Talk:Rainforest Alliance

message: The introduction looks like it has been copied and pasted from the alliance`s website. I didn`t check if it actually were, but either way it should be rewritten.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.15.221.172 (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is a dump of one page after another from the website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.170.210 (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The Rainforest Alliance logo is not mentioned as a marketing tool abused by large organisations to greenwash customers into thinking that their products are ethical. If the article is neutral, then it needs to be mentioned that somewhere along the line the 'rainforest alliance' logo is a significant marketing tool to promote the item. If an item is 'rainforest alliance' certified, then it needs to be stated that not ALL the ingredients are. emphasis goes to the Galaxy chocolate bar scandal, where only a small amount of the chocolate bar is rainforest alliance 'certified' but this is not mentioned. a significant portion of the bars ingredients damage rainforests considerably. For a product to qualify as 'Rainforest alliance' certified only part of its ingredients need to be responsibly sourced. The abuse of this rule is of large corporations who own many if not all brands of a product. Rainforest alliance is not an effective corporation but is one that has reached the headines for all the wrong reasons and for the article to be neutral and not biased it needs to be mentioned in the article.
>> There is a whole criticism section that deals with this- did you actually read the article before posting this? Apart from that, most of what you're saying is factually incorrect. E.g. 'the Galaxy chocolate bar scandal, where only a small amount of the chocolate bar is rainforest alliance 'certified' but this is not mentioned.' The Galaxy bar is clearly labelled to show that it's the cocoa in the bar that's certified, not the whole bar. Go look at a bar if you can. 
BTW this is common to all standards including Fairtrade (another 'marketing tool abused by large organisations to greenwash customers into thinking that their products are ethical') (KitKat is Fairtrade certified but uses the same palm oil as Galaxy http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/forests/kit-kat-give-orang-utan-break-20100317 ) Mtl1969 (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitkat and Galaxy are owned by the same company (mars) who use the easily identifiable 'Rainforest Alliance' symbol to associate ethical origin of their product. this isnt the case and in order for the article to be neutral it needs to emphasise the interests of the multinationals (financial) as well as the (prehaps genuine) interests of the Rainforest Alliance. If the Rainforest Alliance was truly an ethical organisation it would not endorse a product on such a large scale (tv advertising)  when such a small portion of the product (cocoa) is ethically sourced ('as checked by the RA'). The Rainforest Alliance is used to sell chocolate bars to ethically-conscious people but aside from the truth it hid a lot of lies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.205.30 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainforest Alliance as a Marketing Tool 

message: I have slimmed down the main intro to remove the bits that read like a corporate press release, and just leave in the facts. Added the phrase "published aims" as the intro assumed everything had been achieved. Everything up to the "Criticisms" section (which seems fairly neutral now) is still subjective, and smacks of corporate copy-and-paste. No time to make the necessary changes, but have put POV tag in until this is resolved. Basically, if it reads like a press release then it can't be neutral.
--Farnishk (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reads like a Press Release

message: Gibson was among the first to use Smartwood for guitars. Did they inadvertently misjudge the population of Banara wood available, and that’s what lead to Gibson producing these in such small numbers? I thought I saw a news article about the issue coming up, and that's why the Banara wood Les Paul guitars are so much more expensive than the others when you can find them, even that species of Banara was possibly endangered.
Did the rainforest alliance ever comment?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.118.135 (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with Banara wood

message: I removed the name of Unilever from the Fairtarde Lite crticism in the introduction. It is simply impossible that crticism was made in 2004 to Unilever in regard to Rainforest Alliance, given the fact that Unilever only launched Rainforest Alliance product towards the end of 2007. I cannot vouch the same for the other companies so i've left the references. 
There is a clear pattern here of a certain contributor who also contributes heavily tothe Fairtrade pages and whose sole aim is to make comparisons between Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade, seeing Fairtrade as the golden standard. I think it would be fairer to judge each system on its merits and acknowledge that they can co-exist, rather than act like they're competiting Mtl1969 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased view-not suported by facts

