Talk:Bank Transfer Day

Contested deletion

Are there any clarifying questions from those who oppose this article? Are there any statements which lack NPOV? If there are no objections, I propose removal of the current flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.27 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is an encyclopedic entry of a notable event reported in the major news outlets (such as the New York Times). Every sentence of the article is cited to notable sources. The article is written from a neutral point of view. Further, I am not affiliated with this movement. --Fayerman (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But is an announcement and a call for action: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am merely reporting a notable event. Which part of the article is an announcement or a call for action? --Fayerman (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of the first sentence? Bank Transfer Day is a boycott initiative calling for a voluntary switch from commercial banks to not-for-profit credit unions by November 5, 2011. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, first things first. What do you think of it? Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That I sometimes get the nasty idea that en-wp is biased to American subjects. 14:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because I have seen multiple independent reliable sources report this event, associated with the "Move Your Money" project organization: Credit Union Times, 1600+ Google News stories. --Dualus (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the article neutral in tone, and not a call for action. It reports the facts surrounding the current event/movement, but does not offer any incentive or request that the reader join the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.237.28 (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the article informative and written in a neutral tone. I don't see it as a call for action. I do not see any justification for deletion. This event may have significant impact on the banking industry and is clearly a Current Event. I am sure it would be acceptable if it were published after November 5th. I have seen this event reported in some of the major news media. I am not affiliated with this event at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgileBeauce (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also the consequences of the Bank Transfer Day may become historical, more so if the event becomes an annual event. It is neutral in that it merely reports yet deletion for any reason would be wrong merely from the standpoint of the event being of historic value. Damotclese (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article is fairly neutral in tone. It could use some work, but a speedy deletion is should not get Ethyr (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this article neutral in tone and important in topic. This is a Current Event and even more a coordinated worldwide action with high relevance, especially to the outcome. Also verified in major news media. ArchiSchmedes Talk 14:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree and voted to keep it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a boycott

A boycott is generally used as a practice for coercion against a particular party as a means of coercion. This is a campaign to get people to permanently switch their dealings from one party to another for the sake of benefiting various groups rather than harming, coercing, or intimidating others. The intention isn't for people to switch back later, and it's not to convince banks to change their practices. Therefore, this isn't a boycott, it's an awareness campaign. 71.241.232.214 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the following definition: "A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons. It can be a form of consumer activism"? --Fayerman (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, but you have to realize that this isn't about politics or protest. This is about helping local communities. There's nothing wrong with the definition of a boycott, but frankly, this doesn't fit it. 71.241.232.214 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll clarify through different terms. The goal here isn't to bring down the banks, it's to stimulate local economies and create jobs. This movement exists with full knowledge that it won't reach a mass which would sink any single major bank. 71.241.232.214 (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research (see WP:OR). On Wikipedia, we write based on outside sources (e.g. ""Occupy Wall Street Backs a Nationwide Boycott Against Banks-US Business Day". CNBC."). --Fayerman (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So, this was an interesting discussion. Aside from you guys, I decided to actually go ahead and inquire about this, and I got a response from Kristen Christian (the originator of the movement) noting that it "fundamentally doesn't qualify as a boycott"., explaining further that "The idea isn't to go back to banks once they've reverted, the idea is to stay with Credit Unions for good so that our own communities can benefit. While this is definitely a FORM of consumer activism, not all showing of consumer activism are boycotts." At this point, There exist no other sources which have reliably explained why this is a boycott (including the CNBC article), and as a result, since the only source speaking about the matter with any sort of jurisdiction happens to be the person who started it, it's safe to say this isn't a boycott. I'd love to see further debate on this, but at this point, I'll commit the change which was started earlier by the OP of this discussion thread. Eganist (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No objection. --Fayerman (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To be sure the term Boycott can include many things but yeah, the initial organizer sought Bank Transfer Day to be more of an act of revolution than an act of boycotting. Transfer from a for-profit albeit criminal industry to a non-profit industry is more than what a typical botcott does in that customers aren't picking one brand product or service over another but are fundamentally changing the way in which they view the financial services industry -- which is revolutionary more than a mere botcott. Damotclese (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

Tarnation, y'all... reading the above it sounds like a clutch of old biddies cacklin' away, ready to peck at each other. Obbop (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, many of us are kackling old biddies. Well maybe not biddies but certainly "senile curmudgeon" applies at least to me. :) Thing is, the distinction of whether Bank Transfer Day is a boycott or not is an important one. If the banks are driven to failure for lack of customers, or if the tax payers are required to bail out the wealthy banks once again, the consequences of Bank Transfer Day could be significant, much more than mere boycotts traditionally have been. Damotclese (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Need updating

As of October 15, 2011, a Facebook page devoted to the effort had drawn more than 54,900 supporters.' -- That is badly out of date, the count is much higher than that now. Is there a reason why it is not updated or perhaps it's just that no volunteer is maintaining the page? Damotclese (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a recent up-to-date reliable source which has recorded a tally of supporters. I'd go and cite the facebook event page itself, but as it's ever-changing, it wouldn't be appropriate. Eganist (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Update on actual funds transfered?

CUNA reports 4.5B moved so far 650K new accounts so far! http://www.cuna.org/public/press/press-release/issues/hundreds-thousands-of-consumers-billions-of-$$-move-credit-unions Ffedic (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least add a link to the facebook page? Seriously, why can there be a link to a credit union website article and not even a link to the actual homepage for the event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.188.68 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Because Facebook is not a reliable third party source.

650.000 new accounts? On how many Americans? And how many accounts are really closed? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, I don't see why accounts still technically open would be relevant if those accounts have no money in them. It still hurts them the same. 68.41.154.157 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think bank will be hurt by this hype at all? They make their money from the big guys, not the small ones. It would hurt if Boeing would walk away, but they don't care about Joe the Plumber. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Because Facebook is not a reliable third party source." So are you seriously saying that when talking about the number of "likes ON facebook", you can't reference the actual REAL facebook page, which IS the source!? that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard!PiousSky (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is what I say. You can not determine what the value is from a "like" on Facebook. Therefore, the number of likes doesn't say a thing! Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource

Credit Unions Poach Clients Novemeber 7, 2011 by Suzanne Kapner Wall Street Journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Censorship

I protest against the censorship acted on on this page. The whole thing is by far not as successful as is claimed, but even with sources that it is not allowed to be mentioned on this page.... Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. As are most of the suggestions from 97.87.29.188 and clones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you accuse me of being a sockpuppet? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I think you're misguided, in that you didn't check the article for relevance before adding the material. The last sentence you've been adding does appear relevant, but it makes no sense without context. None of the other sentences you've been adding supply context or are relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What a coincidence that I am misguided on a point that is highly inconvient for the promotors of this "hype". Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's "hype", also. (It might also be noted, that a local (Los Angeles area) state-chartered S&L was taking advantage of the hype to get customers, claiming the protest was only against big banks. Some note about that had been in the article, but was removed.) However, we need sourced, relevant material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

resource

Occupy Chase Today, Transfer Funds Tomorrow by Elizabeth DiNovella, November 4, 2011 in The Progressive; excerpt ...

Today’s actions are a run up to tomorrow’s Bank Transfer Day. People are being asked to move their money out of Wall Street banks and into community banks and credit unions.

See Chase (bank). 99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)