|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boycott article.|
|WikiProject Sociology / social movements||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 older comments
- 2 additional older comments
- 3 "Boycott" or "embargo"
- 4 Do boycotts harm or help their targets?
- 5 external links
- 6 boycott wikipedia
- 7 POV link removed
- 8 Historical Milestones (Chronological)section
- 9 Impractical to boycott coca-cola?
- 10 Bizarre unsigned comment on the page
- 11 History section?
- 12 Text about local football (soccer) club
- 13 Recentism and undue weight
- 14 Etymology section
- 15 Removed tag
- 16 Etymology section - Parnell's 'shun him' speech
- e.g. "International Buy Nothing Day?" celebrated globally on November 29.
additional older comments
Is it okay to add the following link?
- Yes, but, the scope of boycott is usually understood as a temporary effort to achieve some specific outcome. Moral purchasing is a broader term that includes such efforts, but of course, a vegan does more than simply refuse to purchase animal products: they refuse to become involved with harm to animals at any level of production. See Consumerium for an example of the kind of effort that might be broad enough to support veganism fully. Also it would be good to distinguish political ideology of vegan-ISM from the simple vegan diet, if only as an example of voluntary simplicity. EofT
"Boycott" or "embargo"
The opening has a job to do: distinguish between "boycott" and 'embargo", not smoosh them together. --Wetman 00:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Do boycotts harm or help their targets?
There's something I am curious about that was not answered in the article: do major, well-publicized boycotts, such as those that some have called for on Wal-Mart, harm -- or help, through a similar effect to that of marketing jiu-jitsu -- their targets? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 06:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
broken, removed until its fixed -
- A short discussion of what a boycott is at boycott.org - link appears to be dead as of Nov 28, 2005. Consider deleting it if it is still down at the end of the year.
- --Quiddity 09:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Today (7 Dec 2005) All Things Considered on NPR did a fluff peice on boycots and cited boycotts of Microsoft and Wikipedia in passing. Weirdness, all I see on google is some silly mailing list posts.
- audio article on npr yes i heard the same article, and the boycott wikipedia was mentioned purely in passing. it struck me as odd that someone would boycott freely available information that is not only consistenly accurate, but consistently updated.
I removed the link to inminds.co.uk/boycott-israel.html, because it is one-sided. And of course because it didn't belong in the citation section. User:Sontimalonti 24 October 2006 11.20 (GMT)
Hi, I am removing the link to Boycott Watch because it is one-sided. Their claim to show "both sides of the boycott story" it is just a joke. You can find an example of their stance of "our boycott good, their boycott bad" here: http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/dunkin02.htm MihaiC (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Historical Milestones (Chronological)section
How can the term boycott be applied to actions which preceded the 1880 action in Ireland? There must have been a term that was used before then. If it is acceptable to apply these to the milestone I beleive there are much earlier actions which would fall into this so-called milestone catagory. Mfields1 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Impractical to boycott coca-cola?
The comment in the HTML is correct: A better example is needed. It is not hard to boycott coca-cola at a restraunt -- ask for tap water. Of course, if their juice is Minute Maid, their water Dasani, their sodas Coke, and their coffee Nestle... get a hot cup of tea? :) Anyway, if you won't drink the tap water (can I really blame you?), and want to boycott Coke, and you're in a bad situation (like above) and you can't go without a drink... well. That's what a boycott is. The more a company that you want to boycott controlls, the more "impracical" it is.
While I agree with the sentament of the paragraph in question, it seems tantamount to saying "Now that some companies are really big, it's hard to boycott them without giving up the stuff you like -- which sucks." The whole section is a little askew from the article, actually. Maybe getting close to POV? It might be better to discuss it in terms of how companies avoid the threat of boycott. Coca-cola is so diverse, a boycott on any one of its products can be weathered quite well, and a boycott on all of its products is quite unlikely (at a scale that would affect their bottom line). Of course, they are diverse for more reasons than boycott specifically... — vijay (Talk) 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre unsigned comment on the page
Somebody added this to the article:
<!-- Better example, anyone? I have fresh one when I ordered a fruit juice in order to avoid feeding the annoying red-and-white Coke Marketing Machine, only to find after the purchase that while I ended with a marginally better product than caramelized fizzy water I still fed my money to the Monster, and after re-checking the menu and backtracking the manufacturers there was no alternative for requirements "cold", "non-alcoholic" and "sweet" other than yet-another-megacorp Nestle. The Vendors eliminated a lot of practical consumer choice by becoming so big they control the very supply chains, and especially in less-populated areas it is difficult to find alternatives. This should be mentioned here somehow. -->
I thought it would fit better on the talk page. --Eastlaw 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't most of the introduction (everything but the first sentence) be put in a "History" or "Origins" section? It's lengthy and doesn't really describe what a boycott generally is, just explains a very particular part of it.