message: I added references and tried to take the sales-y tone out of the timeline. If you have ideas for how to do the references differently, let's discuss.Greenbegood 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: I've deleted the SNS sentence in the criticism section b/c the complaint referenced was not upheld by the Swedish Consumer Ombudsmun, so I mentioning the case is a moot point. For more information, see this link: 
--SanDiegoLocal 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SNS Complaint

message: I've noticed a few spots in the entry where the citations are rather vague. In certain places it says things like "opponents say," or "some have said," when in fact only one person has voiced a particular criticism. I'm going to go through the page and attempt to clarify the sources of these statements, and to add citations in spots where none exist.
--SanDiegoLocal 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I deleted the comparison to Fairtrade in the introductory section b/c it doesn't cite the original source of the "Fairtrade lite" critique. If someone can establish the original source, I can see the validity in keeping the criticism. Otherwise, you're referencing an article that essentially says, "some have called the Rainforest Alliance Fairtrade Lite." We need to know the "who" before it's a credible statement.--SanDiegoLocal 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the intro to the Rainforest Alliance entry contain a comparison to an entirely different organization with a different mission and different goals? This is absurd.
Vermonterinexile 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rainforest Alliance has repeatedly tried to mislead consumers into thinking it is fair trade (see http://www.beveragedaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=73252-mcdonald-s-fair-trade-coffee) - I think comparisons between the different certification systems are not only interesting to have, but necessary.152.2.62.44 17:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You actually believe that an inaccurate newspaper headline is grounds to believe that the organization is purposely misleading consumers? The organization would have zero ability to  control what headlines are assigned to articles. Your sourcing is entirely inadequate.
Vermonterinexile 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We all devote some time on Wikipedia trying to bring in our own perspective and improve the articles here. As I said before, all the contributions I've made on the RA page were made in good faith and I truly believe make the article more interesting and complete. As for the fair trade page, yes there are criticisms - even in the lead paragraph, please see it for yourself. Actually, there are so many criticisms I even created an extra page for them on top of that, see fair trade debate. And who are you to criticize my impartiality, all your contributions have been to Unilever-related articles and topics... Vincentl 11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vincent1, i did not name any user in particular- so i cannot have been critisising your impartiality. If you feel that I am addressing you, that says more about how you see yourself. Also, I cannot see any criticism in the Fairtrade certification page(one word, not 'Fair Trade') introduction, which is the one i was referring to. i have refrained from making edits in any of the pages as i prefer to reach consensus first on the discussion page- no need to get offended. Also, if you look at my contributions you will see that your allegations that i only contribute to Unilever articles are simply not trueMtl1969 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I just added criticism sections on the Fairtrade page (including the lead). In the future, please assume good faith (WP:GF) and instead of bashing the work of editors, please try to make constructive comments and suggestions. Thank you Vincentl 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight: comparisons to Fair Trade 

message: Mcdonald's UK have switched to rainforest alliance coffee and theres a lot of info on it on their Make up your own mind site. Can we add this info to the article. I am unsure how to phrase it. Magic Pickle 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mcdonald's UK

message: The edits by 65.182.28.194 seem a bit suspicious to me... the Criticism section was deleted and replaced by some very Pro-Rainforest Alliance texts. 
Next time, before deleting anything, please discuss changes on the discussion page. Quebecois1983 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 65.182.28.194 has once again deleted the Criticism section - I flagged the article for NPOV. I can't revert the deletion forever... anybody has any suggestions? Quebecois1983 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious edits 

