Talk:Weyerhaeuser/Archives/2013

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)

The section on guns does not belong in "Criticism". It's an entire news story about an isolated event pasted into an article about a multi-national company that is over 100 years old. I'd suggest creating a "Litigation" section, and then giving the guns story 2 lines max, with a reference to a reputable news source. Chuckb187 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

How about RELEVANCE? I could write a factual essay about a day in the lunchroom at Weyerhauser that takes 2,000 words, comply with NPOV, and include citations, and it wouldn't merit littering this organization entry with irrelevant information that wikipedia viewers simply won't find significant or informative...

I'm not one to want to remove a section criticizing one of the worst polluters in the world, contributing two-fold to global warming by both cutting down trees and emitting huge amts of greenhouse gasses, but this gun control section doesn't even deserve mention in this entry, let alone more space than the "history" or "operations" sections combined...

Lets draft an article that cites relevant criticisms...

Here's something i found through a brief Google search: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12195

In 2005, a consortium of groups, including Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and the United Steelworkers Union, ...at the lumber giant Weyerhaeuser’s annual meeting. They assembled a group of shareholders who collectively owned more than $400,000 in Weyerhaeuser stock to ask pointed questions to board members about the company’s practices of recklessly logging endangered old-growth forests in North America, using wasteful tree-cutting procedures, and abuse of trust in the cutting of billions of dollars worth of cedar forests on the Haida Nation tribe’s lands in British Columbia.

Weyerhaeuser CEO Steve Rogel’s anticipated his Big Day might be ruined and brought in a large contingent of security guards and eliminated the custom of allowing shareholders to ask direct questions to the board members. Instead, shareholders were directed to write their questions on cards, which board members then chose from.

From the company's perspective, the meeting did not go well. Many shareholders and representatives were furious that they were unable to communicate directly with the board. The Steelworkers said they submitted more than fifteen questions in the meeting and got just one response. Some of the attendees began shouting and were forcibly removed from the meeting. RAN’s Old Growth Campaign director Brant Olson said that Weyerhaeuser’s elimination of direct question/answer sessions in the meetings “set a dangerous precedent for other publicly-owned company meetings. It also shows the contempt Weyerhaeuser has for its shareholders — the people who actually own the company.”

Steve Rogel told the press after the meeting, "Obviously there are elements of society who will do anything to have their views heard." Yet it was Weyerhaeuser’s attempt to stifle the activists that really sent a message that day. News about the meeting spread throughout the local and national press. That day, The New York Times ran a story under the heading “Manager to Owners: Shut Up.”

Weyerhaeuser’s spokesman Frank Mendizabal’s excuse to the Times was that Weyerhaeuser was trying to “ensure the meeting was orderly and that as many questions as possible were answered.” Despite the tactics they were up against, RAN and the other groups see the day as a victory. Although they weren’t allowed to speak directly to the board, Rogel has since backtracked and promised to hold two-way discussions in all future shareholder meetings. Block quote

--Deproduction (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

This situation has gotten worse... This isolated incident which has little relevance to any reader hoping to learn about Weyerhauser has grown to take up more space in the article than the history and operations sections combined. This "incident" if it is significant enough to garner this much attention, needs its own page, and this one can link to it.

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

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)

take a look at the criticisms section of http://en.allexperts.com/e/w/we/weyerhaeuser.htm#hd3

they also give some space to this minor incident (which is nearly irrelevant to the public "criticism" that has been aimed at Weyerhauser) but at least they include other, more significant issues. This story belongs in an article about gun rights and the right to bring guns to work, the popular criticism of Weyerhauser has nothing to do with gun rights, it has to do with pollution, global warming, unsafe working conditions for some employees, destruction of native forests, clear-cutting, and infringement on rights of various indigenous populations. --Deproduction (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is currently titled "Employee Firearms Policy." It improve the article if the section included the text of the actual company policy that was in effect at the time of the searches and disciplinary actions that led to the suits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.22.189 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with MaxEnt. The gun item involving the termination of a few employees is a flap that this article gives undue weight, when compared to the history of a 109 year old company. The proper approach is to split off the court case into its own article and link to it from here with a one-liner. Tempshill (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Weyerhaeuser was purchased

Weyer was bought out by International Paper recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.158.128 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This press release says Weyerhauser sold one of their business units to IP, not the entire firm. Tempshill (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Relative size

I'm rephrasing the very confusing intro statement "the world's largest private owner of softwood timberland; and the second largest owner in the United States, behind International Paper" to reflect that Weyerhauser owns the most timberland of anyone in the world, and owns the second-most US timberland. If this is incorrect then someone please fix my mistake. Tempshill (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality & Criticism section

That criticism section doesn't seem like it mentions any criticism or talks about a firearms policy. Since it talks about a wrongful termination case brought by employees that includes some background of the case, I think it would be better to title the section "Wrongful termination case". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFCEO100 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed someone else suggested earlier calling it "Litigation". I think that would work too if anyone likes that better. MFCEO100 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This sentence "The pollution has had questionable effects on their employees.[16]" doesn't provide any useful information. I was going to see if I could add something more specific but the link used for the source doesn't even work. I will remove it but if someone has a working link it could be added back with some more specific info. MFCEO100 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

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:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. 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) 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)