Text about local football (soccer) club
Anonymous users continue to add the following anecdote (or some section of it) to the article:
*2007 - FC United of Manchester, FC United fans show their feelings towards TV companies dictating KO times by boycotting their much awaited top of the table clash with league leaders and rivals Curzon Ashton. Normally a crowd of 1500-2000 would have been expected however only 297 turned up.
The examples section of the boycott article is about events of international importance. What a TV company says about kick-off times for a football game in a non-international sports league may be important to a few thousand people at the most, and is not of international importance. Therefore it should not be listed in the article. Graham87 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Recentism and undue weight
Neither the article nor Wikipedia itself is "necessary." Necessity is neither an excuse nor a reason for adding material to an article. This matter received coverage in the New York Times, one of the more-prominent and widely noted media, a fact that by itself endows the matter with importance it may not have had before the coverage (or testimony thereto). While the events are recent, they are in no way ephemeral; they have been committed and are having effects at the present time. There is no way they can be reversed or undone (though they can be, and are being, offset).--18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- The article is about boycotts in general, not some minor scuffle this year that never even materialized. Still falls under WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE.Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Daily Planet's financial results of late suggest that the boycott has very much materialized, though the result don't prove that it has materialized - only that it may have. The incident is useful as an example of a type of boycott (business-to-business) that is not otherwise represented in the article. If you'd like to exemplify this kind of boycott with another example, feel free to substitute your choice, as long as it well exemplifies this type of boycott.--Joe (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are many boycotts of different kinds. We're here to describe the general principles. Let's avoid getting hung up on examples. Will Beback talk 08:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Pottsf, I'm not sure you quite reviewed WP:UNDUE. If we would have two paragraphs for any incident of a boycott or possible boycott, we would have an article the size of Encyclopædia Britannica. If you believe the boycott is notable, please feel free to create a separate article for it. It does not belong in this article at all, as there's no need for an elaborate example, let alone a recent minor one (Wikipedia:Recentism). —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The Etymology section contains a number of historical inaccuracies:
- Lord Erne, Boycott's employer did, in fact, offer a 10% reduction in rents due to a poor harvest, the tenants demanded 25%, which Lord Erne refused. As land agent, it was not in Boycott's remit to reduce or increase rents, although it was in his remit to evict the tenants,
- Boycott attempted to evict eleven of the tenants, the article implies that he evicted all of them,
- Charles Stewart Parnell's "shun him" speech in Ennis took place three days before the attempted evictions, and although the speech led to the boycotting of Boycott, Parnell was referring to land-grabbing tenants, not land agents and landlords, there is no evidence that Parnell even knew of the existence of Boycott when he made the speech.
If I have time, I will attempt to rewrite the appropriate sections soon. All items can be sourced from Marlow, Joyce (1973). Captain Boycott and the Irish. André Deutsch. ISBN 0233964304 and others if necessary. Page references can be found on the Charles Boycott article. Quasihuman (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the article now seems adequately sourced, I've removed the "Refimprove" tag. Wi2g 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Etymology section - Parnell's 'shun him' speech
I've noticed that the target of Parnell's shun him speech was changed sometime last year to "greedy" land agents and landlords, I have restored the original target with a little rewriting. This is a common misconception, which can easily be dismissed by the existing text of the speech. in this source from the public domain Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 43, he is reported to have said:
When a man, takes a farm from which another had been evicted, you must shun him on the roadside when you meet him, you must shun him in the streets of the town, you must shun him at the shop-counter, you must shun him in the fair and in the market-place...
this source confirms that version of the speech. He is clearly talking about tenant farmers, and not landlords & land agents. There is extensive discussion of this in Captain Boycott and the Irish which is currently cited to support this. I think that part of the problem was that I initially worded the sentence to indicate that Parnell was talking about "Land-Grabbing tenants" which on reflection, isn't very neutral, although that is how many sources say it, I have reworded it to more closely reflect the original speech. Quasihuman | Talk 16:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)