This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Edits Incoming + Discussion of Article Overall

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

In working on an assignment to add to and edit Wikipedia articles, I stumbled upon C2C as a concept I had once believed to be the world's solution to so many problems re: the environment. In working on this article, I have come to realize there is some degree of bias towards the founders of the C2C trademark as well as for C2C itself as a positive concept. I still see hope in C2C, but a few things in this article that have caught my attention and will likely be getting edits:

Attitude towards John Lyle -- prior to my extensive research and edits, I believed C2C to be a concept put forth originally and individually by Stahel, which McDonough & Braungart made popular. So many sources online refer to John T Lyle as either a co-author or predecessor to C2C with his concepts of Regenerative Design. I'm curious as to why the wiki article made no mention of him, even going so far as to accredit C2C influence for the Lyle Center for Regenerative Design. This feels ludicrous, especially when the Lyle Center's internet pages make zero mention of C2C as an influence.

the purpose of the article (Cradle-to-cradle as a concept vs C2C as a trademarked institution) -- I did not make drastic changes towards either direction, but I feel the page needs to have more direction as either a description of a concept or description of the history & successes of an institution. I feel this article mainly discusses the institution, which is okay, but I feel there may be some good in even a stub of a page that distinguishes cradle-to-cradle as a framework to view product life cycles as opposed to the established and specific framework following a particular organization.

excessive article space used for accolades to McDonough re: Implementations -- This issue directly relates to the above purpose of the article. In the case that the article remains a description of a trademarked institution, the case for including McDonough's career in the implementations makes a bit of sense. If not, they should be either removed or include a more comprehensive list of how implementation has penetrated different markets/systems. The Implementations section is also a bit sporadic in its content.

Finished Products/Implementations sections -- Almost every example listed has serious flaws or omissions.

I already mentioned the Lyle Center bit.
In the article linked for "Chinese government is constructing many cities like...", it disproves the same claim that it's linked to -- only one city has been made, mainly by a private developer, and the development is regarded as unsuccessful and uninhabited.
Nike Shoes under "Finished Projects" -- it didn't hit market.
Sewage sludge processing -- the only article I could find that corroborated this uncited claim is a research paper discussing the potential of cradle-to-cradle in wastewater. I will be removing it shortly.
I frankly haven't researched the rest of the products, but I would suggest someone do that if I don't get to it. Each of the ones I researched unearthed a lot of evidence contrary to the phrasing of this article. This project has made me really doubt how much I can trust Wikipedia, and how important individual research is.

Constraints -- this section is tiny and only goes into the specifics of waste management & recycling, rather than several other possible constraints. I may split this section into subcategories of constraint, i.e.: financial constraint of converting existing processes, the actual possibility of 100% Cradle-to-cradle. This section is another reason why I am confused as to whether this page should be dedicated to the concept of Cradle-to-cradle vs. the trademarked institution of C2C. Different constraints exist for each, even if they overlap.

Criticisms -- this section is also rather small, and focuses its main quote on a person's feelings rather than the many respected publications that point the specific problems and criticisms of C2C. It's also phrased awkwardly, which I will change for clarity. I will look for other specific criticisms to add, because the quotation included is It is also curious that the section specifically states "Braungart fully ignores the use phase," subtly implying that McDonough is free of this sin. This in particular is why I don't mention Braungart as having a hand in the writing of this article. Consistency in this article dictates someone is at least a fan of McDonough -- to continuously give him credit when undeserved and shielding him from criticism when deserved.

Please feel free to reach out with questions & comments. I am confused about the direction / dubious nature of much of the information and phrasing in this article. I only wish to seek clarity and accuracy to sustainable design in order for it to succeed and not be ridiculed as fantasy, when we know this kind of life cycle thinking can benefit the globe. I have no stake in any of the companies or people listed, but I am concerned by an online Encyclopedia purporting theories as facts and potential as reality.

Cheers. - TP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpark1217 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Cradle-to-cradle design. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)