sell page. Ive been looking like crazy for this article and can't find it. Its in the back where they review books sometimes, its a half-page... Can anyone else find it? Spencerk 23:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the article but do have a transcript of "Rethink the Cool", the leaflet that used to go-out with every pair of Unswoosher boots and invite you to join a movement. This is referred-back to by one of the ad agents that's quoted, so I'll find somewhere to add a link to it if that's OK. No offence taken if the link is taken out again. It will be to veganline.com/rethinkthecool.htm

Listing of Jewish Neoconservatives

The article previously said that AdBusters just denoted as Jewish those with Jewish-sounding names -- which insinuated a sloppy anti-Semitic research. There was no supporting reference for this claim. I just did a quick search on the individuals denoted by AB as being Jewish and it all holds up -- most of them have their own wikipedia articles that mention this. If one counter example can be found -- either one erroneously listed as being of the Jewish faith when they are not or one listed as not being Jewish but actually is -- please come forth. Until then, I have removed the insinuation of sloppy anti-Semitic-motived research. --70.48.240.111 17:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• i agree, i think the criticism should be made that the use or relavence of the article is contreversal, not that the article is inaccurate. good work Spencerk 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The accusation of antisemitism is perfectly justified. Somebody has removed this

"In October 2004, the New Internationalist magazine published a special issue covering the insertion of antisemitic rhetoric into some progressive debates.[23] Adam Ma’anit wrote:

Take Adbusters magazine’s founder Kalle Lasn’s recent editorial rant against Jewish neoconservatives....The article includes a self-selected ‘well-researched list’ of 50 of the supposedly most influential ‘neocons’ with little black dots next to all those who are Jewish....If it’s not the neocons then it’s the all-powerful ‘Jewish lobby’ which holds governments to ransom all over the world (because Jews control the global economy of course) to do their bidding. Meanwhile rightwing Judeophobes often talk of a leftist Jewish conspiracy to promote equality and human rights through a new internationalism embodied in the UN in order to control governments and suppress national sovereignty. They call it the ‘New World Order’ or the ‘Jew World Order’. They make similar lists to Lasn’s of prominent Jews in the global justice movement (Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, etc) to argue their case."

from another wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_anti-globalization_movement

Also "Lasn was criticized by a number of anti-globalization activists. Klaus Jahn, professor of the philosophy of history at the University of Toronto condemned Lasn's article stating "Whether listing physicians who perform abortions in pro-life tracts, gays and lesbians in office memos, Communists in government and the entertainment industry under McCarthy, Jews in Central Europe under Nazism and so on, such list-making has always produced pernicious consequences."

Media Carta

The article currently states: "It is, however, unlikely that they will be successful, as both the Canadian and American Constitutions only restrict the government from infringing upon freedom of speech, not private individuals and groups." However, it also lists CBC as a defendant. The CBC is a crown corporation.--Sven Erixon 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article or manifesto?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to request/make an NPOV on this page. It reads more like a manifesto/mandate for the organization than an encylopedia article.209.169.114.213 04:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, there are a few sections which really reek of POV, and are not encyclopediac in any way. Wildthing61476 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Had a go at it. Feel free to jump in. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I know this magazine and believe it is somewhat notable although on the fringe. It really needs independent sources to help its case for notability. However, it is quite ironic that a magazine that is critical of advertising is being accused of spam. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam has a particular meaning when it comes to notability. Since this article does not have any major media coverage, its notability is in question. I have proposed it for speedy deletion since it is simply an advert for itself. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And before someone clicks the hangon button, please remember, you've had three years to find sources to establish the notability of this article.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Although advertising is a speedy deletion criteria, this article does not fit it. It does need independent sources, but that alone does not qualify it as advertising. If you want to have it deleted, feel free to take it to articles for deletion. I went ahead and removed the speedy deletion request. Cheers, --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Added to AfD. Nearly four years is plenty of time for this article to have found reliable third party sourcing. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Outcome of AFD was speedy keep due to reliable sources cited in the article. Please don't nominate sourced articles in future.Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomitation was due to the suggestion of TeaDrinker and the end result was the addition of sourcing and an improvement to the article. If you had reviewed the article's history, you'd have seen this. Please be WP:CIVIL in discourse in the future, the patronizing tone is unnecessary. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What was stopping you taking five minutes to look for and add the sources yourself? There's enough of them out there as the AfD showed. Nick mallory (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, had I been given the opportunity to respond to the now closed AfD, I'd have pointed out that the "700 hits on google" were nearly without an exception related to the odd tagging on the NYT's website. Take a look. There is no compunction that I work on any article I nominate for discussion. I noticed this page needed work, tried to add some clean up tags which were removed without having the problems fixed so I nominated it for deletion which in turn ended up with the start of the improvement of this article. I'm not personally interested in adbusters, adbusting or whatever this article is about, I'm interested in improving the encyclopedia by making contributions in areas I feel that I have some knowledge and desire to work on. Am I supposed to whine and complain and open DRV threads cause my nomination failed? Apparently. Being happy that the encyclopedia is improved is a BAD thing, I guess. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And for that matter, the depth of coverage needs to be considered. There are a few local appearing stories in Toronto, one article in the NYT, one article in the Guardian and two in Wired. Clearly this organization is not very notable due to the lack of being noted. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Premature afd closure?

