Talk:No Logo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

removed link[edit]

* Nike's response to No Logo - http://www.nikebiz.com/labor/nologo_let.shtml

I have removed this link as it does not seem to work any longer. user:Montrealais 12 September 2002

Have browsed Nike's new site, couldn't find it anywhere. Frank Quist 24 March 2003
It can be viewed here Fetology 23:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

See also: UPS[edit]

UPS is listed in the see also section goes to a disambiguation page. It should go to the topic intended instead, but I'm not entirely certain what the original intent was. --68.198.246.166 11:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Official FAQ[edit]

"These ironies have not escaped critics or even the webmasters of the No Logo franchise (who addressed it on their FAQ page)". Actually they don't mention it in their FAQ page, or i am missing something? Benceno 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak article[edit]

This article is very weak. Although I suppose this book is now out of date on many specifics, I would say it should be rated a high "importance" level for its relevance (or the relevance it was seen to have) at the time. It was certainly considered by the mainstream press to define the anti-corporate/anti-globalisation movement, such as a defined movement actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.161.39 (talk) 1 February 2007

Unbalanced[edit]

I think this article is quite unbalanced. It has a lot of criticism but very little about the contents of the book. I haven't read the book and I was hoping that from this article I'd find information about what the book claims and what it criticises. What is its central message, or does it have any. Instead half of this article is about the criticism. Shubi 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag; I'm reading the book now (bought it years ago) and I think the description is accurate. Only books with something to say attract criticism. --Wtshymanski 16:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright laws?[edit]

It's more likely the laws the companies are abusing are in fact trademark laws. Certainly it's a lot easier for trademark law to come into play than copyright law, as the latter has specific fair use exemptions, one of which is criticism. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

International Bestseller[edit]

Is a citation really necessary? It seems someone very conservative, or very lazy marked that sentence with a "citation needed" tag. All one has to do is type in "no logo international best seller" into google, and about three dozen hits come up. Amazon, Barnesandnoble, Powell's, Macmillan, et al say bestseller. But I guess they're all conspirators in some vast Marxist plot, right?72.78.17.132 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)