Misplaced Pages

Talk:Garbage picking/Archive 1

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Garbage pickingRedirect page

Redirect to:

University Assignment

Hi fellow wiki-ers! I will be working on improving this article as an anthropology assignment through the Misplaced Pages: Canada Education program. Overall, I aim to improve the encyclopedic quality of this article, add additional information on health and safety risks associated with the endeavor of dumpster diving, as well as include additional references.

Feel free to give suggestions on further edits needed!

Thanks! :) DonGabrieli04 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Resources

I will be gathering my information from these various sources:

Trash Wiki, How to Dumpster Dive, The Dos and Don'ts of Dumpster Diving, as well as Victoria C. More's ethnography entitled "Dumpster Dinners: An ethnographic study of Freeganism" from the Journal for Undergraduate Ethnography. DonGabrieli04 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I will also be working on adding sources where citations are needed from the previous edits done by other contributors.

DonGabrieli04 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

MTA Peer Review

Great touch ups to the article, I love the topic! I would suggest perhaps adding more citations where it is outlined or removed the "citations needed" if already added. If you could maybe find examples of the instances of injury or death of individuals who have participated to give it could give a more well-rounded view on the topic. Also it might be beneficial to find sources for the list of terms which dumpster diving it called by because I know I'd be personally interested in learning more about the different origins. Keep up the great work! :)MelaineH (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Uses the term "tatting" yet this word which is a type of lacemaking (look it up in wiki!) is the only term not given a citation - perhaps one needs to be added or this term should be removed. kersti (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

links

linkspam. the article have 15-25 mostly advertsing about dumpster diving, there should also be added some links with arguments why it is illegal in many places--80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the 'Further Reading' section is overloaded with useless links. I'll remove some of them if you are not going to.
Get some notes in so people know we need more inline-sources and info, not links to how you dumpter. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Why would we avoid putting links about how dumpster diving is performed on an article about dumpster diving? According to the external links policy: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding should be linked to. It also says Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. and this article is definitely overcrowded with Films, Notable instances, In popular culture, See also, Further reading and External links. Oh, and it also has 25 reference, which is a lot for a short article however that's more about the relevance of the sources than the amount. I've removed pages from 'See also' and 'External links' but there's a lot more to go. EvilKeyboardCat (talk)

Pro and con list

This article's pros and cons section strikes to me as very poor formatting - jumping from the Zabbaleen of Egypt keeping the streets clean to UK cookery books on expired food within a single subsection - and the WP:PROCON lists' cardinal sin: unresolved WP:NPOV issues. One man's pro is another man's con, and taking sides is not encyclopedic writing. Also, removing bullet points hardly hides the fact that it's a list rather than WP:PROSE.

Reading through the section, there are lines of thought that can be organized better than this fragmentary and confused form: sociological aspects, environmental aspects, legal aspects (which has it's section already), by country (though listing by country hardly makes more sense) etc. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 03:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose that Waste picker be merged into Garbage picking. I think that the content in the first article can easily be explained in the context of Garbage picking, as one is an agent and the other is the practice. The overlap is huge, maybe some slight broader meaning in the second but really. It'd make a stronger article combined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. obviously Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  • First, I've got to ask who structured this merger proposal discussion with sub-sections to 'edit' for voting. I've never seen it done this way compared to any other such vote, and I think it may be a barrier to participation, as well as a reduction in the way people typically express the strength of their opposition or support. It also reduces or eliminates the ability to have a threaded discussion. As far as the suggestion goes, I understand the concept here, but what is being missed is that waste picker is a job or category of jobs, whereas garbage picking is usually a hobby. It would make more sense to look into combining waste picker with rag-and-bone man, Junk man, Karang guni, although there may be good reasons to keep some of those as independent articles too. Centerone (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The topics are different enough to warrant separate articles. Also both articles are of decent length, and combining them would create one very large article. North America 01:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per NorthAmerica1000. smileguy91 03:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per NorthAmerica1000. However, we may connect the articles with words and hyperlinks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose two different things. Waste picking is salvaging of waste materials for personal use while garbage picking is a/an government/industrial procedure.--Chamith (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your oppose, ChamithN, but you got your facts wrong as to the nature of garbage picking and waste picker. Centerone (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Centerone:, perhaps you are right. Though over where I live garbage picking is done by the government. However I still do oppose the merge as per Northamerica1000's points.--Chamith (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

Garbage Picking to Dumpster Diving Move/rename should be reverted.