I've been gone for a day and an afd was closed per WP:SNOW after only 5 votes. I've seen afd's given much longer time and many more votes before the snow verdict. Now don't get me wrong, I would have leaned toward keep on the afd but believe it should have been open for at least another day and better justify SNOW and get more perspectives. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism infobox

I'm not sure if this article deserves an {{AS}} tag on it. Looking at the article there could be information that implies Adbusters is antisemitic but it seems more of an accusation by some and nothing really overt coming from them. Also, I don't believe infoboxes need to be sourced. The source could be used somewhere in the article indicating any alleged antisemitism from this group. MrMurph101 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Adbusters regularly but know the political culture/milieu it's coming out of; there have quite likely been articles critical of Israel in relation to western coverage of Mid-East/Palestinian issues; this is just a speculation but it seems likely; it certainly is not an overtly anti-semitic magazine.Skookum1 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I read it infrequently, I believe that accusation would indeed stem from their overall criticism of Israel, but also they did a list that focused on the ratio of Jewish neo-cons. It was a controversial article. - RoyBoy 07:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

External ref template

I quickly looked over the article, while indeed many refs are Adbusters related; this is not unusual for an organization's article. Criticism and other sections do have relevant 3rd party sources. So I removed the template as unnecessary. - RoyBoy 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a press release

In my humble opinion the quote "Advertisers have taken over everything, and there is a belief that the $450bn-a-year advertising industry may have peaked. It's time for the backlash, and that backlash is the clean mental environment," needs to be taken out of the article - quoting the founder about his own organization is something one might do in a press release it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles should be based on reputable 3rd party sources - Does anyone disagree?

Paglew (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Invalid Source

Source 39, which claims the magazine made a list of conservatives with dots next to the names of those who are Jewish, links to an error page. Therefore, unless another source can be produced, the citation must be removed. For now, I will replace it with a citation needed tag. 66.193.240.253 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not NPOV

This article does not seem to be written from a NPOV. Claims from Adbusters or about its philosophy are stated as FACT. This piece reads like one big PR statement for Adbusters. Examples:

• "“Culture jamming” is the primary means through which Adbusters fights consumerism in an attempt to return agency to the individual person."
  • Doesn't that PRESUPPOSE that, in fact, agency has been REMOVED from individuals??? Where is the source of that claim?
• "Culture jammers attempt to expose the underlying meaning of an advertisement, media message, or consumer artifact."
  • Presupposes that there IS, in fact, an underlying meaning to those messages that is different than what initially perceived.
• "By reorganizing media to lend it new meaning, culture jamming aims to create a large contrast between the corporate image and the real consequences of corporate behavior."
  • Presupposes that that "corporate image" is somehow false and disconnected from "true consequences of corporate behavior." Give me a break! What are the sources for these claims??
• "The successful sale of more than twenty-five thousand pairs through an indie distribution network--despite the much higher than average production costs--is a leading example of consumer activism against unfair labor practices."
  • Oh really? What is the source for that claim? Why, of course: Adbusters.

