Talk:IKEA/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about IKEA. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Use of Illegal Timber
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I am a junior member at Earthsight and would like to add our reports to the criticisms section of this article. I appreciate Wikipedia's rules re: conflict of interest / self promotion, but I believe our work constitutes substantial criticism, is based on concrete evidence, and is relevant to the article. Here is the text I prepared, added, and has been removed:
I linked Flatpacked Forests and House of Horrors to the investigations as hosted on our website, which I can see as being construed as self-promotion but I think is relevant. I also attempted to cite this Channel 4 news piece on our findings and this article by The Times
I also wanted to post the cover of our report as an accompanying picture because imo it's a nice graphic, but I can see how the impartiality of that could be criticised
There's no denying we have an agenda here - we are afterall an advocacy organisation who want our findings widely known to pressure IKEA and FSC to reform their ways. However, our findings have been internationally reported on by news outlets round the world and can objectively be considered as valid, substantiated criticisms of IKEA.
I'd be happy to work with an impartial editor to include our findings if anyone would be so kind
TomElliott113 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Tom Elliott, Office Manager at Earthsight
Not done TomElliott113 please post the exact wording you would like in the article below, in the form of "Change X to Y". I see that your previous edits have been reverted for being a copyright violation, so please ensure that the information is summarized and put in your own words. An image of the front cover will not be added as it is WP:POV and promotional. Z1720 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you - I had wanted to add the italicised as a new section to the Criticisms area - maybe even combine with the existing Possible Illegal Timber in Romania and IKEA buys timber from Lukashenko's dictatorship
I have lifted some of the below direct from our report to avoid making any errors in translations, which I'm guessing is what triggered the copyright violation. I have permission on behalf of Earthsight to use their copy, but I understand wikipedia wants independent copy - if it's still a problem could you let me know what needs rewriting, or absolutely feel free to make any edits you feel appropriate
Copyright text removed --Jack Frost (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
TomElliott113 Tom Elliott, Office Manager at Earthsight
- Really, I can't believe you've added the copied content here again, after it was twice removed from the article and talk page. I've opened a thread here [1], and asked for administrative assistance regarding copyright issues and WP:COI. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @TomElliot113: Due to Wikipedia's copyright policy, we are unable to include any text quoted verbatim from the report. If you could boil down the conclusions of your report using your own words to something that is a single paragraph, then we can look at approving it. Any claims you make should be referenced in the news articles that are independent of your website, which I believe the two news articles would be. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 22:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Frost: I'm cross-posting my reply to the admin assistance thread as I think it is relevant
Apologies about uploading the same copy multiple times - I can see how that can come across as insistent but I thought it was relevant as a starting point for the conversation and I was hoping we could collaborate on improving it so it reaches Wikipedia's standards. Truth be told I'm not overly confident in my written English abilities, and there are a number of specific technical terms I didn't want to mangle - which have been my main motivations to lean on the language as published and reviewed by our libel lawyers.
As for publishing our findings - well yes, I suppose that is my intention - but as a legitimate addition to the page and certainly not as a means of promoting ourselves. To the extent that I've made reference to ourselves, well, we are the source and while other independent news outlets have reported our findings, the 20-page fully referenced report is our work and hosted on our site - so it seemed to me we are the ones to credit.
