Talk:Consumer activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zhuoyu Lin, Hoovern, Rafaorozco, Cmonteleon, Nolanrose. Peer reviewers: Celinanguyen, Sarahlancaster, Dlasansky, Hoopesha, Ggrenham, Danwiggy, Daespadas, Aamartin27.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fleming.sammy. Peer reviewers: Fleming.sammy, M LeFort.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Plan to edit article with sources containing objectivity. If no such source is found then sources containing counter arguements will be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daespadas (talkcontribs) 00:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am interested in editing this article to include a section on the History of consumer activism, which could possibly incorporate the information already in the section describing the periods of consumer movements. Such a section could be near the beginning of the article to provide some background to further information in the article. I am considering using some or all of the following sources in developing some sort of historical overview:

- Glickman, Lawrence B. “‘Buy for the Sake of the Slave’: Abolitionism and the Origins of American Consumer Activism.” American Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 4, 2004, pp. 889–912.

- Glickman, Lawrence B. “'Make Lisle the Style': The Politics of Fashion in the Japanese Silk Boycott, 1937-1940.” Journal of Social History, vol. 38, no. 3, 2005, pp. 573–608.

- Glickman, Lawrence B. “The Strike in the Temple of Consumption: Consumer Activism and Twentieth-Century American Political Culture.” The Journal of American History, vol. 88, no. 1, 2001, pp. 99–128.

- Kozinets, Robert V., et al. “Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, no. 3, 2004, pp. 691–704.

- Kurzer, Paulette, and Alice Cooper. “Consumer Activism, EU Institutions and Global Markets: The Struggle over Biotech Foods.” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, 2007, pp. 103–128.

- Swimberghe, Krist, et al. “Consumer Religiosity: Consequences for Consumer Activism in the United States.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 103, no. 3, 2011, pp. 453–467.

Do these sources rely too much on the work of one scholar? Any other thoughts are appreciated too. Thanks! Hoovern (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More sources[edit]

These are some more sources that I found:

Glickman, Lawrence B. Buying power: A history of consumer activism in America. University of Chicago Press, 2009.

Hollenbeck, Candice R., and George M. Zinkhan. "Consumer activism on the internet: The role of anti-brand communities." NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33 (2006).

Hilton, Matthew. Prosperity for all: Consumer activism in an era of globalization. Cornell University Press, 2009.

Friedman, Monroe. "On promoting a sustainable future through consumer activism." Journal of Social Issues 51.4 (1995): 197-215.

Kurzer, Paulette, and Alice Cooper. "Consumer activism, EU institutions and global markets: The struggle over biotech foods." Journal of Public Policy (2007): 103-128. Rafaorozco (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rearrangement of information; making the structure more coherent[edit]

I think that one of the biggest improvements on this article will be a solid structure.

This is the structure I propose. Please edit if you have suggestions.

Overview / Definition




Objectives / Tactics / Techniques

Legal Disputes

Present day / Recent examples

Rafaorozco (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rafaorozco: This order works. In the Wikipedia community there is no agreed-upon order for concepts like this one, so what you propose seems fine. If you wanted to look more deeply into how other people have developed order proposals, check at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Names_and_orders_for_section_headings. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on Structure[edit]

I think that Etymology may not be needed; a study of the word origin could be distracting to the intent of the article. To add a subheading, I think that expanding on famous lawyers and activists, ie Ralph Nader, could be helpful. I would agree though that the current subheadings are insufficient and confusing.

Nolanrose (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the overview the initial paragraph at the head of the article? I like the proposed structure, with maybe a separate definition section instead of etymology. I can put together Definition and History tonight—one of the Glickman articles is pretty focused on both of those. Hoovern (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, too, agree that the structure needs some work. There seems to be a lot of subheads and not enough information put into each subheaders. Another issue is the issue with the list of facts instead of there being coherent evidence backing up each statement.Nlucassi (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Coherent Information?[edit]

Hey, all. I reworked the definition of the article to include activism by consumers and added the History section, which includes information from the old periods of activism section. Any thoughts on that would be much appreciated. (It's pretty US-centric, so any help there would also be much appreciated.) Also, I've been thinking about how to make the article more coherent, and I think we might need to remove some information that isn't the most coherent right now. I like the idea of a unified "Objectives and tactics" section -- I can start working on that today -- which can combine a lot of the information from smaller sections (and maybe eliminate the need for a theory section?). A lot of the information from the Kozinets study doesn't seem especially relevant to the topic, and the article might be of better quality if that information were removed or reworked. Is anyone particularly attached to it? Hoovern (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoovern I replied on your talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

