Talk:TerraCycle/Archives/2018

Please stop deleting the Criticism section without discussion

@INeedToEdit:, please stop deleting the criticism section without discussion. The appropriate way to proceed would be discussion of why you think the section is inappropriate on this talk page. If you continue, I will have to report your behaviour both to WP:AN3 and to WP:COIN. Zarasophos (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Added Criticism Section

It's not very long, but at least TerraCycle isn't perfect anymore. I also cut out some of the worst marketing speech, but the paragraphs upon paragraphs of corporate history will probably still smother anyone trying to find useful information on here. --Zarasophos (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Zarasophos: Citations 42 and 43 in this section are not linked to any sources that are reachable. Can you fix that? Thank youUnicorn46 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Strange, the citations were broken. Fixed them! Zarasophos (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Zarasophos: I am a relatively infrequent editor and didn't realize that I shouldn't just delete a section, even if inaccurate. Thank you for letting me know. I will work to update this section with more timely and accurate information. Please note the person you mentioned hasn't worked at the company in more than two years. INeedToEdit (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)INeedToEdit (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a proposed revision to this section keeping much of what was there but adding new information.

When TerraCycle’s business model involved producing upcycled products, (Citation 43) critics said that consumers might think of the brands themselves as “green” or “eco-friendly” while that might not be the case.

TerraCycle has been criticized by some people for the relatively small volume of material it collects for recycling in comparison to the total amount of such packaging that is produced by manufacturers each year. (Will be citation 58). However, others note that in the US, after over 40 years of regulations requiring recycling of materials (glass, paper, rigid plastic and certain metals) where recycling is economically viable), recycling rates are under 35%. (Will be citation 56). In the cases of the waste streams that TerraCycle collects, there are no other recycling solutions. As there are no laws restricting use of non-recyclable products or requiring manufacturers to cover the costs of recycling disposable products and packaging, TerraCycle offers manufacturers and end users the opportunity to voluntarily participate in and fund their programs. It is worth noting that, across the 21 markets in which TerraCycle operates, its recycling fundraising programs have kept over four billion pieces of waste from landfill or incineration and raised over $21 million for schools, charities and non-profits. (Will be citation 57).

The fact that TerraCycle, a for-profit organization, relies on "over ten million" volunteer waste collectors to provide its services has also been a point of criticism. Some view this as a strength because these wastes are not generally recycled as it is cheaper to incinerate or send them to landfills. TerraCycle’s programs allow it to help cover those recycling costs. The volunteers who help collect and sort the waste, prevent more waste from ending up in landfills or incinerators. INeedToEdit (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

INeedToEdit you have a WP:COI and WP:PAID, this you admitted to on your own talk page. What this also means is you do not make edits to this article. You can discuss them here on this talk page and suggest proposed changes but don't make the changes yourself. If you feel a discussion hasn't been had and you wanted your changes made, then you can post a request for comments to get more editors involved. NZFC^(talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@NZ Footballs Conscience. Thank you for your feedback. As you said, I did disclose my connection with the company as required here and I did provide suggested edits on the talk page as required here and waited for several weeks over a month for comments, which were not forthcoming; so I made the changes based on the fact that there were no objections on the talk page.

Are there other requirements that I am not aware of, in addition to disclosing my affiliation (which I did) and posting the changes on the talk page prior to adding to adding them to he page (which I did)? Perhaps, the next thing is to propose a RFC, as you suggest, because I am trying to update inaccurate and outdated information and when the changes get reverted back, that is staying on there.173.161.179.69 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Criticism Section

There is a clear consensus to remove these paragraphs from the "Criticism" section:

1. "TerraCycle also keeps the branding prominent on their recycled products.[44] This has raised concern that consumers could think of the brands themselves as "green" or "eco-friendly" while the product is probably only "upcycable", not fully recyclable. TerraCycle products are not recycable any further."
2. "It is worth noting that, across the 21 markets in which TerraCycle operates, its recycling fundraising programs have kept over four billion pieces of waste from landfill or incineration and raised over $21 million for schools, charities and non-profits."

The consensus is to retain the first paragraph, which is sourced to The Guardian. Owing to lack of discussion, there is no consensus about whether to keep or delete the paragraph sourced to the French newsletter criticizing the company for not doing enough recycling.

Some RfC participants suggested expanding the "Criticism" section while one RfC participant recommended moving a paragraph in the "Criticsm" section to somewhere else in the article and then deleting the "Criticism" section for being a coatrack.

These suggestions can be implemented through bold editing and discussion.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some of the information in the criticism section is outdated and inaccurate. I corrected content on the talk page almost two months ago with no comments. Can the inaccurate information be replaced?INeedToEdit (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi INeedToEdit sorry I did mean to come back to this and look over what you wanted change. I do not some of the criticism second is unsourced and could probably be removed. I'll re-read over your stuff and the sources when I have a bit more time and see what and if I agree with it. Lastly, just because something is outdated doesn't mean it should be removed if it doesn't add too much weight to the article. Instead it would be better to say at the time they were critisiced for so and so but since then blah blah blah with new sources. NZFC^(talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@NZFC. I appreciate your helpful feedback. I look forward to your future input.INeedToEdit (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

INeedToEdit, I have taken what was written before and added in what is felt was relevant from what you wrote about. What do you think?