The initial copy I posted was a genuine effort to use impartially describe our findings in my own words, but with the more technical bits lifted from the report. I didn't realise how seriously this breached Wikipedia's copyright rules, I thought it was fair use being flagged in case - not a warning. I have had another attempt at rewriting the copy but will be the first to admit I've just shifted the sentences around so it's not verbatim the same as on our site. Please treat this copy as a continuation of a conversation and not as a demand for publication - ideally if one of you gifted wikipedia elves could pick it up and make the changes to carry it across the line that would be perfect, but otherwise feedback is appreciated and I'm willing to have another go. Sorry again for any trouble or offence TomElliott113 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is my new attempt at making a compliant addition - I haven't included references below but have them ready when a suitable text is agreed on. TomElliott113 (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Edit - deleted by TomElliott113 as duplicated further down with references TomElliott113 (talk)
- Note: the above text appears to copy or paraphrase content from Earthsite's website. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- TomElliott113, there is no way that we can consider any text without a reference, since it is the job of Wikipedia editors to summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- My take is that besides conflict of interest and copyright concerns, WP:UNDUE is also an issue--the corruption of foreign oligarchs has little to do with IKEA. The way to go here may be to add a few sentences to the article, using journalistic sources provided above by TomElliott113. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- TomElliott113, there is no way that we can consider any text without a reference, since it is the job of Wikipedia editors to summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
So here's the Flatpacked Forest report https://www.earthsight.org.uk/flatpackedforests-en and here's some of the coverage it got in the MSM
Channel 4 https://www.channel4.com/news/from-chainsaw-to-chair-ikeas-illegally-sourced-furniture
The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/23/timber-unsustainable-logging-allegedly-sold-eu-ethical
New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/world/europe/ukraine-flood-coronavirus.html
The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ikea-linked-to-illegal-deforestation-in-ukraine-qb89bg02l
And here's the House of Horrors report https://www.earthsight.org.uk/news/investigations/ikea-house-of-horrors and some coverage
The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/ikea-children-furniture-illegal-wood-b1884276.html
TomElliott113 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:OVERKILL. It seems I need to repeat everything here. A couple of sentences and a couple of sources ought to be sufficient. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Sorry - I was under the impression you wouldn't consider or give feedback on my text until you had references, so I was offering you a choice to pick from, seeing as my first attempt has been deleted and my choices were deemed inappropriate. I am not great with editing the source text and find it difficult, so please bear with me if I am not referencing in your preferred manor. I am linking to the Earthsight report as that seems like an appropriate place - I appreciate the conflict of interest element but it has to most detail and seems like the horses mouth source. I'd like to reiterate I am asking in good faith for help getting these additions up to standard, and not demanding my attempts are implemented as is.
Use of Illegal Timber
In June 2020 IKEA was found to be selling beech chairs made from wood which was illegally felled in the forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians - including their best-selling Terje and Ingolf chairs. In their investigation Flatpacked Forests environmental NGO Earthsight found that many of Ikea’s melamine-coated chipboard furniture products were made from Ukrainian wood of suspect origin.
The report focussed criticism on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the world’s leading green labelling system for timber, which IKEA uses extensively to prevent illegal and unsustainably harvested wood from entering its supply chains.
Ukrainian forester whistleblowers explained how FSC audits could easily be undermined through corruption and deception, especially during the Ukrainian presidency of Viktor Yanukovych in 2011-14, who has been widely criticized for "massive" corruption and fostered an environment where fraud and the doctoring of official documents was rampant.
A further Earthsight report in July 2021 focussed on the brand's popular Sundvik children's range and Flisat doll's house as likely being tainted with illegal wood from protected forests in Russia. Ikea’s House of Horrors linked their furniture to Siberian forests under the control of one of Russia's top-50 wealthiest politicians, Evgeny Bakurov.
The investigation found that Bakurov's businesses broke numerous forestry and environmental laws, using a practice known as sanitary felling to cut down trees under the false pretext they were dead, dying, diseased or damaged. Over the last decade, these illegal deals have helped Bakurov controlled firms harvet 2.16 million cubic metres of wood.
Again, Bakurov's pine was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), allowing it to enter into many other supply chains heading to Europe and the US, aside from Ikea's. The report argues a majority of the EU's imports from eastern Russia are potentially contaminated with FSC audits rarely mentioning or addressing the rampant illegal logging documented within Russian authorities.
Ikea denies all wrongdoing and has announced a temporary ban on sanitary felled wood from Siberia and Russia. The retailer insists Bakurov's wood was "legally harvested" – but have stopped purchasing from his associated companies, citing unspecified "practices of concern".
TomElliott113 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Denied due to laughable formatting and incredibly obvious bias. Quetstar (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am no expert on IKEA and have never been to one, but this user was very open with their bias and has cited reliable sources. I don't know if this should be added at all, or how to do it, but I think it's being dismissed too easily. I've directed the user to instructions on proper citations. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate the @TomElliott113's acknowledgement of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and links. I will look at the sources later and contribute something. The text isn't formatted completely right, and it's probably too long/will need some time to read it thoroughly, but we shouldn't Wikipedia:Bite new users who are approaching us in good faith, including paid editors/advocates. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- The criticism section needs serious work in any case. I can't believe it was tagged in 2014 and people have just been shovelling more stuff into it ever since despite WP:CRITS. Koncorde (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I'm sorry to prolong this saga even further, but it's a stubborn item on my to-do list I'd like to see completed.
