Talk:Buy Nothing Day/Archives/2012

Matter of opinion

Whether the so-called First World's consumption is wasteful is purely a matter of opinion. This definition contains a discernible leftist bias. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be above politics.

It is.

wastefull consumption a matter of opinion!?!

Buy Nothin Day has as much right to be in here as whoever the unfortunate individual who decided to enlighten us with his/her mental diarreha regarding wastefull consumption being a matter of opinion. At least Buy Nothing Day has a message based on substance and proof, not uninformed shit for brains opinions.

that buy nothing day is celebrated is a fact and should be noted in wikipedia. BM nov 22, 2005

You didn't make a point. You can't spell. Stop attacking people. One could assert that First World consumption is not actually wasteful because, arguably, the consumption leads to some worthwhile result (like, I dunno, people's happiness.) and so wasteful consumption is a matter of opinion. The article deserves to be there, but mustn't state opinion as fact. I think it's fine as it is now ("what many see as the wasteful consumption habits of First World countries"). You could also refer to it as "consumption that many see as excessive (and/or) wasteful," since it is not in debate that we consume at all, just whether it's too much or to an unjustifying end. -VJ 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"what many see as the wasteful consumption habits of First World countries" is OK, but not perfect. The problem is that it's easy to write a slanted, biased article consisting entirely of statements that are technically true, such as "many people think [my point of view]". This sort of statement (known as weasel words) may be technically true, but leaves many important questions unanswered: Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is many? See WP:Avoid weasel words. Spandrawn 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be stated as an opinion rather than a fact. However, is the consumption of random products what our society has actually adopted as substitution to real happiness? Why would somebody have to spend money to gain pleasure in themselves? If that is what it has actually resorted to, then we should slap ourselves upside our heads for being so ignorant. What ever happened to enjoying the simple things in life like spending quality time with friends and family talking and laughing? I know i don't have to go and spend half of my paycheck just to bring a smile to someones face.Da Dutchman 06:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, some things in life are very enjoyable without costing money, e.g. friendship, sex, and humour. But there are other kinds of pleasure that you can usually only get by spending money, e.g. eating at restaurants, playing computer games, watching a film at a cinema, going to concerts, and wearing nice clothes, to name a few. These are all legitimate pleasures in my view. In fact, I am happy to admit that I would enjoy my life significantly less without them. Does this make me ignorant or shallow? Spandrawn 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion page is not a forum for stating our opinions on the celebration or its premises. Whether wasteful consumerism exists or not is beside the point; the point is that it is the basis of Buy Nothing Day. I will now edit the "many people" to "those who observe the day", this is more neutral. ("many" is not the point of the sentence anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.6.227.209 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

the links

Why is a myspace blog linked to in the article? Certainly there are critiques of BND, but isn't this astroturfing? Daniel

I think it would be worthwhile to include a link to a critique of BND, but I agree that the current link to the MySpace blog is out of place and a poor reference. Anyone know of a better critique? --Daryl Thomas 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a link to a Facebook group critiquing BND, but I removed it. It would be fine to link to a critique of BND if there was a decent one, but a Facebook group is a poor example. You can find such groups for any subject imaginable (it takes almost no effort to create one or join one), so I think that any Facebook group should be considered un-notable by default, unless it is extremely popular, e.g. several million members. This one had only 63 when I checked. I agree that it would be worthwhile to include a link to a quality critique of BND, or a link to a more general discussion about pro- Vs. anti-consumerism. Spandrawn 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sustainability

I am removing this article from the Category:Sustainability. I don't see any connection to it. It might be questioning consumerism, but it has nothing directly to do with Sustainability. -Cacuija (my talk) 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of the organizers [1] don't see it that way:

Others use it to expose the environmental and ethical consequences of overconsumption.

Two recent, high-profile disaster warnings outline the sudden urgency of our dilemma. First, in October, a global warming report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern predicted that climate change will lead to the most massive and widest-ranging market failure the world has ever seen. Soon after, a major study published in the journal Science forecast the near-total collapse of global fisheries within 40 years.

Kalle Lasn, co-founder of the Adbusters Media Foundation, which was responsible for turning Buy Nothing Day into an international annual event, said, “Our headlong plunge into ecological collapse requires a profound shift in the way we see things. Driving hybrid cars and limiting industrial emissions is great, but they are band-aid solutions if we don’t address the core problem: we have to consume less. This is the message of Buy Nothing Day.”

As Lasn suggests, Buy Nothing Day isn't just about changing your habits for one day. It’s about starting a lasting lifestyle commitment to consuming less and producing less waste. With six billion people on the planet, the onus if on the most affluent – the upper 20% that consumes 80% of the world’s resources – to begin setting the example.

