Talk:Consumer culture

Untitled
Consumer culture is talking about the spending of the consumers money on material goods to attain a lifestyle in a capitalist economy. Thus the affects on the nation and it's people from this culture.

Consumer culture theory talking about the study of consumption choices and behaviors from a social and cultural point of view, as opposed to an economic or psychological one. This is more of a scientific viewpoint since it is explaining the theory behind it.

Although they are connected I believe they should still be separate pages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Campaigner8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge v PROD
The same editor PRODded this article while adding a merge tag to the consumer culture theory article. While I agree that there is duplication between the two, there's also a good bit here that's not covered in the other article (which itself isn't that great). For copyright reasons if nothing else, you can't merge and then deleted, so the pair of recommendations are inconsistent. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I was torn between a PROD, as it's far too much like an essay, or a merger. This article needs changes, per WP:NOTESSAY. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly. But I don't think the content is unusable, so I think merge is much better. At the very least, a redirect and a note on that talk page of consumer culture theory pointing to this. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merge, as Ian is correct that there is substance which can be moved. Platypus is also correct that this current article reads like an essay.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose a merge as per following references: - Ostergaard, Per, and Matthias Bode. “Is Consumer Culture Theory Research or Realpolitik? A Sociology of Knowledge Analysis of a Scientific Culture.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 15, no. 5, 2016, pp. 387–395. DOI 10.1002/cb.1574 - Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture (2011) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994248 - The SAGE Handbook of Consumer Culture (2018) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473998803 Print ISBN 9781473929517 | Online ISBN 9781473998803 Østergaard and Bode clearly shows that the phenomenon of CCT is worth an article of its own and should not be confused with consumer culture in general. More references on CCT is easily found by going through their article and searching for "Consumer Culture Theory" in articles listed in scientific library cataloges. SAGE Publications are able to publish both an encylopedia and a handbook at prices well above the usual handbooks shows that consumer culture is well worth writing extensively about. Sage has a reputation to take care of and when they spend good money on producing these books and expect their customers to do the same I conclude that consumer culture is well worth an article in Wikipedia. - The fact that this is not reflected in the present content of this article shows a need for rewriting of this article. --ツツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 20:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason for adding unencyclopedic tone flag
This article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. For example, "Consumer culture has provided affluent societies with peaceful alternatives to tribalism and class war, it has fueled extraordinary economic growth. The challenge for the future is to find ways to revive the valid portion of the culture of constraint and control the overpowering success of the all-consuming twentieth century." seems POV. It also has some clunky/ungrammatical wording, and (nitpick here) violates the conventions on capitalisation, etc. Eeidt (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Several opinion statements without evidence to back it up. Ryanlemminglee (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)