Talk:Electronic waste

message: I have added the  tag since recent (unreffed) edits quote the US EPA. This article is about info relating to global ewaste. There is an Electronic waste in the United States article for US specific info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing a need for the tag, so I'm removing it. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysemic bias towards the US 

message: I've asked for the subject article (which I'm still adding to bit by bit) to be Peer Reviewed for both direction and hopefully Featured List status.  Please comment? Simesa (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: There is a companion internationally-oriented article. Simesa (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, now cite.  Though I should point out your focus here is primarily on policy and regulation and not on any empirical work as to whether the items in question are toxic, which is what is really called for here.  References to public perception and government policy are really only valid (as regards wikipedia content anyway) for detailing those subjects themselves.  Too speak to whether the items and the substances within them are potentially hazardous (as many of them undoubtedly are), we have to cite credible experts from the relevant fields associated with that question.  In that regard, you're going to be facing an uphill battle, because, from what little I've seen, the work is rather one-sided on the conclusion that many devices have significant environmental concerns as regards their disposal.  But if you can find references to the contrary, then I don't see why the caveat can't stay.  As stands though, I don't think there is a single reference which is supporting it staying in.  But again, both sides need to supply more appropriate sources.  Or, since this discussion is rather old, I suspect I will be. Snow (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review of [[List of personal computer refurbishment and recycling centers in the U.S.]] 

message: Toxic Metals Tied to Work in Prisons by LESLIE KAUFMAN published October 26, 2010, excerpt ... 
99.181.141.143 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a Wikipedia account and be bold WP:BOLD.  It seems like suitable material but it has to be paraphrased. Alatari (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NYT]] resource 

message: ::::Hello!  I am doing a research paper and am considering  as my topic `How electronics have reduced our critical thinking'.  I am wondering if any studies have been done on this subject, or if there is any credible authority on said subject.  My thought process goes to how, at least in America (from my own experience in watching and listening to my dad), we used to take items that were broken and opened them up to try to fix them and make them last longer.  We no longer do so, but rather, we throw them away because we don't even want to TRY to troubleshoot any problems(we don't want to face our troubles, just get rid of them; even our relationships?  Hhhmmm.), we even toss relatively new devices for the "latest and greatest" (which opens up discussion on our greed).  Any and all GOOD input would be appreciated.         P.S.   I need any data/input ASAP......research paper due in late November and I need time for edits and citations.   THANK YOU!  Dcox12 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  electronics and reduced critical thinking? 

message: Perhaps the recycling plant set up in 2008 by Feng Wang can be discussed. See Feng Wang bio, Feng Wang's plant briefly discussed in this paper
109.130.211.111 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recycling plant

message: Appearantly, companies introduce weak points in PCB's/consumer electronics they design so the device becomes defect quicker, with the result that the consumer need to buy new devices quicker. Appearantly , in motherboards it's mostly caused by capacitors they place on the boards (not sure why these are needed at all). Perhaps mention in article.
Also mention that there will be 65 tons of e-waste produced in 2017, every year65 tons of e-waste per year in 2017
KVDP (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps go read WP:MADEUP instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Weak points

message: Perhaps we can mention http://www.freegeek.org/ ?
109.130.180.222 (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reuse organisations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electronic waste. 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/20000621233638/http://www.apmag.com/ to http://www.apmag.com/
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) 08:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electronic waste. 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/20101130085009/http://www.fourgreensteps.com/infozone/featured/features/what-is-e-waste-a-how-can-i-get-rid-of-it to http://www.fourgreensteps.com/infozone/featured/features/what-is-e-waste-a-how-can-i-get-rid-of-it
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: - References 18 and 76 now lead to 404 error pages.
- Citation needed for the following statement in the Consumer Awareness Efforts section: "CEA research has found that 58 percent of consumers know where to take their end-of-life electronics".
- In the Guiyu section, would it be better for the main article to link to the 'Electronic waste in Guiyu' article rather than the 'Electronic waste in China' article? 
- In the Guiyu section, the final line states: "A suggested preventative step involves the major electronics firms removing the worst chemicals in their products in order to make them safer and easier to recycle." It is not clear to me whether this suggestion comes from a source or the writer.
- Citation needed for the following statement in the Hazardous section concerning nickle-cadmium rechargeable batteries: "These batteries tend to contain between 6 and 18% cadmium".
BeepS (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Electronic waste. 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/20110815230326/http://ewasteguide.info/files/Amoyaw-Osei_2011_GreenAd-Empa.pdf to http://ewasteguide.info/files/Amoyaw-Osei_2011_GreenAd-Empa.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424192458/http://corporatemobilerecycling.co.uk/enviroment/ to http://corporatemobilerecycling.co.uk/enviroment/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106161107/http://www.ce.org/News/Environment/eCycle.aspx to http://www.ce.org/News/Environment/eCycle.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106162925/http://www.simsrecycling.co.uk/Resources/WEEE-Recycling to http://www.simsrecycling.co.uk/Resources/WEEE-Recycling
*Added  tag to http://www.learningace.com/doc/4352558/4f7ade1e955b0100f4b000490b9ac82a/kwiat_environmental-education
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106175444/http://www.hardrawgathering.co.uk/the-environment/ to http://www.hardrawgathering.co.uk/the-environment/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not sure if I understand this cleanup tag on this article. Are there any specific biases or inaccuracies that need to be corrected here? Jarble (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, , and I got diverted IRL before I had a chance to catalog them—thank you for tagging and asking for clarification! It isn't an issue of one, article-wide, non-neutral position, but individual paragraphs and sentences that are non-neutral in their own ways.  The overarching issue is that a mishmash of different advocacy groups' positions are unquestioningly stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice.  I suspect that there have been COI editors from those advocacy groups at work on the article, but I also suspect that student editors who don't have tremendous experience in critical assessment of sources have added content based on advocacy groups' publications without realizing that they are perpetuating a non-neutral POV. One example: "In the US, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) urges consumers to dispose properly of end-of-life electronics through its recycling locator at www.GreenerGadgets.org. This list only includes manufacturer and retailer programs that use the strictest standards and third-party certified recycling locations, to provide consumers assurance that their products will be recycled safely and responsibly. CEA research has found that 58 percent of consumers know where to take their end-of-life electronics, and the electronics industry would very much like to see that level of awareness increase." Whose "strictest standards"? When did Wikipedia get into the business of helping the electronics industry achieve their "very much" wished-for "level of awareness" among consumers?  It will be several hours at the earliest before I'm able to do substantive editing but since there have apparently been WikiEd students working on the article in the past week or so, I wanted to throw up a red flag regarding this issue. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians, I plan to create a new section called "health and safety" at the end of the "Electronic waste" article to summarize all the health effects that already exist here and there in the article. I think it will make this article more clear because the section "electronic waste substances" give readers a clear overview of all the harmful effect so it may be better to talk about health and effect after that section. I also plan to add something related to e-waste recycling workers health and safety. What do you think?--Lihui Pan (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new section "health and safety" 