message: The definition of the Rainforest Alliance cites a criticism by a relatively small publication in the third line that makes the entry lopsided and biased against this organization. The citation is also the first in a list of many that contain praise and non-opinionated facts about what we do. That criticism was made by someone with an apparent bias and is given undue prominence. For example, the second article cited as backup for the criticism also contains the opposite opinion: "Some would argue that the fair-trade model itself is flawed, and that the Rainforest Alliance offers a better solution to help coffee farmers escape the poverty trap," which helps prove that the criticism, presented alone and with such prominence, misrepresents the reality of press coverage and praise we receive.
It is also biased in its narrow-minded focus on our agriculture program. While it's true we are one of the biggest certifiers of agricultural products in the world, we certify far more area of forestland for sustainable forest management than agricultural land -- more than 40 million hectares of forests compared to nearly 300,000 hectares of farms. We also do extensive work in sustainable tourism. Therefore, a criticism that compares Rainforest Alliance to Fair Trade is far less important in understanding what is the Rainforest Alliance since Fair Trade does not certify forests or work in tourism, so it should not be so highly placed in the definition.
My colleagues have tried to edit the definition but were countered by one or more people with a bias against this organization and apparent sympathies with Fair Trade.
I would appreciate it if the criticism of the Rainforest Alliance would be given its due prominence -- either toward the end of the definition or erased completely, considering it comes from only one article, hundreds of articles praise the work we do, and agriculture is only one of our three programs -- an unfavorable comparison to Fair Trade has nothing to do with sustainable forestry or tourism.
This year to date we have tracked hundreds of articles that are about us or mention us and few to none of those compare us unfavorably to Fair Trade. Rather, they simply talk about the conservation work we do. I made a short list of article for which I could find their links, which I will paste here:
From Popular Mechanics, “Timber Racket,” May 07 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4215504.html)
“Rainforest Alliance is one of a number of groups that track and certify legitimately logged lumber in order to provide consumers with a more informed choice. The group’s SmartWood program is the leading certifier for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a nonprofit organization that runs the gold standard of sustainable-forestry certification systems.”
From Audubon magazine, “Knock on Wood,” Nov-Dec 06 (http://audubonmagazine.org/audubonathome/audubonathome0611.html)
"A scattering of small U.S.-based furniture manufacturers have very recently begun to take an important new step themselves. In the autumn of 2005 the Rainforest Alliance joined with South Cone’s Gerry Cooklin to organize a first-ever meeting in High Point, North Carolina, a traditional center for U.S. furniture making and wholesaling, aimed at establishing a green furniture manufacturer’s advocacy group. By early 2006, 17 small furniture manufacturers had formed the new Sustainable Furniture Council."
From Irish Independent, “Fair Play,” 2/23 (no link available)
"...the Rainforest Alliance, an ecologically minded alternative to Fairtrade. Formed in 1986 in New York, their remit is to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods. Part of their work involves certifying farms that meet their rigorous ethical and ecological standards. The produce of the farm is then stamped with the Rainforest Alliance logo and thus the consumer can be assured that they are buying ethical and quality goods."
From Financial Times, "Rainforest Alliance: Activists invoke business ethic" May 04, 2005
(http://search.ft.com/iab?queryText=Rainforest%20Alliance&aje=true&id=050504006470&location=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2FftArticle%3FqueryText%3DRainforest+Alliance%26aje%3Dtrue%26id%3D050504006470&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3DRainforest+Alliance)
"Recent campaigns such as the anti-sweatshop protests against big clothing manufacturers have shown that activists can push companies into changing business practices. But once an issue has been highlighted, the next step is not as clear. This is often where the Rainforest Alliance, a New York-based conservation group, steps in.
"The Rainforest Alliance has developed a system of auditing and certification to overhaul, for example, the way that crops and timber are produced, or the way that tourism is managed. It now operates in more than 50 countries, working with farmers, governments, businesses, scientists and local communities."
From Associated Press (reprinted in the link here on the Chicago Business site and in dozens of major world media) "McDonald's UK to sell eco-friendly coffee" (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=23398)
"(AP) - Fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. announced Monday it would sell only eco-friendly coffee at its 1,200 restaurants in the United Kingdom and Ireland. 
The Kenco coffee, sold by Kraft Foods Inc., is certified by the conservation organization Rainforest Alliance — a distinction that comes from products grown on farms that meet the alliance's standards for environmental and worker protection."
Dozens or more than 100 media around the world published stories recently highlighting the Rainforest Alliance's role in helping Scholastic source sustainably produced paper for the final Harry Potter book. This is one:
USA Today "Hefty final Harry Potter book will go easy on trees," 3/20 (http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-03-20-potter-green_N.htm)
"Scholastic announced Tuesday that it had agreed with the Rainforest Alliance, a conservation organization that works with the business community, on tightened environmental standards for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, coming out July 21 in the United States with a first printing of 12 million."
Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rainforest Alliance might deserve a little flak for its some of its programs.  It would appear from its success a certifing agricultral goods to be raisng environmental awarenss, and I'm sure it is. However, in reviewing and researching RFA I can find almost no reference to how many times corps. or producers have lost their certifications for being out of compliance. Very suspicious. It makes them at least appear to be a semi-rubber stamp for industry. Solarking 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition is biased against the Rainforest Alliance 

