Talk:TerraCycle

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2017 2018 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Confirmations of employees editing, adding disclosures

Hi all, I'm confirming that I know personally that this company had employees edit the page in the past, starting in 2006 and ending in 2014.

I know because I was solicited to work on it, on a referral at a wine enterprise I used to work at as an intern. I did not take the work. I did edit the page, which has been extensively modified since.

It's unclear who edited in the past with a connection the company, but I do see a list of names on the talk page and I don't believe editing was done in bad faith. My understanding is also that this company does not want to edit it. I've explained that the talk page, here, works fine, for edit requests, if any. Most edit requests seem to be along the lines of names and basic information updates.

I hope this helps. Raffybund (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Greenwashing allegations

A documentary from Danish national TV documents that large amounts of plastic are not recycled as TerraCycle promises, but burned in Bulgaria and Turkey. [1] There is a lawsuit against TerraCycle for not recycling what they promise. [2]. Somebody who knows more about this, please add a section, and watch that it is not reverted. Agnerf (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

German national TV made a documentary about „the recycling lie“ and they mentioned TerraCycle (at 51:00 min). The documentary team found plastic waste from Great Britian with TerraCycle shipping label in Bulgaria. They confronted TerraCycle founder with their findings but he didn‘t know something about this. The company later announced that this was a mistake from one of supplier in GB and that they solved that issue and get the waste back to GB and recycled it. [1] (documentary available up to 20th June 2023) Snowstormal (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

Two separate edits have been made recently, both attempting to delete/minimise properly-sourced content referencing criticism, and both very quickly after the information was added. These look like the work of either TerraCycle themselves or an image management agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.88.97 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You still need to follow sources, even if you work at BBC Panorama. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The whitewashing attempts continue... I'd suggest to any PR companies reading this that they go and read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

Public relations for the Panorama film remains rampant on this page. The quality of the writing remains poor. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that one of us is adding factual and relevant information that TerraCycle, specifically, might not like to be widely known, and the other keeps trying to delete it under various pretences, I think it should be clear to most people what's actually going on here. For the record, I have no connection to Panorama at all, and to reiterate, Wikipedia has a very specific policy on paid editing, which includes a disclosure requirement. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Not removing sources or facts, your writing is, simply, verbose and poorly written. See e.g. Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles writing clearly and concisely. Wikipedia isn't an advertisement for your film or a WP:SOAP soapbox for grandiosity about a third rate film. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

As stated, I have no connection to Panorama or the documentary. I also note that at the top of this talk page there are several editors of this page listed as having possible personal or professional connections to TerraCycle. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

New IP for attempts at criticism deletion today: 204.110.62.174. I note with interest that this IP address has no previous edits on Wikipedia, but has taken a sudden interest in deleting criticism on this article. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Another new IP trying to delete criticism: 75.104.70.181. No previous Wikipedia edits, same edit behaviour. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

81.187.88.97 is a SPA and markets for the Panorama team. Wikipedia isn't an advertisement billboard for poor writing and splashy prose about a film that mentions a company. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Another new IP (47.198.242.207) has appeared, attempting to again remove section headers. I note that the deletion of the headers resulted in the content appearing under "Products and services", where it clearly does not belong. This suggests that the editor is not interested in improving the article, but making conflict-of-interest edits to benefit TerraCycle. This IP also has the same two octets as a previous one (47.198), so is almost definitely the same person/entity. @47.198.242.207 - please do not delete these headers again, from this new IP or any other. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

81.187.88.97 you are obsessed with adding as much negative content as possible, putting the "panorama" so-called "documentary" over Wikipedia's interests. Already involved in an edit war, you shouldn't be allowed to edit this page further. 47.198.242.207 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As clear a case of projection as I've ever seen. 81.x is clearly not here marketing for the BBC. MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Marketing BBC Panorama

In 2022, BBC Panorama aired a documentary on TerraCycle's UK plastics recycling program, reporting that bales of packaging processed on behalf of TerraCycle were shipped to Bulgaria as waste instead of recycled in the UK.[44] This markets the film sufficiently. Move to the talk page to identify what, if anything else, is relevant. Marketing the film belongs, at best, on BBC's page, where it still would look like insignificant soap, beyond the above content, which states the relevant facts. The time allocated on the film also, appears to be 4-5 minutes discussion out of a full-length documentary. If there becomes enough sources on the film itself, it warrants its own page. WP:SOAP 47.198.237.50 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Moving this to the talk page as it's not in the source and promotes the film:

The same documentary addressed questions about the availability of collection points, the overall percentage of packaging collected (amounting to around 1% for some sampled types), and allegations that TerraCycle's plastics recycling schemes, and its associated marketing, amount to greenwashing that is delaying or hampering more effective action on plastics waste.

