Talk:Weyerhaeuser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV

The criticism section blatantly violates both NPOV and formal language, and reads more like an article of propaganda than one from an encyclopedia. Not only that, but there are very serious accusations made against the subject (Weyerhauser) and these need to be cited. This problem has apparently existed for a long time now and the original author of the criticism section has made no attempt to cite or clean up this section. The entire section needs a rewrite, and I have deleted it until a more balanced article can be written (except the Guns section, which has a citation and does not violate NPOV, although it has been renamed with more formal language). Any reposting the section wholesale without cleaning up the language or citing references will require contact of a moderator - Josef, April 9, 2007

I added an NPOV tag due to the already-mentioned "Weyerhaeuser & Indigenous Resistance" section at the bottom. Tyro the Kinky Kitty 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've put another NPOV tag on the article, for the criticism section, mainly the environmental parts. It only gives one POV. The only part of a sentence (somewhat) presenting another POV is "Weyerhaeuser has made many claims that their operations are “green". It then leads into the counterargument. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Weyerhaeuser & Indigenous Resistance" is hardly NPOV and needs to be changed to reflect a completely neutral stance. I'll begin work on the section ASAP, any help would be appreciated. --Sycron 04:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new facts need to be sourced

I removed this paragraph to the talk page until it can be cleaned up, sourced and made NPOV.

Frederick Edward Weyerhaueser was a member of the 1896 Skull and Bones society of Yale University. It is believed that as secretary of state, he appointed his future nephew in law, Henry J. Anslinger to power within what it now known as the DEA. Anslinger immediately began talking about the "ill effects" of Marijuana as the medicinal drug as we know it as today. He was using smear tactics crossed with yellow journalism to frighten the public of the Marijuana plant (often using racism to strengthen their fear) - and make marijuana (and essentially hemp fiber), which is 7 times as recyclable as wood pulp fiber, illegal.

Here are my clean-up suggestions

  • line starting with "it is believed" needs to include reliable sources
  • smear tactics and yellow journalism needs to be referenced someplace, we can't assume that everyone knows these things, even if they're true, a link to info in print journalism, another sourced Wikipedia article or more NPOV language needs to be used here. I am not denying the yellow journalism and racial angle, just saying that if you're going to put it in an article where it's already a stretch, topic-wise, you should make sure it's supported
  • "the medicinal drug as we know it today" is not encyclopedic in tone. While some people believe this to be true about marijuana, many do not.
  • please keep hemp activism in hemp articles or other articles where it is relevant, this is an article about the Weyerhauser company , not even about logging, lumber or paper making.

In short, while I agree with a lot of what you are saying, this is an article that is already needing clean-up. If you have cited sources that are critical of Weyerhauser, please add them to the criticism section. Jessamyn (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the part about the gun control and it is all factual.My computer skills are limited and I could not figure out the citation page but my source is an article from the WSJ. Please do not erase my edit,the facts are as stated. Saltforkgunman 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Factual is not the same as WP:NPOV. This needs to be cleaned up. -Jcbarr 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
O.K.I removed some of the more egregious facts and the 1 instance of sarcasm and added some more of the managers comments.Can someone tell me how to cite this segment,I can't figure it out. Saltforkgunman 06:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitely improved. Thanks. I added the citation above as an external link as well. -Jcbarr 14:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] significance and citation questioned

I removed this section to the talk page until it can be cleaned up and edited down. The entry is just way too long and one activity at a small plant in Oklahoma that has no far-reaching effects on any of the dozens of other plants or the thousands of other employees seems to push the boundaries of significance. The sourcve also comes from a cut and pasted post on a message board, not an actual news article.

On October 1, 2004, the company sent gun and drug sniffing dogs into the parking lot of their Valliant, Oklahoma plant looking for drugs in cars in response to an employee drug overdose. They found no drugs, but the dogs alerted on 12 cars with guns in them. The company then ordered the employees to open their cars for a hand search and rifles, shotguns, and handguns were found. The 12 employees were immediately suspended.

Two days later, the company fired all twelve employees, including a shift supervisor of 23 years with an exemplary record. Jimmy 'Red' Wyatt and all the others said that they were never told of the policy change, extending the company gun ban to the parking lot, which had occurred in 2002.

The plant manager, Mr. Nebel said that firing the men was difficult but he felt safer with all the guns out of the parking lot. Mr. Nebel stated that all the employees had been warned of the policy change.

Several of the fired men have filed a civil suit against Weyerhaeuser for wrongful termination, with Tulsa attorney Larry Johnson representing them. Mr.Johnson, a longtime Second Amendment lawyer said that this was an injustice that must be addressed. [1]

ReporterSteven 10:05, 11 April 2006

[edit] Citations Issue

As what has become normal with this entry, comments are being made with no citations. They include the following that need citations under the "Weyerhaeuser & Ignoring Environmental Concerns" heading.

Unlike the other leading businesses, Weyerhaeuser ignores evolving demands from its customers and refuses to respond to the crisis facing the world’s forests.

Weyerhaeuser has made many claims that their operations are “green” however facts tell a different story. More than 128,000 square kilometers (50,000 mile²) of Canadian public lands lay open to Weyerhaeuser’s environmentally destructive practices. Weyerhaeuser logs on lands as ecologically varied as the temperate rainforests of the Canadian Coat on Vancouver Island, to pine forests in the interior of British Columbia, to the slow-growing boreal forest stretching across Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, and to the maritime forests of New Brunswick.

However, Weyerhaeuser has not honoured the commitment; its new “variable retention” cutting on the B.C. coast is often indistinguishable from clear-cuts.

In addition, Weyerhaeuser's Kenora, Ontario mill, has been heavily criticized as a toxic pulp and paper mill that is poisoning the people of Grassy Narrows. Band members suffer from toxic levels of mercury released by Weyerhaeuser's mill. For decades, the company's Dryden, Ontario paper mill dumped the poison into the English River, where it accumulated in fish and groundwater.

Since the 1990s, increasing demand from Weyerhaeuser mills have driven accelerated cutting in the forests of Grassy Narrows. If adopted, Abitibi's new harvest plan would permit accelerated cutting through 2024 and cause incalculable damage to the forest and the people of Grassy Narrows.

ReporterSteven 12:03, 20 April 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.229.2 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


    Wow, that guy was pretty far out. You know, it may be worth noting in the environmental section that although Weyerhaeuser is #42 of the biggest 100 air polluters, it is significantly lower than Georgia-Pacific or International Paper. I think this is significant because they are in the same industry and Weyerhaeuser is a much larger operation yet emits significantly less air pollution (although it is still a large amount). I think the "Toxic 100" list can be misleading to someone who doesn't think about it really critically. The top polluters on the list are all from a narrow set of industries. Certain industries just by their vary nature result in more pollution than other industries. A timber/automobile/chemical company is going to emit more pollution than an equally large and equally socially/environmentally responsible Information Technology or Finance or Entertainment company. It seems significant the Weyerhaeuser apparently has a relatively lower pollution output than similar competitors with smaller operations. I didn't change anything, I just wanted to get peoples thoughts?  216.17.229.2 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) -Cfwschmidt

[edit] Gun control

I have reverted the article to include the facts about gun control. Thankyou for contributing, Reporter. Saltforkgunman 01:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the disagreement on this section is due to the title - "Weyerhaeuser and Gun Control". What they allow on their property to protect their employees and customers isn't exactly the same as what folks normally think of as "gun control" on a more global scale. Could we compromise on something like "Lawsuit over gun rights on Weyerhaeuser property"? -Jcbarr 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This kind of shit is the reason that I rarely come to Wikipedia any more.To answer the nonsense posted by the reporter,Way too long? The entry is as long as it takes to get the pertinent facts in the article.Significance?The actions of the company in the heart of gun owning Oklahoma reflect the policies of the company as a whole and are intrusive into peoples rights.This incident prompted a state Senate Bill to restrict employers from infringing on the rights of employees to have a gun for lawful self-defense to and from woRK.The citation comes from a cut and pasted NEWS ARTICLE on a message board because the original article is no longer in the archives of the news.
I appreciate your help, Jcbarr. Saltforkgunman 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different tone needed - cite sources of criticism

Who are the critics of Weyerhauser that make these claims? Please provide sources and indicate what organizations are responsible for these claims. This is not a neatral encyclopedia article as it is written. --Metzenberg 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have once again reverted the article to include the sourced facts about the corporate policies of this company.Reporter Steven, you are either a Weyerhaeuser employee or an idiot.Please do not mess with this article any more, as you are contributing nothing.Saltforkgunman 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have read indiginous resistance and have removed the copy edit tag.I have removed the sentance that 'weyerhaeuser does not have the right to turn the Grassy Narrows into paper.'Saltforkgunman 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the 'indiginous resistance' in Canada , but have attempted to cite sources for that section.Saltforkgunman 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Insults are not necessary -- but clear citations are. I removed the entire resistance section. If you insist on putting it back, find proper citations for it. Otherwise, you clearly need to review the citations section. This is not a place to write drivel opinions to launch some agenda. State facts and prove it. ReporterSteven 01:06, 05 February 2007
O.K., Steve, I can work with you on this.I am not really concerned about the 'resistance' section, as I know nothing about events in remote Canada.I do, however, know about events in Oklahoma that pertain to the RKBA.The actions of the paper mill in McCurtain County are well known to a lot of people, having prompted an Oklahome State Senate Bill to stop this kind of thing from happening again.The lawsuit that spun off from that is still ongoing, I believe.

You are correct that the section detailing the destruction of the tribal lands in Canada do not have citeable sources, and I am not going to go hunting for them.The section was emotional and POV.

The GUNS are factual and provable.Saltforkgunman 14:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Then prove this to us by giving a source. This article has had a POV article for much too long... something should be done. A deletion of all POV sections may be in order... м info 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevence to the Company Operations

The "Criticisms" discussions of environment, resistance, and guns seem to me to be relatively unimportant in overall understanding of the firm. They may be important in a discussion of "current events" (well, longstanding events) but they seem to occupy quite a few column inches. Indeed, two of those issues deal with environment and together take more space than a description of the company operations. WTH does the company do? Why has its stock really increased over the past year? Do the posters here understand a company of this size is engaged in many many arguments at a time, why not list (all) the significant ones? (I consider the gun issue totally unimportant to this company.) 131.191.29.223 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, I am an employee of Weyerhaeuser and we do have and have had a gun policy stating no guns on company property for as long as I can remember. This includes in our cars, our offices and of course our person. We all sign an agreement that states that every year. Just an FYI.

Why is next to nothing cited in this entire entry!?!?! Only then can problems with tone be addressed, we don't know who we're refuting. 131.191.29.223 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the cite tags and added the source, which is a news article from the Wall Street Journal that was cut and pasted to a gun board.The article is no longer in the archives of the WSJ. THIS CONTINUES TO BE REDICULOUS.Why do you insist that a cut and pasted news article is not a real source? I think it is an excuse.I have provided proof by re-posting the original link to the cut and pasted news article. Say I know what.Lets get an administrator to decide. Saltforkgunman 04:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I was reminding myself the fate of MacBlo when I came to this article.
The civil suit regarding the gun incident instantly struck me as inappropriate. It was a matter concerning a small number of individuals, and it apparently has had much notable downstream impact, because I was unable to find even a small scrap of information about the present status of this civil suit on Google, based on the name of the company and the lawyer involved. In the discussion section I see a claim that this passage originated as a WSJ article. Perhaps, but if so, it wasn't a good article by the normal standards of the WSJ, and not everything in the WSJ at the best of times is fit for inclusion in the Wikipedia, which has its own norms concerning notability (which is not just that some notable publication once wrote about it on some back page in some forgotten edition). For example, the standard of notability for the WSJ journal is any incident which could cause a significant short term change in the share price of a large public company. Once that concern blew over, one doubts the WSJ continued to regard this incident as particularly notable, either, whether they once wrote about it or not.
In particular, the "source" fails to cite the nature of the employment standard either before or after the purported change, nor does it describe the nature or scope of the change, nor does it describe the means by which the employees were notified. Quite worthless in my view as suitable material for an encyclopedic article. If those factual omissions could be cleared up, and some notable downstream consequence could be properly cited, it might be worth retaining some mention of this incident.
It's not even clear whether the civil suit is being filed on unlawful discovery (of the guns as a byproduct of the drug investigation) or unclear terms of employment (where the company maintains rules were in effect which the employees maintain were not properly communicated). Nor is the nature of the guns involved clarified (hunting rifles, hand guns, semi automatic assault rifles?) Speculation heaped upon speculation. Worthless.
I am in favour of anyone who takes action to reduce, eliminate, or recycle this section. MaxEnt 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a section on a bunch of gun nuts who ultimately LOST their case which is actually longer than the bits about the company itself??? Gacole (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is 17,068 bytes long, so, why not expand the other sections instead of worrying about deleting this one? Adding more to the other areas might help? ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Weyco.jpg

Image:Weyco.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)