Uhmmm, okay, so you just did a move/rename without any discussion? SERIOUSLY??! Uhm, okay let me tell you why (besides lack of consensus) that was a bad idea. First, dumpster diving is AS THE ARTICLE STATES is called different things in different countries. Dumpster Diving is a (mostly) US centric term. Secondly and MORE importantly. Garbage picking covers going through trash in a lot more situations than just in dumpsters! Less importantly, but still important is the fact that dumpster while commonly used is basically a genericized trademark. I don't know if someone still owns the trademark, but other companies may call their large commercial trash receptacles different things. Uhm, perhaps you should revert your move. Centerone (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Centerone: The article refers to dumpster diving throughout. Then I did a google trends comparison. After that I was 100% convinced was the right choice so I was bold and did it. The term doesn't appear to literally refer to dumpsters, but the generic process of going through bins for some reason or other. Je ne regret rian Deku-shrub (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like you are claiming willful ignorance. Centerone (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, I performed imperial research, proof read the article and followed Misplaced Pages's policies. Hit me with a decent rebuttal and we can kick this through Misplaced Pages:Requested moves Deku-shrub (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't tracked the language use in the article, it is the case that people in the article have mistakenly over-used the term dumpster diving incorrectly when they are sometimes talking about other things. That being said, this article references and is about a whole lot more than just picking items out of dumpsters. The term does literally refer to dumpsters. Just because some people are vague or loose in their usage of language, does not mean that it's not a specific term, and clearly the over-use and incorrect use of the term in the article needs to be fixed. Dumpster diving and garbage picking or trash picking is NOT the same thing. It's like the ship and a boat argument. All ships are boats but not all boats are ships. "_Garbage picking_ is the practice of sifting through commercial _OR_ residential waste to find items that have been discarded by their owners, but that may prove useful to the _garbage picker_." That is, all waste sources. Not all waste is found in dumpsters. Not all trash receptacles are called dumpsters or are even sized or look like dumpsters, and the term is a US centric term anyways, as well referenced in the article. Performers of these actions do not all go in dumpsters. Karung guni go door to door, Zabaleen collect trash from individual residents in standard trashbags then take the stuff elsewhere to sort. Rag-and-bone men collected specific items from individuals and businesses. Gleaners collect agricultural waste and detreitus from fields. "Artists often use discarded materials retrieved from _trash receptacles_ to create works of found art or assemblage." Garbologists go through all sources of waste. Private investigators do too. California vs. Greenwood (the case referenced in regards to trash picking was about trash left outside the home, on the curb, NOT in a dumpster. Police frequently can go through _household_ curbside waste to catch criminals (that's what CvG was basically about.) There are many more references and mentions in the article which can be pulled out, but I think that's enough. Centerone (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Dumpster diving is used in such a way to mean to sift through any type of rubbish container, regardless of the brand or shape of said container Deku-shrub (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That's your opinion of the use of language. It's neither accurate or true to real world examples as well as references made in this very article! Centerone (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some sources:
en.wiktionary.org - "the act of recovering, for any purpose, discarded items that would otherwise be sent to a landfill"
collins "the practice of searching through dustbins for discarded but still usable or valuable objects such as food or clothes"
Urban dictionary Dumpster diving is looking for treasure in someone else's trash.
OED "To search through a rubbish container (especially a dumpster or skip) for food, items of value, etc."
http://dictionary.reference.com "the practice of foraging in garbage that has been put out on the street in dumpsters, garbage cans, etc., for discarded items that may still be valuable, useful, or fixable."