message: The criticism in the second paragraph is redundant. It is already written in the same words in the designated criticism section. It should be erased from the general overview of Rainforest Alliance and retained only in the criticism section. Leaving it as is has sabotaged the definition, obviously ruining its neutrality.Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Lead policy, "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies" - the second paragraph describing the criticism therefore should stay. In the future, please assume good faith (WP:Good faith) and refrain from using words such as "saboteurs" in discussions on the talk page. Thank you, Vincentl 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vincent1, note that a line from a narrowly distributed newspaper like the Manchester Evening News does not deserve a place in the lead to this definition when weighed against the hundreds of other articles published this year alone that praise the Rainforest Alliance, as I noted in the entry above. The article you cited to back up the second criticism in the lead, from the Guardian, also says the Rainforest Alliannce model is superior to that of Fairtrade, a fact you do not mention. Therefore, those criticisms do not amount to the "most important points" of the article, but rather they are trivial. You might also notice that the Fairtrade definition does not suffer criticisms in the lead, another indication that our definition is unorthodox and biased against us.Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with you that a little too much prominence might be given to RA criticism - I am however reluctant to cut anything from the existing page since these are all valid points backed up by credible sources. What I do suggest however is adding content: both to the lead and to the article. Writing a neutral history of the organization might be a good start. Flesh out the article a little more and the criticism will not be as nearly as prominent.Vincentl 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Criticism -- It's Cited Twice 

message: There is no citation to back up the claim in the "further criticism" section to back up the claim that "opponents claim Rainforest Alliance standards lack strict guidelines on child labor." There is, however, a link to the standards that clearly state our rules about child labor: no children under 15 can work. Making up imaginary criticisms and couching them in the phrase "opponents claim" has undermined the neutrality of this definition. These baseless criticisms ultimately hinder our work to improve the quality of life for thousands in developing countries and conserve forests and wildlife. Saboteurs of this page, please consider that fact above the more trivial goal of promoting your favorite competing certifier. 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I removed the reference to the issue. Again, in the future, please assume good faith before insulting contributors to the page.Vincentl 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar to the child labor issue, the minimum implenentation of standards 'criticism' was not cited except to link to the Rainforest Alliance standards page, which delinated standards not criticism, so I moved up. Vermonterinexile 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imaginary Opponents Are Not Valid 

message: Should we compare fair trade as a "light green peace"? We better should be punishing companies, that does not care about the environment & people; instead of criticizing between certifications, who (to varying degrees) are concerned about the future of all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhojeda (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparissons 

message: I have made a recent change to the introduction, as it seemed pretty redundant to me considering the sections following the introductory paragraph goes on to explain these points anyway. From my point of view, it's almost as if it is trying to put forward a "positive" point of view of loads of bullet points of the good things the Rainforest Alliance is doing, and reeks of advertising ploys. Either way it seems to big as an introduction in comparison to other articles, and isn't very easy on the eyes. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Ronius (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction too bloated 

message: The terms Fairtrade and Fair Trade Certified are very specific to one organization, overseen by the FLO International, and their certification body, FLO-CERT.
Question: Is Rainforest Alliance considered an alternative to Fairtrade? Do other certifications with similar social justice goals, from totally separate organizations, exist?  
RK (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Rainforest alliane a competitor to Fairtrade certification? We need a list of similar groups 