Lawyer2b (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not just NPOV but also WP:COI and WP:SOAP are violated by this article; if it's not already there I'll place the advertising tag.....I've always found it ironic that Adbusters, like other anti-corporatist organizations who author their own pages in wikipedia, engage in "wikipedia jamming" just like the corporate-resume/p.r. pages do, i.e. abusing wikipedia to advance their cause, without any respect for wikipedia's guidelines or purposes; in fact, it would make an interesting article for them, if they had the "jam" to self-critique (but they don't). Fact is, whether it's soapbox/advertising pages like this or corporate/real estate portfolio-type articles, there just aren't enough committed Wikipedians around to edit/reform all these articles to proper encyclopedic content, nor to patrol said pages for COI activity (tools do exist - see WikiScanner). Feel free to slash and restructure this page as you see fit, and yes, Adbuster's own references/citations are not to be taken at face value; third-party references are what's needed (see WP:RS and WP:Verifiability as well as WP:Notability).Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is a pretty tough nut to crack, especially since Adbusters puts forth some damn controversial ideas. Since I'm a longtime reader of the magazine, I thought I'd represent some of the ideas presented in the publication on this forum called Wikipedia (even though AB pisses me off 49% of the time). I edited in some of the comments you marked as NPOV, and I'm in no way employed by the Foundation. Thus the source of that claim is not Adbusters, right? And even if Kalle Lasn (the editor) were here typing away at this article and saying all this stuff, would it necesarily be untruthful? The Media Foundation might have a political orientation, but it's merely described by this article. The article might stir the interest of Wikipedians who've never heard of the Foundation; it may stir disgust just as well. Simply putting forth the general ideas derived from the publication doesn't bias its point of view.

I think you should go read up on WP:NPOV. Writing in a neutral point of view has nothing to do with whether or not that which is being written about is controversial and is just as easily done for those topics as it is for any other. One aspect of writing in NPOV is you don't make things sound like fact when they are only opinion, and that's a big problem in this article. It also sounds like you are saying that you are a legitimate source of material for this article since you are not employed by Adbusters. You are not a legitimate source for any wikipedia article; and neither am I. Please see WP:Verifiability. Lawyer2b (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article's really biased one way or the other, so I'm softening the header tags accordingly.--Elliotb2 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not the "putting forth of general ideas" that is the bias. It's putting them forth in such a way that they come across as presupposed facts/truth. I cite the biased statements above and I also cite the ideas which those statements force the reader to presuppose are true. Do you see how those statements do that? Instead of the statement as is, to be neutral you could write, "Culture jammers attempt to expose the underlying meaning of an advertisement, media message, or consumer artifact, which culture jammers believe exists." Now it is not implicit in the statement that this "underlying message" absolutely exists. Instead the reader is told explicitly that the idea that there is an "underlying message" is merely a belief that culture jammers have. That is more of a NPOV. Do you see the difference? Lawyer2b (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No progress on this in months. I'm no fan of the magazine but I disagree with the OP, there is a criticism section and outside sources. It's far from perfect but so is just about every other article. The current tag says this article has 'multiple issues' both both listed in bulletpoints are NPOV concerns. I think the basic {{ POV }} tag is better. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed " This technique reminded of the ones used by the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer. The accusations themselves were a rehash of the notorious accusations of double allegiance of Jews that were brought in Europe during the last centuries." as unencyclopedic. Before considering re-instatement, please read the helpful guidance at Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 10:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Magazine Infobox

A magazine infobox was added flesh it out with any relevant info. IMO makes the page look cleaner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwusek (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of anti-semitism Section

The user Pitiricus keeps adding NPOV content to this section. I have tried to engage them in a discussion, but they will not reply to me. Could someone else add their opinion on this matter, as I can't keep removing stuff they add without violating the 3RR? Matt J ^User|Talk 14:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a tag added tag {{POV-section}} to "Criticism" section to this subsection. Please see discussion above at ==Not NPOV== Section. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 07:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You remove real accusations with real references. I don't see why I should engage you

Pitiricus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitiricus (talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Because that's the way Wikipedia works. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason your edits are being reverted is because they are not phrased in a neutral way, and they express opinions. For example:

This technique reminded of the ones used by the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer. The accusations themselves were a rehash of the notorious accusations of double allegiance of Jews that were brought in Europe during the last centuries.

That's an opinion.

In October 2010, Shopper's Drug Mart pulled Adbusters off of its shelves as a result of a photo montage featuring spurious comparisons of the Warsaw Ghetto to the Gaza Strip.

Also an opinion, and although the cited source indeed said source indeed said spurious, that's their opinion, not a fact.

This was soundly condemned as being an old antisemitic ploy. Michael Totten in his blog notes that "This is one of the world’s oldest anti-Semitic slurs. For centuries Europeans suspected Jews of placing their loyalty to their ethnic “tribe” above whichever community they happened to be living in."

'Soundly' is not a neutral word, and further you can't just quote random blogs to insert non-neutral stuff into the text.

You're welcome to help make the page better, indeed at least one of your contributions I consider to be quite useful:

The pictures of the Warsaw ghetto were obtained under the pretext of doing a story about war crimes from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. When advised of the use, the museum has sent adbusters a cease and desist letter demanding that the photos be immediately removed from Adbusters’ website.

You phrased that in an fairly neutral way. However, most of your contributions quite clearly have an agenda. I suggest you read WP:NPOV. And incidentally, the large number of reverts you've been making are banned by WP:3RR. I suggest that rather than edit warring you engage in this discussion. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link to the offending gaza/warsaw photo essay on adbusters; http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/83/gaza.html If someone feels the need to remove it from the main page then please outline your reasoning here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.19.27 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In it's current form, I think that this could be deflagged now. It simply reports on a controversy that happened, and doesn't appear to judge on either side, merely reports a thing what did happen in history and that. Can we consense on this without being anti-semitic or Zionist? Bennydigital (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it should not be deflagged. It's unclear why the article mentions criticism of Adbusters as being anti-Zionist. There are no sources to corroborate such a claim, and Wikipedia seems to be the only one making it. Remember that anti-Zionism is opposition to a Jewish state in historic Israel. Adbusters has been critical of Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians, yes - but there's no evidence that Adbusters denies Israel's right to exist, is there? If there isn't evidence to that effect, it makes no sense to accuse them of being anti-Zionist. Holocaust trivialization is also not necessarily a feature of anti-Zionism; if anything, it's more often indicative of antisemitic attitudes. A better case could and probably should be made that Adbusters is antisemitic, given the incident where they singled out Jews in their article. If there's no compelling proof that Adbusters is opposed to the existence of the State of Israel, better would be to develop the "Editorial Position of Anti-Zionism" section as "Editorial Position of Antisemitism." But there's certainly no basis for an argument that Adbusters is anti-Zionist...132.64.188.15 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following for several reasons. It is uncited and makes controversial accusations. The conflation of anti-Zionist/anti-Israel/criticism of policies is problematic and must be backed up by RS sources. "For many years, Adbusters has taken a strongly anti-Zionism editorial position. They have published numerous articles critiquing the occupation of Palestine. This has opened the magazine up to criticism from those who support the State of Israel. Often times, criticism of Adbusters' anti-Zionist position is done under the charge of antisemitism." The Interior (Talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The removal of User:Vernon39's November 2010 POV-section template ought to have been brought to the attention of the Discussion page before it was done, following the example of User:Bennydigital above. Though the new "criticism of the Israeli government" section heading is a marked improvement over the old "anti-Zionism" one, there remain problems with it. Namely, what does the section's first paragraph have to with "criticism of the Israeli government"? It is criticism of the influence of American Jews on US foreign policy. Now, whether or not attitudes of that nature count as antisemisim in my book, the fact is that Adbusters' critics articulated their criticism of the magazine - both in that case and in the case of the Gaza-Warsaw comparison - in terms of antisemitism. And even though accusing a magazine of antisemitism is a grave accusation, it is not our place to evaluate the merits of that accusation; our role is to report it. Therefore, the most natural heading for this section is "Accusations of antisemitism." And unless someone can identify a flaw in my logic, that is the heading that should appear.—Biosketch (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why have you changed it to "Antisemitism and Holocaust Trivialization?" instead of what you just suggested above? The Interior (Talk) 20:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To better reflect the criticism expressed in the second paragraph. To be sure, "Holocaust minimalization" is the expression that's used in the actual source. ("In other words, such vile analogies become a form of Holocaust minimilization.") But seeing as Wikipedia already has an article on Holocaust trivialization, and that there are only a handful of Google search results for "Holocaust minimalization," the former emerged as the preferred choice of words.—Biosketch (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, but this source is an op-ed piece. We must be careful to ascribe those words specifically to those two authors. By putting the phrase in the subject header, we are implying that this is established fact, rather than opinion. Using op-ed pieces for sources can be very problematic. Unless we have a RS that states that Adbusters engages in "Holocaust Trivialization", its use in the header would seem to be giving undue weight to what really is an opinion. In the interests of neutrality, I strongly support your first suggestion: "Accusations of Antisemitism" and not this current heading at all. Adbusters and the National Post are at opposite sides of a political spectrum. We wouldn't use an Adbusters op-ed to characterize the National Post in its article. The Interior (Talk) 21:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood, though with regards to the "established facts" observation, I was following the language of the header below, which reads simply "ineffective advertising," without indicating that it's an opinion. Bottom line, though, "Accusations of antisemitism" is broad enough in scope that it encompasses the whole section, so it's appropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll give some thought to the other header. I wait a bit before making the change to allow for any other comments. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, patience is a constructive attribute on WP. I waited from 18 February to March 1st to allow different opinions to be heard, but then made the mistake of editing the subsection title in a manner inconsistent with my own proposal here. When User:Germinal1848 – who, despite all efforts to WP:AGF, raises WP:COI suspicions – effectively reverted my edit the next day, potentially the right thing to do would have been to rename the heading in line with the original uncontested proposal. So the heading's now "Antisemitism charges." And as for the "Ineffective activism" heading, maybe that can keep its current language, since the charge isn't anywhere near as grave as the antisemitism one, i.e. even the magazine's supporters haven't seemed to be bothered by it.—Biosketch (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Bio - but I do have to comment on the phrasing you used, which was not what was discussed. "Charges" has a specific legal meaning, and the subject being discussed can result in real "charges" (for hate speech). In Canada, actions that are clearly hateful towards Semitic people are prosecuted - see David Ahenakew. By using the term "charges", there are now legal overtones. As far as I know, Adbusters or their parent company have not been formally investigated by the RCMP for hate speech. Please change to our previous agreed-to phrasing, "charges" is misleading. The Interior (Talk) 17:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I thought "charges" sounded better (no alliteration), but if it carries implications of legal action, then "Accusations" it is.—Biosketch (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: The next heading: how about ==Effectiveness of "culture-jamming"==. Would reflect the contents without reaching a conclusion of the efficacy. The Interior (Talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Schmalz