I've not found a single definition which makes the case that the term is exclusively applicable to looking through a specifically sized or shaped container Deku-shrub (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The two reliable sources there both specifically mention dumpsters or skips. We could find similar sources for the definition of ships, but that doesn't make it right or accurate. While the use of dumpster diving may be more loosely defined, it simply does not cover _all_ aspects of garbage picking. Garbage picking is the all-inclusive term. It's not the same thing as dumpster diving. Dumpster diving as a term simply does not cover all the aspects of what all the people who do this stuff who have already been mentioned do. It is NOT dumpster diving when the Zabaleen and the Karang guni go door to door collecting bags of waste, it's not dumpster diving when a garbologist collects a few weeks of a household's trash in order to study what the public throws out and how they live, it's not dumpster diving when the police or a private investigator goes through a drug dealer's curbside trashcan, it's not dumpster diving when an artist collects the remains of a garage cleanout, or any of many varieties of sources of waste in order to make art, it's not dumpster diving when someone goes to the town dump or landfill and brings back useful materials. People simply picking up furniture or useful stuff from the side of the road on trash day would typically not say they went dumpster diving. Besides the fact that a few of your sources do mention dumpsters, you also edited the quote from one of your sources in a way that left out that they were indeed talking about dumpsters. Urban dictionary: "Dumpster diving is looking for treasure in someone else's trash. (A dumpster is a large trash container.)" - you left out the part that explains what they were talking about. Second definition there: "Actively searching through trash in commercial or residential DUMPSTERS to find discarded but usable items;" The term dumpster diving simply does _not_ cover so many different aspects of what is discussed and covered in this article. Is it a common term that is used to discuss one activity of waste recovery by the average person? Yes, of course. But it simply does not cover all practices, methods, situations, or sources of waste and materials. It is not an appropriate title for this article. Centerone (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not ensure the extended use definitions have their own section then? Deku-shrub (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
What.... exactly do you mean by that? Centerone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
We disagree about the scope of this article. I feel the new name can encompass everything, you feel this excludes certain definitions. Why not leave the core definitions as-is, create a separate section on 'waste-picking' which covers activities not traditionally covered by dumpster diving? That way you don't have to worry about content being excluded from the article by the new name? Deku-shrub (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The article ALREADY encompasses everything, the new name doesn't. I wouldn't and shouldn't have to "worry" if you would simply revert the renaming move you made in the first place. The fact that you demand a "decent rebuttal" yet refuse to acknowledge the clear examples presented, or even debate me on the specific points is an issue. Dumpster diving is a subset of garbage picking, garbage picking is not a subset of dumpster diving, gleaning is not a subset of dumpster diving, the organized waste collection and sorting by the zabaleen, the karaguni, rag and bone men are not subsets of dumpster diving, California vs. Greenwood does not specifically apply to dumpster diving, but rather to all garbage picking, etc. etc. etc. Furthermore, I don't and shouldn't have to create a "separate section" on 'other things' because the article is already about them! I don't disagree about the scope of the article. I disagree about your belief of the application of a term to things that it clearly does not apply to! It sounds like you're acknowledging that the term is infact exclusionary, otherwise you wouldn't suggest a separate section which shouldn't be necessary in the first place! Centerone (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to move the actual page name or not? Deku-shrub (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, I do not have the ability to do that. (I tried to undo your move but I couldn't.) I don't know if that is because you can't undo such a move or what. I've never done a page move before. Centerone (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Status Section Rewrite

Just a note that I believe the legal status section should be rewritten so that it is more clear and organized. I think it should probably be laid out in such a way as to list how it is legal in many countries, the various potential legal concerns (legal arguments for and against), and then country by country (or more regional) references. Legalities of garbage picking may vary by areas as small as cities and towns. It also may vary based on the type of and location of receptacle. Different rules may apply to standard household trash containers vs. commercial containers, for general waste containers vs. specialized collection such as recyclables, etc. Centerone (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Garbage picking/Archive 1 Add topic