~ender 2006-11-17 8:29:AM MST

I'd like to weigh in here . We started our international support program for Buy Nothing Day back in 1994 (I(nternational) Buy Nothing Day at http://ecoplan.org/ibnd/) precisely on the grounds that our analysis made it quite clear that the links between, let’s call it, “bulimic consumption” and not just sustainability (as you may chose to define it) but also between economic health, resource preservation, and yes! personal health are real and worth taking into consideration. What is really quite nice about the BND approach is that it makes it a personal choice (which by the way is what the “I” in our title means). ericbritton 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this right?

"Critics of "Buy Nothing Day" point out that consumers would simply buy more the next day instead, rendering their protest pointless. However, participants argue that this is a false assumption and beside the point."

Something just seems off with this quote. As if it wants the reader to agree with the critics. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem neutral to me. 65.96.103.25 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• On a related note, the "critics" section had a tag, so I added a source (currently ref #5); specifically, I'm referring to this part: "I bet a lot of participants breathe a sigh of relief the next morning, when they can get back to business as usual. Remind me again how this changes anything?" Note also the subtitle of the article: "This kind of activism is the problem, not the solution." -- A. 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV?

"Merchants provide valuable goods and services, a sale day serves both buyer and seller, and the Thanksgiving to Christmas season presents both a temptation to materialism and an opportunity for the proper enjoyment of material blessings coupled with a special effort to ensure that the poorest are not excluded."

How is that NOT POV? 72.166.159.235 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears that a past edit removed 'In their view' or similar which would have linked it to the opposing view simply stated in the previous sentence. Anyway what do you expect - this is wikipedia, "if its my POV, its an incontraversible fact" :-). Let's delete it! 82.71.27.215 08:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the language on the page currently is borderline juvenile. I vote we flag this for PoV EAboveMiddleC (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the content in the article that you're mentioning here, and mostly the article is talking about dates of the event rather than ideologies of the event itself. The only ideologies presented are quotes of the sources, making the actual encyclopedic content reasonably NPOV. Smeggysmeg (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness?

If Black Friday is known as one of the busiest and therefore most profitable shopping days of the year, it would seem to defeat the purpose if one of the aims of this day is to send a message to the business and retail community by creating an appreciable decline in sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.197.118 (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

International Buy Nothing Day

The article doesn't seem to mention Buy Nothing Day outside the United States, which I believe is the Saturday following Buy Nothing Day in the US. I couldn't figure out where to fit it in, but it seems important to mention. —midg3t 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks midj3t. You will find it in fact on the I(nternational) Buy Nothing Day (http://ecoplan.org/ibnd/) but it’s in the Background page and should probably be put up top. I’ll try to get to it in the coming days. Cause after all there are only 360 days, 15 hours, 2 minutes, 44 seconds left to BND 2007. Better get on it right now. ericbritton 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yes indeed, i came here for clarifiction of the two days "international " buy nothignm day occurs and we dont even mention a date at all!!! why is that?? never heard of black friday.Cilstr 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have tagged this article for cleanup because the grammar is pretty poor. The sentence structure is difficult to follow and it is not varied. Also, there is one sentence in here that is so messed up that I am not really sure how to fix it. The sentence describing the Chumbawumba song is way too long and ungrammatical. I am unfamiliar with the song and unsure of how to make it better. I also don't know very much about Buy Nothing Day; perhaps someone who does can help. Wikipediarules2221 00:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

free trade?

I question the relevance of the mention of free trade as beneficial. I don't know from personal experience with it that Buy Nothing Day has anything to say, pro or con, about free trade. IOW, Buy Nothing Day is about consumer culture, not about NAFTA or whatever. I accept that a lot of people who are interested in the one are interested in the other, but the central point of Buy Nothing Day really has nothing to say about trade, or *allowing* people to buy things (which is a trade issue), but instead *suggests* that people change their habits of consumption. It's aimed at individual choice, not government policy.

What is Buy Nothing Day?

The article doesn't actually mention what Buy Nothing Day is.

Merger proposal

Yes, yes and yes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no criticism section?

Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.225.2 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"one of the 10 busiest shopping days"

Source please? I'd like to know what those days are. The article on Black Friday, btw, says that Black Friday is THE busiest shopping day. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated information from new article

I am new at this, so if i did not follow standards please help rather than scold. There was an article on Adbusters and Occupy Christmas which i liked because Adbusters is changing its tone. i thought other people would like to know the tone is changing. http://thefulcrum.ca/2011/12/an-occupied-christmas/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.17.199.142 (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)