Talk:TerraCycle

CNMall41: please explain why you continue to delete content relating to the 2021 lawsuit and a recent documentary. Specifically, the terms of the lawsuit settlement were incomplete, so I added back the other part of those, and secondly, your edit comment on your initial deletion of the paragraph on the documentary stated that is was "present elsewhere" in the article, which it was not (as I noted in my subsequent edit comment). 81.187.88.97 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't need to explain why I do anything. I think what you are asking is what relevant policy or guideline is being used as the reason for removal. First, I stated "the relevant" content is already in the page. You are attempting to add something about a subcontractor who picked up something they weren't supposed to???? That is not what Wikipedia is for. So again, as stated on my talk page, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NPOV. Putting something like that in the page would be like someone putting on American Airlines that they lost their luggage. And just because something is sourced doesn't mean it gets included on the page. See WP:ONUS. It's your job to make the case here and get WP:CONSENSUS if you feel it necessary. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

In my edit comments I have mentioned that cited policies/reasons do not seem to obviously apply to the editing actions, which is why I have asked for clarification on their citation in the edit comments. I have read all of the cited WP:* pages. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CNMall41#TerraCycle_content_deletion you described me as a WP:SPA using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

I'm not a SPA - I edit pages occasionally when I come across something inaccurate, or if I notice something that seems missing. In the case of this article, this was greeted with immediate apparently bad-faith deletion from accounts with little to no history, on a page that has a recorded history of WP:COI edits well before I came along. The RIGHTGREATWRONGS section you cite relates mostly to reliably sourced information, and there hasn't been any issue raised in relation to the last version present on the article, that I can see.

> First, I stated "the relevant" content is already in the page. You are attempting to add something about a subcontractor who picked up something they weren't supposed to????

The section that you deleted was relating to a documentary from a reputable source (BBC Panorama) investigating the effectiveness and practices of TerraCycle's UK recycling operations. Part of that investigation found that TerraCycle-collected waste was being shipped overseas as waste instead of recycled in the UK. TerraCycle's claim was that the blame lay with a subcontractor with whom they had contracted despite the subcontractor's history of fraud convictions. Most of this was clear in the earlier versions, however in attempts to address other (seemingly bad-faith) issues raised, sufficient context/relevance seems to have been lost.

Additionally, the section (originally) contained other information relating to lack of collection points preventing use of the scheme, extremely low rates of actual recycling of eligible material, and examination of the scheme being used to greenwash as a result.

In terms of the lawsuit, the two parts of the settlement were labelling changes and a supply chain certification program, the latter of which was removed for no clear reason that is apparent to me. Why was this? 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I read your contention, but what is your policy-based reason for WP:INCLUSION?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Following my response above on the documentary information and the additional part of the lawsuit settlement, what is your dispute with their inclusion? Per WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (my emphasis). I don't believe that "disputed" in this sense includes bad-faith disputes which have taken place by others in apparent attempts to suppress anything that isn't glowing coverage.

Can you also tell me which policy you're referring to with WP:INCLUSION, since that is a disambiguation page? The most obvious one, WP:Notability, applies to articles overall, not specific content within them.

If you feel like the content in its most recent state doesn't reflect the above summary of the documentary, I have no problem with adjusting it. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have stated my contention in edit summaries and above but will summarize one more time. The content you are trying to add violations WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and even the content you are adding back is not stated in the reference so you are editorializing. for WP:ONUS, it is in dispute by both of us at this point which is the reason for discussion and the need for consensus. There's nothing more I can add at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To split into two parts re. lawsuit and documentary:

1. Lawsuit: source includes "TerraCycle has ... agreed to ... implement a supply chain certification program", so that is referenced. Are you contending that its inclusion falls under any of the other policies you referenced?
2. Documentary:
   1. Sourcing: everything in the paragraph on the documentary is present in the source material. If there's something specific that you think is not, please tell me what it is and I will provide quotations from the source here.
   2. NPOV: from WP:NPOV: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Can you please tell me which of these criteria you feel is not being met?
   3. UNDUE: in an 18 paragraph article on the company, there is one paragraph that addresses a trade dress issue relating to TerraCycle's previous fertiliser business, and a single sentence that addresses a lawsuit about labelling. There is nothing at all currently about dissenting viewpoints about their program and its effectiveness. Can you clarify why a paragraph about a documentary from a reputable source providing such a view constitutes undue weight, in this context? 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Anything to add following this? 81.187.88.97 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What type of response are you looking for? My contention has already been stated in this thread and in edit summaries. The entry for the documentary is editorialized and is about a single incident that involved a subcontractor and the incident was correct. Again, do we go to a page for Pepsi or another company when they fail to make a delivery on time or an airline when they lose your baggage? No, that is not what Wikipedia is used for. The lawsuit is covered in appropriate weight already. There really isn't anything I can discuss at the time being. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the removal of the documentary content and the content on the other part of the lawsuit settlement falls under WP:POVDELETION.

It is also my belief that your analogy about personal Pepsi deliveries and personal airline baggage loss are not accurate characterisations in relation to inclusion of content about a documentary from a reputable source providing a researched point of view about the overall effectiveness, management and business practices of a company (and which was not solely about the shipping of waste overseas, which in itself had some issues relating to the subcontractor being engaged by the company despite a history of fraud convictions by its owner).

Please work with me on the specific points I have given above in response to your objections, with references to the numbering if possible for clarity, rather than reiterating previous statements. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for citing NPOV policy which states " The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias" which is the point I made above. Unfortunately I do not feel you understand what I am explaining which is why there is no need for me to discuss further at this point. There's at least one other editor who seems to support the removal of the content so without consensus I am not sure we can "get there."--CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The full context of your quotation is "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."

Please explain what you think constitutes editorial bias in the content, since that part of NPOV would not constitute a reason to exclude content referencing the documentary, only to the manner in which the content is written.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, can you clarify which other editor you mean? 81.187.88.97 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As you haven't responded on this, I have added back the content under discussion. Please do not delete it, and instead work with me here on specific issues relating to it as you see them. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not required to respond. I previously stated my contention, the WP:ONUS is on you for consensus, and you still seem to want to engage in edit warring. No more warnings will be given. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up about your comment about me suppressing. You are making a veiled accusation of WP:WHITEWASHing. If you think that's the case, feel free to take it up at the administrators noticeboard about my conduct. Just make sure you have WP:CLEANHANDS. Otherwise, please WP:AGF prior to making an accusation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the "others" in "bad-faith disputes which have taken place by others in apparent attempts to suppress" was not in reference to your edits. See other discussion on this page. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, why no complaints about the other content that I removed?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Should I be complaining about them? 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You know exactly what the question means. Coyness won't go very far here on Wikipedia for you. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep this constructive. My interpretation of your original question is that I would be complain about any edits to the article. If I'm understanding that correctly, I don't see why that would be. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

A quick note on the recent edit by 2a02:8108:423f:b4c4:a901:b4ce:9ac4:4021 - this is not me. An anonymous edit from a new source with no history, which is (very loudly) displaying hallmarks of sockpuppetry, would be counter-productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

CNMall41: Why is Terracycle's denial of the allegations made in the documentary being deleted, if not to suppress even the allegation bring posted on Wikipedia. It is like even the accusations against a company or individual are to be suppressed. Would you also delete the accusations against Donald Trump, for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaeterna (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what else to say that has not already been stated above. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RGW. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone have access to the Financial Times over the paywall? Would love a year on the conception of the logo.--Jacobin 357 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my English, I'm Brazilian. A few months ago I watched the BBC News documentary called "The recycling myth" (translated name) and noticed that there is no information about the topic here on the Terracycle Wikipedia page. So I came to this discussion page and saw that others had already made similar comments. Some made edits to the page, which were later deleted. What will be done? And how can we help? Everyone should know about the Greenwashing accusations involving Terracycle. 1mathp (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is "we?" You are more than welcome to state your contention here on the talk page to gain consensus as anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please review the previous discussion in order to avoid rehashing the previous arguments.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)