Talk:Thai officials seize 238 tons of illegal e-waste at Bangkok port
Add topicTitle
[edit]Maybe the "Thai officials say" part could be moved to the end after a comma, and the "on the port of Bangkok" could be shortened to "at Bangkok port". Also, perhaps "United States" should grammatically be "the United States", although there is good reason to shorten in a headline I guess. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- @GreekApple123, do what you please BigKrow (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @GreekApple123 BigKrow (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Visual Editor is being a pain
[edit]In a press conference on Wednesday, Thai officials said that the local authorities have found and seized electronic waste weighing 238 tons, in 10 storage containers declared as metal scrap, during a routine checks of randomly selected containers in the port of Bangkok yesterday. Allegedly illegally imported from the United States, it was one of the largest illegal imports of e-waste that the authorities have found this year.
The content included mixed piles of metal pieces with circuit boards, said Theeraj Athanavanich, the director general of the Customs Department. Theeraj said that Thai officials were planning to file charges including "false declared" imported items, illegal importing electronic junk. Furthermore, the authorities were planning to refuse accepting the containers, and return them to sender.
Reports highlighted consequent environment hazard from improper disposal of waste due to having its type declared incorrectly, with electronics requiring additional processing. Globally, only 22% of e-waste was being collected and recycled, with the rest going to landfill, as the United Nations reported last year, noting the figure may drop due to increased electronics consumption.
---
Tried to save this and visual editor refused. :( This is a backup. I'll re-try. Gryllida (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've disabled visual editor and saved ok. Added an image question. Gryllida (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Please review
[edit]Gryllida, RockerballAustralia, Michael.C.Wright, Bddpaux, JJLiu112
1) Cannot review myself because I wrote a part of it.
-- Gryllida (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- I hope it will be published soon. Thank you @Gryllida BigKrow (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I stay tuned. Gryllida (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4857880 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4857880 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The lede was restructured to break up a run-on sentence, clarify attribution, and report discrepancies between sources. Attribution was corrected to distinguish between statements made by Athanavanich and Devdiscourse. Legal terminology was rephrased for caution amid plagiarism concerns, and “e-waste” was defined on first use. A sentence implying editorial tone was revised by removing “Furthermore.” The image description was updated to indicate it is a file photo, and the article title was changed to conform to headline style guidelines—active voice, present tense, and attribution—without leaving a redirect. Please see the edit history for all edits made during the review process. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4857880 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The lede was restructured to break up a run-on sentence, clarify attribution, and report discrepancies between sources. Attribution was corrected to distinguish between statements made by Athanavanich and Devdiscourse. Legal terminology was rephrased for caution amid plagiarism concerns, and “e-waste” was defined on first use. A sentence implying editorial tone was revised by removing “Furthermore.” The image description was updated to indicate it is a file photo, and the article title was changed to conform to headline style guidelines—active voice, present tense, and attribution—without leaving a redirect. Please see the edit history for all edits made during the review process. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Discussion
[edit]hi, i think they routinely walk up to the port and pick containers randomly to examine. so "one source says random and another says routine" is an overkill. could we somehow clarify this?Michael.C.Wright Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- I rejected this change based on the following:
- Per WN:Source, "every piece of information in a Wikinews article must be referenced and verifiable." A general impression or assumption—such as inspections being 'routinely random'—does not meet that standard unless supported by a source. If someone thinks it’s random but cannot verify it, then it isn’t obvious and should not be treated as such.
- WN:NPOV requires us to state only facts, or to attribute opinions as opinions. The phrasing “one source described as routine and another as random” reflects verifiable claims made by our sources and attributes those descriptions appropriately.
- A brief review of Thai import procedures suggests inspections may not be random. According to a document titled Import Procedures from the Thai Department of International Trade Promotion (DITP), cargo is assigned either a “Green Line” or “Red Line” based on a selectivity profile system:
- Green Line goods are released without inspection.
- Red Line goods are flagged based on predetermined criteria and are then physically inspected.
Michael.C.Wright please sight 1 edit unrelated to the above paragraph. Thanks Gryllida (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- The images have been added. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)