It's also filled with exciting buzzwords that don't mean anything.

47.198.237.50 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Panorama movie marketing

Panorama continues to bloat the page with poor writing and grandiosity.

Keep sources, but conciseness continues to be lacking. This page could use an extra set of eyes so it makes sense without movie producers attempting to use it to market their film. 75.104.70.181 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Creator of this and the "Marketing BBC Panorama" sections is the same entity - see edit behaviour/history of the relevant IPs: 47.198.237.50, 204.110.62.174 and 75.104.70.181. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

81.187.88.97 keep the sources, but using so many flowery adverbs doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal sentences

Moving to the talk page, we should keep this legal section:

In November 2021, TerraCycle and several consumer-goods companies in TerraCycle's recycling programs settled a lawsuit brought by Last Beach Cleanup, which alleged that product labelling failed to disclose limits to the total quantity of packaging that would be recycled via TerraCycle under the terms of participation. On settlement, the consumer-goods companies agreed to change labels and TerraCycle paid Last Beach Cleanup's legal fees.

It's clearly written and follows a reputable source, without meandering editorializing. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

@81.187.88.97 and 47.198.237.50: Stop edit warring and discuss. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

So from what I understand, 81.187.88.97 added a "Criticism" section constantly got removed because it includes an unsourced paragraph about the availability of collection points. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not correct. The editing entity is making that claim, presumably in the hope that other editors will take it on face value without checking the referenced source, but it is false. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. Anything to say to this, @47.198.237.50:? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

They continued. Let's bring this to WP:ANEW. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion again. I have also gone on record in the "suspicious edits" section above declaring that I have no connection to Panorama, the documentary, or any other connected entities. I have noted that the other editing entity across the listed three IPs (so far) has not made any such statements about a lack of conflict of interest. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I added the information about the lawsuit and BBC Panorama documentary originally. In response, within four hours the first of the three IPs deleted content that was in the referenced source, falsely stating that it was unsourced. My assertion is verifiable against the source material. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lol1VNIO If you check the edit history of the listed three IP addresses, it should be clear they are not good-faith edits. This is similarly demonstrated by their edit comments and commentary here - the edit comments frequently claim to do things like "reduce bloat" when they are in fact deleting information entirely, or claim that the information is "unsourced" when it is present in the referenced source material. A discussion with an entity making edits that look exactly like undisclosed paid/COI edits, with dishonest assertions like this, is going to be similarly dishonest. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, plenty to share. 81.187.88.97 exerts "ownership" of the page supporting low-quality writing that is hard to understand. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

While the content is more than warranted on the page, it's poorly written. Verbose. This isn't an edit war. The issue is the quality of the writing, which is not in English and difficult to follow. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s only the two of you who are reverting simultaneously since last week, making it an edit war. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 21:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is unfortunate then, that your edits somehow continue to be concentrated on minimisation and deletion of criticism, rather than stylistic improvements. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct. You added slop. I fixed it. You came in and went ballistic about owning the page to revert every little thing.

The sources you added are intact, however weak they are. Just write concisely and keep Wikipedia happy. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to forthcoming clarity-related edits that take due care to not water down or delete sourced content, to avoid any unfortunate appearance of conflict of interest. Those are below, line by line, on one of two verbose sections. You blurted out all sorts of - ing words in strings that just need clean up. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you also like to go on record about whether you have any financial or other connections to the subjects of the article, lawsuit or documentary? 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Thank you for identifying that you have a relationship to the documentary, though that was evident from your edits pointed right at it and attempt at marketing it. You're too obvious, though.

> Thank you for identifying that you have a relationship to the documentary

Nope. I stated the opposite.

You have failed to make any statement at all on connections to the subjects from your side. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This version makes more sense, since it says what the documentary actually provides:

In May 2022, the BBC aired a documentary reporting that bales of packaging collected and processed on behalf of TerraCycle were shipped to Bulgaria as waste instead of being recycled in the UK.