message: Please note the following.
From Fair Trade's website, "We are 24 organizations working to secure a better deal for producers. From our headquarters in Bonn, Germany, we set international Fairtrade standards and support Fairtrade producers."
Fine.  They are not a non-profit, whatever they are.
The mission statement of Rainforest Alliance, which is a non-profit organization, is "Rainforest Alliance works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior."  RA is clearly concerned with far more than Fair Trade is concerned with.  Nothing about setting international Fairtrade standards.  They have set their own standards for the Rainforest Alliance certification, as a means to their wider goals so-stated.
RA is reviewed on a prominent "independent charity evaluator," web site as a 4-star (highest) organization.  If one checks out the details of their report on RA, we find that ~94% of RA's expenses are devoted to Program Expenses.  As one who uses this site frequently to get a non-biased overview of non-profits, I can testify that 94% going to Program Expenses is a VERY high rate compared to the average non-profit.  (The other 6% goes to the Administrative and Fundraising categories.)
I really have to agree with the RA representative who weighed in above ("Definition is biased against the Rainforest Alliance").  Making a big deal about comparing RA's specific certification methods, or its certification label, with those of Fair Trade really seems beside the point. It seems to me that there is no place for this issue in the introductory section, that it deserves no more than a brief mention in the "Controversy" section, something like "Some claims have been made that the Rainforest Alliance certification has a lower bar than the Fair Trade certification.", with appropriate references and possibly some discussion.
(Isn't this almost like stating in Walter Johnson's intro paragraph that "Well, though he was a great pitcher, he really couldn't compare as a hitter with Ty Cobb."?  Maybe a bad analogy, but "apples to oranges" does hit the nail on the head I think.)
By the way, from Audubon magazine, March-April 2011, pp. 32ff, other organizational labels which are used by food producers include Food Alliance, Demeter Biodynamic, Bird Friendly and FishWise.  None of these labels/organizations are exactly like either RA or Fair Trade, but they are all attempting to help the consumer make food-wise and (possibly) ethical choices in the food store.  Mesmer1944 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of RA to Fair Trade??  Apples to oranges. 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The criticism section says that RA shouldn't be criticised for not having "minimum pricing" requirements, because "organic" doesn't have these requirements either and it doesn't get this criticism.  The problem with that response is that "organic" says something specific, more similar to "low fat".  No one expects "organic" or "low fat" to imply that the farmers are unionised.
RA is more like Fair trade because they're both vague, general certifications.  Ethical certifications.  Comparing the two is so normal, RA even published their own comparison (but it's not very useful; it just talks about goals rather than substance).
To properly compare them, we have to look at what they do cover, and when.
Just scraping the surface, it seems Fair trade covers all the topics of RA, plus some more, and Fair trade have higher requirements for certifying a whole product (e.g. bar of chocolate), while RA lets a product be certified if just one of the main ingredients is RA certifiable (e.g. the cocoa is RA but the sugar and palm oil aren't, but the bar still gets the RA logo).
Does anyone know of websites that look at the policies of these organisations (rather than just repeating and comparing what each claims on its website)?
Here's one:
* Fair Expectations: Rainforest Alliance v. Fairtrade
. Gronky (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to compare RA to Fair trade 

message: The user Mel1277 added in March 7 2014, five new paragraphs to the critisism and responses section, all of which are in favor of fairtrade alliance. Only one of the mentioned reports has a source, and that source is hosted on the official rainforest alliance webpage. I suggest either removing these sections, or adding relevant sources and also balance the section (I assume there are reports reaching other resulst). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.174.171 (talk) 03:17, November 19, 2014
:It looks like most of the content you are referring to has been removed. Thank you for the report. Mamyles (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rainforest Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140326114146/http://sanstandards.org/sitio/sections/display/3 to http://sanstandards.org/sitio/sections/display/3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061115093034/http://www.rainforest-alliance.org:80/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf to http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.transfairusa.org/content/about/board.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Rainforest Alliance. 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/20061115093034/http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf to http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion