Jump to content

Talk:Panic buying

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Domskitect (talk | contribs) at 06:13, 24 March 2020 (disruptive editing - ethics in a global crisis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire - panic buying of fuel.

I'm not sure we should include this. Rich Farmbrough 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why?

How is "Panic Buying" a football/soccer-related term?

NPOV?

It seems that this article is being used as a medium to express bias - editors are using the examples to write against policies they disagree with. So, the aricle says that there is "panic buying" of incandecent lightbulbs because gov'ts are banning these "popular products" and there was panic buying of guns in 2008 because Americans were scared Obama would ban them. Look, I personally have no idea if that's true or not, but we need to be careful and be sure to at least cite these examples and the description of "panic buying".theBOBbobato (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for the record

In what way is this conversation being in relation to a Football term ?Some clarification would make this Article more useful for the reader.DeanACapitano (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panic and buying - real impacts on the disadvantaged

An edit regarding the ethics of panic buying was repeatedly deleted by drt1245 (page does not exist), who has reported me for disruptive editing The edit is as follows.

It is those consumers with sufficient disposable income, storage space and private transport, who are able to indulge in panic buying. Typically, those with less available cash, credit, or free time, are disadvantaged by the unethical behavioural panic of others [1][2][3][4].

What is the motivation of those who seek to air brush away ethical responsibility at this time of global crisis? Such parochial limitation does not serve the cause of science well. Those claiming a monopoly of truth by scientific hegemony, would do well to listen to interdisciplinary thought, and ethical concerns, if their minds can possibly be opened to it. Domskitect (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]