47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Writing in English

Pulling from the rapid fire ANEW page -- for one example:

In May 2022, the BBC aired a Panorama documentary investigating TerraCycle's UK plastics recycling scheme, reporting that bales of packaging collected and processed on behalf of Terracycle were illegally shipped to Bulgaria as waste instead of being recycled in the UK. Seeing this in the source but better prose would be:

In May 2022, the BBC aired a documentary reporting that bales of packaging collected and processed on behalf of Terracycle were shipped to Bulgaria as waste instead of being recycled in the UK. Not verbose. also "illegal" isn't in the source.

In response, TerraCycle claimed that the bales were accidentally shipped to Bulgaria after being loaded onto the incorrect vehicle by a trainee fork lift driver. TerraCycle also claimed the bales were subsequently tracked down and returned to the UK to be recycled. Not seeing this in the source

The same documentary addressed questions about the availability of collection points, the overall percentage of packaging collected (amounting to around 1% for some sampled types), and allegations that TerraCycle's plastics recycling schemes, and its associated marketing, amount to greenwashing that is delaying or hampering more effective action on plastics waste. Not seeing this in the source

47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Illegal" specifically addressed in my edit comment: Tom Szaky

specifically says in the documentary: "clearly a subcontractor had

broken their legal commitment with us", hence "illegal". No, sounds like a contract dispute. Illegal implies a crime. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have edited to remove the ambiguous reference to legality of the shipment. Good, makes sense 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The content of the following paragraphs is all present in the source:

2nd para sources:

"DTS said that the bales were accidentally loaded on to a truck heading to Bulgaria. They say that's down to human error on the part of a temporary forklift truck driver."

"The moment we found out about this, we immediately tracked it, found it, and at great expense recovered it and it's now being recycled locally in the UK." 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

3rd para, source content:

"nearest @TerraCycle UK is more than two hours away"

"The different collection points are between two and eight miles away"

"The collection point has closed down. It didn't say that on the TerraCycle website."

"Nearly 16.5 million wrappers have been recycled over the last ten years, according to TerraCycle, through the Pladis [owner of Jacobs, McVities and Carrs] scheme."

"McVities has said that 56 million packets of plain digestives and 71 million packets of chocolate digestives are consumed each year. And that's just these two products. So the Pladis scheme has collected the equivalent of 1% of wrappers from just these two products during that time."

"The worry is that by using models like TerraCycle, that they're using it to kick the can down the road, and that they can push the target further away, all the while continuing to benefit from the current practices, rather than making the deep changes that are needed." 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't support this statement though:

"In response, TerraCycle claimed that the bales were accidentally shipped to Bulgaria after being loaded onto the incorrect vehicle by a trainee fork lift driver. TerraCycle also claimed the bales were subsequently tracked down and returned to the UK to be recycled."

I wouldn't be so generous to the company, either. "accidentally" shipped? Claimed at great expense and returned?

and it remains that the last sentence, unsourced, lacks support.

Last, I'm not sure this warrants a "criticism" section. Where's the criticism, except on Wikipedia editorializing?

Best bet is to get to the point, state it clearly, and draw people to the supporting documentary.47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly stated that this is a claim.

Corrected attribution of trainee forklift driver explanation.

Last para content is backed by source material, as evidenced above for anyone who wants to see which one of us has actually viewed it. I'd assume that someone claiming that content is not in the source material would actually have checked the source material themselves. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You continue to ignore my suggestion that you make a statement on any connections you have to the subject material in this article, I note. Any reason why that would be? 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of factual, sourced, relevant content by CNMall41

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)

References

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)

Advert

@Hyperbolick:, I did some cleanup on the wording and removed the tag you placed. If there is any objection let me know and I will take a closer look. CNMall41 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Not especially watching the page, but your judgment is trustworthy. If you think it passes whatever muster it must, I'll abide that. What mostly caught my eye was it being used as a coatrack to inflate somebody's docu. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As I was the original contributor on the content on the documentary, "it being used as a coatrack to inflate somebody's docu" would be a reference to my edits. To restate from above, I have no association with the BBC, Panorama, or the documentary. My motivation for the addition of that content is not to inflate someone's documentary, it is to add a relevant third-party point of view on TerraCycle's operations from a reputable source. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Need not be employed by a proprietor to be enraptured by some piece of media to the point of wishing to insert disproportionate minutia from it. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2022 (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:

• DrinkPouch Backpack (14292644375).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of logo conception

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)

Greenwashing - Terracyce - BBC News

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)