Bill Schmalz is a wilderness cinematographer who, with Kalle Lasn, co-founded the anti-corporate activist group Adbusters Media Foundation. In 1989, British Columbia’s forestry industry was under attack by radical environmentalists and fought back with billboards and television ads. Schmalz, Lasn, and other activists launched a counter-ad. But television stations refused to air it. The environmentalists protested in front of logging company headquarters and courted media attention. They were successful -- the industry’s ads were pulled after hundreds of people phoned the networks in support of the activists -- and Adbusters was born.

Schmalz was heavily involved in the first few issues of Adbusters magazine, but its unprofitability led him back to wilderness film and photography. He is still listed as a co-publisher and occasionally contributes to the magazine.

Stew6133 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Writing and Bias

The text bellow needs major revision.

"On April 3, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously overturned a BC Supreme Court ruling that previously dismissed the case in February 2008. The court granted Adbusters the ability to legally go after the major corporations that originally refused to air their anti-car ad “Autosaurus”, specifically the Canadian Broadcasting Company and CanWest Global. The ruling represents a big victory for Adbusters, but it is the first step of their intended goal, essentially opening the door for future legal action against the media conglomerates. Co-founder Lasn declared the ruling a success and said, “After 20 years of legal struggle, the courts have finally given us permission to take on the media corporations and hold them up to public scrutiny.”

The British Columbia Supreme court did not grant them the right to 'go after' media groups, they granted them the right to proceed with legal action against them. There is also no such thing as the 'Canadian Broadcasting Company', however, the government owned and publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does exist. CanWest, after Newscorp and Viacom etc, is certainly one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. However, the CBC is by no means a 'conglomerate' no matter how much disdain Adbusters holds towards it- it is a publicly funded, public service broadcaster that operates within a legally defined charter requiring it educate, inform and entertain and not exploit the public. It is required to maintain high journalistic standards, and is regularly held to account before the Canadian Senate. It's code of ethics is arguably the highest of any North American broadcaster. Apart from the Ad's, it is the broadcasting model probably most favoured by Adbusters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.77.96 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Ineffective Activism section?

The first link is dead, it's poorly-worded, and addresses culture-jamming, not Adbusters itself. Culture-jamming is not the only method of activism advocated by Adbusters, and the section seems gratuitous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ongepotchket (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This entire article is POV biased. Phrases like "deceptive anti-environmentalist propaganda" are value laden and have no business in an encyclopedia. 173.21.154.254 (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all that line (on the discussion page) has to change as clearly there is a page called AdBusters.

My main concern is the article (particularly the last two paragraph) is biased, without counterpoint, against the efforts of AdBusters -- criticize the campaigns and the shoes if you must, but at least offer their rationale for balance.

Just curious, there seems to be a growing ammount of information on this page that really should be put on the Adbusters Media Foundation page as really, this is just an article on the magazine rather than the efforts of the media foundation, (I am aware that some of the stuff I've put on this page falls under this category) so should all of this miscategorized information be moved? or should the articles be merged seeing as it is commonplace to refer the the Adbusters Media Foundation as simply Adbusters? --E.D.Hedekar 14:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)