Talk:Green cleaning

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wikify

Hello. I see that this is a new article and pehaps the original author hasn't had a chance to tidy it up. I've had a go with adding links and citation requirements (quite a few and perhaps more are necessary). Although it all seems valid, you need to cite some kind of expert opinion (which should be easy to find, given the awareness of the issue now). You'll see from the discussion on Natural cleaning product you need to be careful with what you are saying. In that case, "natural" doesn't automatically mean better for the environment.

I've tried to add some sections although someone may be able to come up with better titles. Rogwan 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to enter this discussion, but 'green cleaning' refers to the act of doing this cleaning, not merely the products themselves; with regard to the 'trees' -- the amount of fresh, oxygenated air is vastly greater in a forest than in a place of degraded atmosphere -both in the environment and/or in a structure. See: http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/air.html Barbaracarder 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Barbara Carder[reply]

I agree that the article is not written in an encylopedic style - it is more of a 'How To' guide, which wikipedia is not. There is nothing in the article to show whether the term 'Green cleaning' is in common use and refers to something that is well defined. TrulyBlue (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

I deleted this bit Research in infection control has shown despite intense disinfecting, some hospital environments continue to test positive for highly-resistant strains of bacteria. It didn't really fit anywhere. Can always be put back in later (with a cited source) Rogwan 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted two references to phosphates in the "Toxic" section because phosphates are not toxic substances. However one referred to the contribution to algal blooms and the effect on fish. Though it is true that high levels of phosphates can lead to these blooms, it is the resultant oxygen depletion that effects the fish, not toxicity. The entry therefore, though having some validity did not sit well beneath that heading. John E Bolton —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Possible merge

Hello. I'm tempted to recommend this article be merged with Natural cleaning product. Green cleaning needs some improvement but I think as two merged articles, it would be stronger. There is also a problem with this title. Although the term Green is commonly used, it isn't too specific. Maybe Natural cleaning? Ecological cleaning? Any comments/suggestions?

I have added this same item to Talk:Natural cleaning product and could all responses be posted there. Thanks Rogwan 20:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This article may be related to the environment, but is this image really appropriate? Trees are quite removed from cleaning. Rogwan 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~This has now been removed anyway Rogwan 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have removed this image as per my argument above. Rogwan 14:11, 10 March 2007

I believe that the term 'natural' has broader and wider connotation than 'green' when referring to business practices similar to the problems with defining 'organic'. Natural connotes something 'of nature' when businesses such as cleaning businesses must by definition do more than throw water on dirt. Barbaracarder

"Future" section

This appeared to be original writing and not in an encyclopaedic style. If you want it in, please revise and add sources. Rogwan 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a Guide

I put up this template on the article's main page a few weeks ago and have just gone through and done a bit of tidying. I removed a big chunk from the article as it was very much like a guide and not encyclopaedic content. There are also many many unreferenced claims in this article. Rogwan (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic

The article really doesn't make any distinction between real toxicity or just irritant/corrosive. For example Sodium Hydroxide is not toxic, just corrosive/irritant. Corrosives/irritants cause only local damage, which well is not pleasant, but it can't be thrown into the same category as really toxic substances or even worse: cumulative poisons. Also Sodium Hydroxide doesn't have much environmental issues so is quite green.

I propose the "Toxic" category should be split into really toxic stuff and irritant/corrosive.

--Seba (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]