TerraCycle has also been accused of "greenwashing" (marketing with a false promise of eco-friendliness). One perceived problem of this, is the missing incentive for companies to stop using non-recyclable packaging. Since TerraCycle takes on the waste for free whereas otherwise the companies would have had to pay to dump it, there is no incentive for them to change. This also discourages approaches of making companies fiscally responsible for their waste, similar to European Extended producer responsibility laws (TerraCycle spokesman Albe Zakes has said that the company thinks of itself as "a privatized version of EPR laws").[43]

TerraCycle also keeps the branding prominent on their recycled products.[44] This has raised concern that consumers could think of the brands themselves as "green" or "eco-friendly" while the product is probably only "upcycable", not fully recyclable. TerraCycle products are not recycable any further. Remove as is referenced by a blog

TerraCycle has been criticized by some people for the relatively small volume of material it collects for recycling in comparison to the total amount of such packaging that is produced by manufacturers each year. (Will be citation 58 and 45) However, others note that in the US, after over 40 years of regulations requiring recycling of materials (glass, paper, rigid plastic and certain metals) where recycling is economically viable), recycling rates are under 35%. (Will be citation 56 and 46

In the cases of the waste streams that TerraCycle collects, there are no other recycling solutions. As there are no laws restricting use of non-recyclable products or requiring manufacturers to cover the costs of recycling disposable products and packaging, TerraCycle offers manufacturers and end users the opportunity to voluntarily participate in and fund their programs. Is this sourced

It is worth noting that, across the 21 markets in which TerraCycle operates, its recycling fundraising programs have kept over four billion pieces of waste from landfill or incineration and raised over $21 million for schools, charities and non-profits. (Will be citation 57). Not relevant to the section probably better under one of the others like Corporate identity or Corporate Affairs NZFC^(talk) 07:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on criticism section

• Summoned by bot - I made a few edits to the lede, and fixed a source. I read the criticism section and rather than edit it, will just comment here. I'd change the first section to say something like "In 2014, UK daily The Guardian criticized the company ...". There's only one source of this particular criticism. I would delete the second criticism paragraph, since the text doesn't match the source,[[1]] and it's a blog. Specifically, the text says there's criticism of the TerraCycle logo, yet the source says nothing about the logo. I'm a little more mixed on the third paragraph, but leaning delete. It's sourced with a French newsletter on waste management that criticizes the company for not doing enough recycling. That's a fairly common criticism of any recycling program - is it enough to call out here? Would we criticize the Gates Foundation for not ending diseases faster? I'm not so sure. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agree on NZFC's proposal. I would also remove the blog sourced material, the rest seems properly sourced. Dryfee (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Since this section is referring to the RfC, I went ahead and converted it to a subsection. Partially revert me if I'm in the wrong (don't remove my comment!). -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with NZFC with minor changes I agree with NZFC's above editing, especially the removed areas. Of the three remaining paragraphs, I would also remove the third, unsourced paragraph. In the first paragraph, the opening sounds like it a continuation of a previous thought (TerraCycle has also been accused..) so that should change, probably to TimTempleton's suggestion of mentioning the source. Lastly, I would wiki-link greenwashing. StarHOG (Talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• I still can't make sense of the first and longest paragraph of the "Criticism" section. I may post here again when I'm feeling stronger. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I feel stronger now. What's clear after re-reading the article and some of the sources is that this company isn't really about recycling; it's successfully running a marketing franchise. Businesses change their direction as they figure out what they're good at. That's how things are, it's not a criticism. What Wikipedia should be concerned with, as always, is what reputable third-party sources have said about the business. INeedToEdit's removal of referenced criticism is unjustified, as is their addition of unreferenced commentary on the company's actions. So, expand the section. Maproom (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree with changes and think this section has to be increased. There are more examples of criticism such as this for example: https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/02/07/financial-document-offers-deeper-view-terracycle/. Somebody needs to be spend some time on this. Another thing I noticed with a quick search is that TerraCycle is supported by big marketing companies such as this one https://hootsuite.com/resources/case-study/terracycle. This is great but it clouds a picture. Try reducing some other sections and try adding more to criticism section. Summoned by bot Gpeja (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move the middle paragraph somewhere else in the article then delete the section. (invited by the bot) Sections such as "criticism" are wp:coatracks and distort the threshold for inclusion. In this case 2/3rds of the section has nothing to do with the company (other than being directed at them,) just with recycling of that type in general. (references to paragraphs and content are based on circa this moment) North8000 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.