You all have a lot of great information! The history is very easy to follow and informative without being overdone. However, you all have a lot of sections and it makes it look messy. A lot of the sections relate to each other and could be combined into one section, which would be less overwhelming and more aesthetically pleasing. For example, "conceptions of consumer movements" and "organizing consumer movements" could easily be combined and made into a coherent section. This could also be done for "view of consumers" and "consumers seen as adversaries". Great start so far! I also think adding some photos would make the page more interesting. Sarahlancaster (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

It is looking great, but I agree with the need for coherence. The sections for revelations and opinions for activists and consumers could all be combined. They are not important enough to have their own sections IMO. There is also a statement that corporations have sued consumer groups and I think examples would really clarify what this means. Another note is that the implementation of this technique is impoverished. Though you mention it being used in the civil rights/ gay/ and feminist movements, you could expand on how. Adding a boycott photo could improve this. Other than that, great article with no stand-out grammar/syntax mistakes. Danwiggy (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review (POL 150C)[edit]

I agree with the comments from the preview reviewers. The text is easy to understand and follow, but the many sections does make the page look incomplete. Many other wiki pages include many subsections and headings within each section, making the thought look more developed. Maybe adding more information in this way would make the page more coherent. Finally, my main suggestion would be to link the major words or phrases within your new text to other wiki pages. I feel like this is very characteristic of wiki pages so without these link, the page remains incomplete. Nice work overall! Celinanguyen (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review POL150C2[edit]

I agree with the previous reviewers and believe they made several important points. Overall, I find this page easy to read and informative. However, I believe that it includes too many sections that are either not needed or not completed. There might be sections that can be combined and added to so that the page becomes more concise and complete. However, the edits made so far have improved the page. Very well written! Keep up the good work! Hoopesha (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

The edits made are very informative and easy to understand. The grammar is good and there are not much syntactical issues that someone would run into if reviewing this article. There could be some parts that need to be linked together as the use of some subheads are very short with not enough evidence within them. Some seen just to be listed facts without any coherent commentary. But overall, the edits made are very good and informative! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlucassi (talkcontribs) 01:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Sections[edit]

How about this: we condense Consumers as adversaries and parts of View of consumers into Criticism, and most everything else after History goes into Organization and tactics? Hoovern (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I think that overall, this article is in a pretty decent place right now. It seems like all of these previous comments and critiques in this talk section have been taken into consideration and most have been implemented in order to fix up the article and bolster it. The sections are readable and thought-out, and in general read very professionally. Good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlasansky (talkcontribs) 06:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I would suggest explaining who Kozinets and Handelman are if they are referenced in your introduction. Perhaps add the first names and links to Wikipedia pages (if they exist). Also in the introduction, the sentence defining consumerism feels out of place. Perhaps move it or further connect it to the topic.

The first line of the Criticism section mentions "some activists" but needs to explain who or provide examples/sources. Aamartin27 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New content to add[edit]

I think that it would be beneficial for others to add more information on different famous consumer activism movements as well. While adding to these movements, adding celebrities who have been involved could also be beneficial as well as adding a section for how online movements have played out versus pre-internet times.

you can find more information from the following sources, such as information on trump-era consumer activism:

Reference List for Consumer Activism: --Fleming.sammy (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Well developed article. Several issues that may be addressed in order to improve the overall quality of the article are adequate citations throughout. Several are missing altogether and a good guideline is to cite each assertion. Also, when discussing Objects & Tactics there is a direct quote which I would review in order to ensure that it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Under the section History, the second sentence needs revision in order to read more clearly. Also who are Korinets & Handelman in the intro? They provide the definition, but why are they the authority on this? Lastely, under movements, several are listed, but I am unclear as to whether or not these are the only ones, the most important ones, etc. Perhaps some clarity in this regard would prove helpful to the reader. I do like the mention of several movements that i had forgotten about so I think the section is a relevant one to expand on. M LeFort (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]