Talk:Greenwashing/Archives/2013

Costs?

Sorry, I do not get it: "Westerveld noted that, in most cases, little or no effort toward reducing energy waste was being made by these institutions—as evidenced by the lack of cost reduction this practice effected. Westerveld opined that the actual objective of this "green campaign" on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, increased profit." LACK OF? How can profits increase if costs do not decline? Is there a link to the original essay? It seems an awkward example anyway, since in the case of the towels, it's a win-win situation: less costs and less waste of energy/water. Pbeinbo (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Education Program Assignment

My small PR class of four students will be editing this page while learning about ethics in public relations. Here is our class page User:Drdemartino/PR Sum 2013. They are training now, and will be monitored, so please don't bite the newbies. Thank you Drdemartino (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Great! Let us know if you need assistance. DMacks (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of original research?

I went ahead and made that edit to remove what appears to be original research. Thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good removal. We (editors) cannot analyze companies' motives or apply potentially non-neutral labels to their actions. Instead, we can only report when other WP:RS call something "greenwashing". DMacks (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My thanks again to Biosthmors...and I'd like to add my appreciation for DMacks as well. You were both kind to the "newbie" in providing your feedback! USA Rox (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Biosthmors (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Value statement

I just spotted the sentence "Too many products claim they are 'green' by putting green leaves or recycling logos on their product to show consumers that the company is environmental friendly." It's not neutral, so I'll edit it. Biosthmors (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And the Evolution section generally

Generally speaking, I think the Evolution section is excessively wordy. I'm not sure why the people cited and the sources used are worthy of being so expansively used in an encyclopedia. Would one ever expect to see these sorts of things in a print version of Encyclopedia of Marketing, for example? I tend to think not.

I did take out this portion:

Many products claim they are "green" by putting green leaves or recycling logos on their product to show consumers that the company is environmental friendly. According to CBS News Canada, a markeplace investigation was done and have found the claims of the many products being green to be untrue. A good example of these products is Dawn Anti-bacterial soap, although beautifully labeled with baby seals and ducklings with the claim of saving wild life, that is however farther from the truth. Dawn Anti-Bacterial soap is made with anti bacterial agent called Triclosan known to be very toxic to the aquatic life.

"Known to be very toxic to aquatic life" is a problematic statement to make, sourced to the lay press. It starts getting into WP:SCIRS issues. At what concentrations, etc.? May I also remind us that we're talking about the Evolution section of the Greenwashing article. How does this paragraph have anything to do with that topic? Any thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Advertising

And I removed this, which to my mind can only be described as advertising—something Wikipedia is not (wp:notpromotion). Biosthmors (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)