Talk:Oregon Bottle Bill

Comments

I'm indebted to a wonderful book, "Fire At Eden's Gate- Tom McCall and the Oregon Story" by Brent Walth for my contributions to this article (PDXer 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

If you're so indebted to it, why don't you cite it?65.100.48.231 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He gave almost enough information that anybody could provide an appropriate citation.... --Stratadrake 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the citation for the book. It should be correct.65.100.48.231 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Five cents to start?

This article claims 5 cents initially. I clearly remember the value being 3 cents initially... updated to 5 cents within the past 15 years. I'm marking it WP:FACT. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember pre-bottle bill deposits of $0.02 and $0.03. But of course, that was not the bottle bill. As far as I can remember, it only applied to brown glass beer bottles, and there was something about a raised ring around the shoulder of the neck meaning something about the type of deposit. —EncMstr (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Oregon Bottle Bill as originally passed (Chapter 745, Oregon Laws 1971) specified that the minimum deposit was 5 cents, except for beverage containers that were certified (by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission or OLCC) to be resuable by more than one manufacturer. The certified reusable bottles only required a 2-cent minimum deposit. OLCC certified an 11-oz stubby bottle (with the ring on the shoulder mentioned by EncMstr) and a 32-oz bottle that any brewery could use by just washing off the old paper label. By tradition the 11-oz bottle did have a 2-cent deposit, but the 32-oz bottle carried a 3-cent deposit. Neither bottle is currently in commercial use, but the law still stands and any brewery could use them if they want to and only charge a 2-cent deposit. In practice though, the advertising value of having your own special bottle (emblazoned with eagles or brand names or whatever) greatly exceeded the value of only requiring a 2-cent deposit instead of 5-cents, which is why nobody uses the standardized bottles anymore. This article needs to be updated with all the changes that happened in 2011, 2012, and 2013 thought, where Oregon will add juices, teas, sports drinks, and other non-alcoholic beverages to the law effective in 2018, and where the deposit is likely to double to 10 cents in 2017 unless the redemption rate improves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSpendelow (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Uncited quotations

I changed the quotation "I don't give a shit what the rest of the world..." to "I don't care what..." from this reasoning: If the quotation is not citable, it is just as well to either not mention it or to have a palletable version. I mean, we might as well have it written "I don't give a flying fuck what..." since nobody knows what it *actually* said. ---Saibot

The quote came from "Fire at Edens Gate". Unfortunately I loaned my copy out so I will have to wait to get the page number. I'm am going to revert back because I can vouch for the quote and Wikipedia is not censored. Cacophony (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Source

• http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/future_of_oregons_historic_bot.html

--Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oregon Bottle Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121015011152/http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110AP_Bottle_Bill.html to http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110AP_Bottle_Bill.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

April 2017 "10 cents" bottle return increase

The Oregon Bottle Bill increased from 5 cents to 10 cents in April 2017, and will expand to all beverage containers except distilled spirits in 2018. Source: OLCC New Revised Bottle Bill. Wufan10304 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Retailer Requirements

The last paragraph has some misleading or out-of-place statements. "Many of these facilities are located in remote industrial parks" - What does this have to do with the retailer's requirements, and how many is many? Also, there is an unsupported claim of increased trashing of redeemable containers. While this may happen, the referenced citations don't support, or even reference, that claim. Jklemmack 4 Jan 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oregon Bottle Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910085315/http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/factsheets/sw/ExpandedBottleBill.pdf to http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/factsheets/sw/ExpandedBottleBill.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910085315/http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/factsheets/sw/ExpandedBottleBill.pdf to http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/factsheets/sw/ExpandedBottleBill.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

I like the general idea of a shelf of soda for the image, but those items aren't in US packaging. How about a close up of the side of a bottle that has the OR 10¢ shown? Especially something that is covered by the Oregon law that most other states don't cover. Adam850 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Adam850, What do you think of the current lead image(s)? Also, I've removed File:Removal of containers from recycling bins without permission.jpg, which I don't find particularly helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam850:, well I changed it to what it is not for the reason you provided, but because of change in the law. It used to only cover carbonated beverages, but now a whole bunch of new things are covered. I included a few different kinds and marking on label as well as can tops. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that these images work better than a generic refrigerator display case of soda. Adam850 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Contents in context section

I've found that a lot of the contents in that section originates from Container Recycling Institute's Bottlebill.org page and references cited within their page. https://web.archive.org/web/20081005010417/http://www.bottlebill.org/about/mythfact.htm#src5 CRI is a self-proclaimed strong proponent of the Bottle Bill. This is a neutrality concern and some statistics maybe relevant for container deposit legislation but not to Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Water Dumping.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV

The article seems to present a point of view that is overwhelmingly against bottle deposit centers and the bottle deposit law. It does not provide necessary context and provides far too much granularity on controversial aspects of the centers in the wrong section. Sologkinz (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sologkinz:, My understanding is that a section titled "controversy" is generally best avoided, although it's only an essay WP:CRITICISM. The contents are properly sourced and it isn't overtly dependent on any single source and the sources are reliable sources, so I feel it passes NPOV. Graywalls (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kingofthedead:, the article should cover the subject with the same level of prominence as sources. There aren't many favorable coverage on the bottle bill and anything driven by BottleDrop's press release contents are of course unusable. If reliable secondary sources on the subject is primarily negative, the article should be presented in a primarily negative light. Graywalls (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You can find plenty of nuanced perspectives with positive aspects to the bill ex. [1], [2], [3], [4]. In addition the opposing sources are heavily biased to recent events regarding drugs and homelessness. I don't think this makes for a balanced article. Kingofthedead (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kingofthedead: The first two sources are quite densely packed with quotations "he said..." from people they interviewed. They're not really independent secondary source contents. What do you think we should add? Graywalls (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)