I'm sure I can correct the referencing of the copy above (it's only as it is because I don't know how to reference on the talk page) but due to my conflict of interest I don't want to add anything until someone with some kind of objectivity/authority has OK'd it. Shushugah mentioned it's probably too long, but I personally can't see what could be removed without compromising the addition - feedback would be very welcome. As for Koncorde comment about WP:CRITS - that's way above my competency, and until someone else has the time to tidy up the page could I be forgiven for "shovelling" further items in, or should I re-evaluate how I approach this entirely.
TomElliott113 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Basically "criticism" sections on wikipedia are not allowed because they are (by nature) lacking in balance. What is instead needed is prolonged coverage in reliable sources discussing whatever subject is at hand that we can present reflecting the various perspectives, ideally either within context of the company profile - or if the controversy is significant enough then a dedicated section. But the current Criticism section should be culled. I hoped someone would look at it in the interim as I have been busy, so I may be BOLD and delete it. Koncorde (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: I don't even understand this ER. You need to clarify the changes you are proposing. Quetstar (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Use of Illegal Timber - revised request
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I am a junior member at Earthsight and would like to add our reports to this article. I appreciate Wikipedia's rules re: conflict of interest / self promotion, but I believe our work constitutes substantial criticism, is based on concrete evidence, and is relevant to the article. There has been a long back and forth about this issue that I think got way too large, so I am restating my request without the baggage for clarity. I understand the stand-alone criticism section is an issue, so I was considering adding this to the Environment section
In June 2020 IKEA was found to be selling beech chairs made from wood which was illegally felled in the forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians - including their best-selling Terje and Ingolf chairs. In their investigation Flatpacked Forests environmental NGO Earthsight found that many of Ikea’s melamine-coated chipboard furniture products were made from Ukrainian wood of suspect origin.
The report focussed criticism on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the world’s leading green labelling system for timber, which IKEA uses extensively to prevent illegal and unsustainably harvested wood from entering its supply chains.
Ukrainian forester whistleblowers explained how FSC audits could easily be undermined through corruption and deception, especially during the Ukrainian presidency of Viktor Yanukovych in 2011-14, who has been widely criticized for "massive" corruption and fostered an environment where fraud and the doctoring of official documents was rampant.
A further Earthsight report in July 2021 focussed on the brand's popular Sundvik children's range and Flisat doll's house as likely being tainted with illegal wood from protected forests in Russia. Ikea’s House of Horrors linked their furniture to Siberian forests under the control of one of Russia's top-50 wealthiest politicians, Evgeny Bakurov.
The investigation found that Bakurov's businesses broke numerous forestry and environmental laws, using a practice known as sanitary felling to cut down trees under the false pretext they were dead, dying, diseased or damaged. Over the last decade, these illegal deals have helped Bakurov controlled firms harvet 2.16 million cubic metres of wood.
Again, Bakurov's pine was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), allowing it to enter into many other supply chains heading to Europe and the US, aside from Ikea's. The report argues a majority of the EU's imports from eastern Russia are potentially contaminated with FSC audits rarely mentioning or addressing the rampant illegal logging documented within Russian authorities.
Ikea denies all wrongdoing and has announced a temporary ban on sanitary felled wood from Siberia and Russia. The retailer insists Bakurov's wood was "legally harvested" – but have stopped purchasing from his associated companies, citing unspecified "practices of concern".
I'm sure I can correct the referencing of the copy above (it's only as it is because I don't know how to reference on the talk page) but due to my conflict of interest I don't want to add anything until someone with some kind of objectivity/authority has OK'd it. Shushugah mentioned it's probably too long, but I personally can't see what could be removed without compromising the addition - feedback would be very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomElliott113 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please do not delete other editors' comments, nor edit your own with proper redaction. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not done for now: The text is unnecessarily bloated and the tone isn't neutral. It must be made neutral and concise. Quetstar (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DetongChe.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)