message: DISPUTED NEUTRALITY, SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES
I don't have time to constantly re-visit the page, but my attempts at providing nuance seem to be thrown out, so I'm offering some third-party independent review suggestions for the following points.
1. Electronic Waste certainly does NOT cover non-waste, at least under consensus or law.  For example, Annex IX of the Basel Convention (B1110) explicitly calls export for repair not to be covered by the waste rules. NGOs have protested that language in writing and currently call for it to be amended, therefore it's certainly worth noting that it is not resolved at best and I'd argue that the burden of proof is on the persons deleting that reference. Clearly, anything once owned by a rich person has not by definition been "discarded" if sold on the secondary market - the "circular economy" does not revolve around the perceived liabilities of the privileged.
2. The "export hoax" of 2002-2012 has been discredited by most peer reviewed articles. The claims that 80% of used electronics purchased by African and Asian agents are "primitively" managed was falsely made and has been abandoned, and therefore any presumption in the article that those agents prefer or accept to ship non-reuseable material begs attribution.
3. World Bank and IMF funded studies for projects like hydroelectric dams since the 1960s (Agosomba in Ghana, e.g.) frequently included a census of household consumers.  The TVs per household in nations like Ghana and metropolises like Lagos are well documented, and the question is why are there so few used electronics at their city scrapyards given the units in use 20 years ago (answer - they reuse and repair them several times longer).
https://discardstudies.com/2016/01/04/trading-on-distortion/ Dr. Josh Lepawsky
https://discardstudies.com/2015/06/24/criminal-negligence/ Josh Lepawsky, Joshua Goldstein, and Yvan Schulz
https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/09/01/what-environmentalists-get-wrong-about-e-waste-in-west-africa/ Dr. Jenna Burrell 
https://www.step-initiative.org/files/_documents/other_publications/MIT-NCER%20US%20Used%20Electronics%20Flows%20Report%20-%20December%202013.pdf Huabo Duan, T. Reed Miller, Jeremy Gregory, Randolph Kirchain
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/env.2017.0039 Grace Akese and Peter Little
https://wolasi.wordpress.com/author/eliwolasi/ Emmanuel Nyalete
https://www.wastedive.com/news/adam-minter-on-why-secondhand-markets-are-the-true-circular-economies/567057/ Bloomberg columnist, author, Adam Minter (see also Smithsonian etc)
I'm a former environmental regulator (first CRT waste ban author, MA DEP 1992-2000), EPA consultant, degree in International Relations (semester at UN WHO Geneva), founder of fairtraderecycling.net but do run a used electronics (waste, scrap, surplus, parts reuse, etc) business so I'm willing to be sidelined, but if a moderator will check out the links I've provided, I think there's evidence of zealousness and an absence of #ownvoices in the current Electronic Waste Wikipedia article. I'll come back in if invited, but suggest the peer reviewed Ph.D's work above (and there are many others).  Whether the zealotry is funded by Planned Obsolescence, Big Shred, or is evidence of a Charitable Industrial Complex does not belong in this article per se, but a link may raise astute questions. The assumption that all the junk in emerging market scrapyards was exported and dumped there by Western recycling companies is proven false by the projected generation of those cities units per household 20 years ago (which itself cannot be explained by new unit purchases in those nations). Perhaps the current author expected to see banana peels and coconut shells in the largest cities in Africa (sorry, my attitude is showing).
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?_r=0  Peter Buffett NYT
Retroworks (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy has been erased, single point of view now on disputed aspects of Secondhand and Surplus Property sales 

message: — Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024