Talk:Dumpster diving/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Brief outline

The style of this article seems to be rather non-encyclopedic. It's chummy and instructive, much like an instruction manual on how to dive. I have nothing against this, but it's not really what Wikipedia is about. It would be perfectly all right to have an outside link to such a thing. Other opinions? Hardwick 00:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The second person ("you") needs to be edited out, as well as the casual tone overall. I just added a cleanup tag, but will try to get to some of it myself. --Mumblingmynah 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Are people happy with how the page looks now? I still think the "Overview" section needs to be broken up into at least two sections. Don't ask me what. -Danspalding 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Irrelevant" discussion

I've reverted some information that was previously deleted, albeit with heavy editing. The bulk of the story about Jerry Schneider, for instance, belongs on his own page, and the same goes for the over-long digression about computer security. --Mumblingmynah 05:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"legal status"

I don't know if I like the wording in regards to the California v. Greenwood case. It's implying that dumpster diving could 'per se probably' be legal if a state or local government doesn't have law against it. The 4th Amendment, along with all other Amendments, protect a person from the US government; not a guaranteed protection among citizens. By the casual wording of this comment someone searching for information on whether they themselves can go root around in another's trash we're implying that it'll be ok. I wouldn't want to turn people into jailhouse lawyers trying to defend themselves through obvious crimes. Just my 2 cents. I know this section talks about other situations where trespassing is illegal it obviously closes with a 'but wait. go for it!' Jawz101 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't like the wording where it says "Because dumpsters are usually located on private premises, dumpster diving is illegal in some parts of the United States, though the law is enforced with varying degrees of rigor." This is simply incorrect. In such a case it is NOT dumpster diving which is illegal, it is trespassing which is a violation of the law. If you have to trespass to dumpster dive you might be breaking the trespassing law, but this is not an anti-dumpster-diving law.

Furthermore california vs. greenwood is not the only caselaw nor is the privacy issue the only legal ruling which supports the legality of dumpster diving. Centerone (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Time references

In Italy, a law issued at the beginning of the new century declared dumpster diving to be legal.

This line would be better if the author could provide specific information. A date would be great, but I think the line could stand well enough if "the new century" were changed to say 1900s or 2000s, depending on which s/he meant. This sort of text could be problematic in the future, when it would have to be edited as "last century" or something like that. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 11:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Skipping?!

I'm from the UK, and I've only ever heard "bin diving". Kinitawowi 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Skipping is something you do with rope - Most of my friends call it skip raiding - thomas.

I read somewhere else that there are places that call dumpsters skips, and that would be the origin of the term skipping. That first paragraph should definitely be cleaned up.

I've heard people here (Scotland) calling it skipping. - Caron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.145.127 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Computers

The article doesn't mention computers. With a lifetime of 18 months many fully working (and actually quite capable) computers gets dumped. It's also relevant for information diving as hard discs often aren't erased. // Liftarn

I've also heard that a lot of the older comps that are getting thrown out nowadays have rare earth magnets in them. How rare are they, and how much could I get for one if I found some. And where the heck is it in the comp? The Ungovernable Force 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
WP isn't really a forum for exchanging hints and kinks about this or anything else. Nevertheless, I'll point you to the article on the periodic table, and the links there. The rare earths are a group of elements (found in the ground) and are rare only in the sense that they're less common (generally) than some other groups of elements, such as the alkali earths. Some of the terminology is leftover from medieval times and alchemical practice. They pop up, in common use anyway, in the context of improved magnets as opposed to plain iron magnets, eg in loudspeakers. ww 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
WP gets used for off topic things all the time. The anarchism talk page seems more like a political debate than anything else. Anyway, thanks, I knew there had to be a catch. I should have remembered that from chemistry. The Ungovernable Force 18:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are ofcourse companies that recycle old computers for the content of gold, silver and copper. The conputers are dissolved into acid and then the metals are extracted using electrolysis. Not something you can do at home and it requires a lot of computers. // Liftarn

Some links and references for possible use

  • http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/29/215523/088
  • http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.09/es_dumpster.html
  • http://www.frugalvillage.com/dumpsterdiving2.shtml
  • Empire of Scrounge: Inside the Urban Underground of Dumpster Diving, Trash Picking, and Street Scavenging ISBN 0814727387
  • Jason Abbruzzese (2006-09-01). "From trash to treasure". Sentinel & Enterprise (Fitchburg, Massachusetts). MediaNews Group, Inc. and Mid-States Newspapers, Inc.
  • Sue Vorenberg (2006-06-07). "Dumpster diving group pulls reusable materials from garbage bins". The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Associated Press.
  • Sue Vorenberg (2006-04-17). "Rubbish renegades". Albuquerque Tribune. Albuquerque Tribune.
  • "Layton outlaws "Dumpster diving"". The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Associated Press. 2005-11-07.
  • Elizabeth Mattern Clark (2006-06-13). "Freegans in Boulder want to control wasteful society". The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Associated Press.
  • Larry Barnard (2006-08-24). "I was a student dumpster-diver". The Globe and Mail (Canada). Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.
  • Nicole Parton (2005-11-23). "Dumpster diving poses too many dangers". The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia). CanWest MediaWorks Publication Inc.
  • {{cite news |author = Elaine O'Connor |coauthors = Peter Severinson |url = |title = Dumpsters serve up tasty dinner: Pamphlet offers tips to binners on how to find the best meal |work = The Vancouver Province (British Columbia) |publisher = CanWest MediaWorks Publication Inc. |date = 2006-07-06 |accessdate = }}

Tom Harrison Talk 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Half this stuff doesn't male sense

Whoever wrote this has a poor grasp of the English Language. Lets all try to "clean up" this "trashy" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.66.153 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Your puns are horrible.

unsupported/contradictory statements

Cut this text from the article:

Rarely is anything really useful found in dumpsters (gold, money, expensive new in the box items), most items tend to be in such a state of disrepair that little if any use was found by their owners. Thus was disposed in the dumpster.

Anyone who wants can put this back in, but here's my rationale for removing it: First, saying that "really" useful stuff is rarely found in dumpsters contradicts the examples throughout the article of useful things that may found frequently in dumpsters (food, clothing, etc). The wording suggests that gold, money, and "expensive new in the box items" are the only things that are useful, which I think most people would disagree with. Also, what is the source of these views (if not the writer's own opinions)?--Eloil 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Socioeconomics of Dumpster Driving

This section was added by Septagram, deleted by me, and reverted by Septagram. This section has little to do with dumpster diving; it relates to people with obsessive/compulsive disorder with respect to hoarding. Even the article cited which is meant to justify the section never mentions dumpster diving. Rather than starting a revert war, what do other people think about deleting this section? -Danspalding 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if parts of the section are too strong. Others editors can round it out and fill in the gaps. I believe the economic reasons for DD and their side effects are little understood. I have been into DD for over twenty years and I have seen the houses of other people, including myself, who are "thrifty" and into DD. I know the article uses a worse case example, but it is not too far off on what many DD's have seen or experienced (like Code Enforcement ... several times). There are some people who try to romanticize DD, but from my experience and from what I have seen of others, it is not the preferred lifestyle that most DD's dreamed of when they were kids. The basic economics of DD is based on some storage of things found and not throwing those things back to where they came from. Septagram 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

other ethical reasons for dumpster diving

Another ethical reason for people to conduct dumpster diving may be that we are trowing perfectly good food away while others in the developing world are starving and resort to eating paper and tree bark. [1]~

Include in article. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying is a Fallacy of False Cause. The food that goes to waste over here in the US will have little if no affect on the people else where in the world. There is a whole plethora of reasons why they are in trouble and it has little to do with the US being wasteful. Our wastefulness will have a greater affect on the poor in the US though. What has me more concerned is people who DD who do not need to DD. If people DD to prove a point, or are greedy, they take away from the truly poor. The poor by necessity, already know about DD and it is the little secret that society turns a blind eye. I, after too many years of DD, I am trying to forget and put behind my years of DD and leave it to those who need it most. I suggest you also forget about the waste and leave it to the poor to process. The wasteful people should also be left alone because if they are too "urbane" to figure it out, then educating them will most likely cause them only to become efficient to the detriment of the poor when they stop being wasteful (loosely applied Conservation of energy). We need only to educate the poor about DD and keep the rest blissfully ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septagram (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ People in developing world resorting to eating tree bark

Background - 2nd part rewrite

Following text was deleted. Please relook/improve (at) the info and reintegrate in article. Thanks. 87.64.170.222 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Supermarkets trow away much unused food
There are several ethical arguments used to justify dumpster diving. One is, by reusing resources destined for the landfill, dumpster diving becomes a green endeavor (and is thus being practised by many freeganist communities). Others believe that the wastefulness of a consumer society and its throw away mentality requires individuals to rescue usable items (i.e. computers) from destruction and diverting them to the less fortunate. Another belief is, since many poorer people cannot afford to buy many items at market price, that any irregular, blemished, or damaged items that are still functional should naturally be priced closer to their ability to pay. To simply dispose of these imperfect items is looked on by the poor as being economically inefficient, economically insensitive, and a hindrance to their ability to acquire goods that most people can afford. An example is discarded food that might have slight imperfections, that is near its expiration date, or that is simply being replaced by newer stock. Many retailers are reluctant to sell this stock at reduced prices due to the belief that people will buy it instead of the higher priced newer stock; that extra handling time is required; and that there are liability risks.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - this text is still in the article, and I can't see that it's ever been deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention that some stores may poison or on other ways make unedible the food they throw out? There are sources for this.[1][2][3] // Liftarn (talk)

Dumpster diving vs Waste picker

Dumpster diving and Waste picker seem to be very similar concepts. Can someone explain their differences within the articles? -- 202.40.137.199 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Waste picker is a a profession, dumpster diving is an activity. // Liftarn (talk)

Dumpster diving can go from the one timer up to a full time "career" and the word "activity" seems to infer non-economic pursuits, which most DD are not doing for fun but to help supplement their incomes to prevent economic collapse and end up under the bridge or homeless shelter. Waste pickers are located in a lot of poorer countries with less social safety nets, where crawling in a dump is there only choice or starvation. American Dumpster Divers are nothing more than the richest Waste Pickers in the world. There are no VS about it. Septagram (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Many do dumpster diving for fun or for political reasons. // Liftarn (talk)
Sounds like those people are slumming and should find an other hobby. With the current economic situation getting worse, Dumpster Divers (DD)are now reporting more competition with less quality stuff so if you do not need to DD then leave it to those who do need to DD.Septagram (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, here the only persons I meet when out looking are hobby divers. // Liftarn (talk)
Pray tell which City is this you speak of m'lord? Septagram (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Stockholm, Sweden. // Liftarn (talk)

Mongo = objects plucked/rescued from the trash

  • Mongo objects plucked/rescued from the trash, especially in New York CityNYTimes March 31,2008 P.B6

Mongo: trash, cast-offs, street gleanings; the act of collecting it; and the people who do it, particularly as practiced in New York City.

Mongo: Adventures in Trash, by Ted Botha; Bloomsbury 2004, 242 pages

'Mongo is a slang term ... that refers to an object that has been reclaimed from the trash. According to The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, quoted at the beginning of Ted Botha's book, it's a term specific to New York, which is fitting because Botha's exploration of mongo is likewise based in New York. In each of his ten chapters Botha discusses different types of trash reclamation by profiling some of the "collectors" he's met. He writes about freegans and "canners" and artists who work with found objects, about "black baggers," about people who trade in discarded books...' -69.87.200.249 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Totting

Can the term "Totting" be included as well as "Tatting" Totting used to be the more usual word an it is in the OED. Tots were the bones, while tat was the rags that a rag and bone man collected. 91.108.52.57 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

External link: Surfing the Waste

Hi all. Have a suggestion for an external link that was taken down before because of questions of necessity/relevance. It's a short musical-documentary on dumpster diving (which has gone on to be screened at several internal festivals). The link is http://citizen.nfb.ca/surfing-waste-musical-documentary-about-dumpster-diving

We might also want to mention the documentary Skipping Waste. // Liftarn (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Items commonly found section violates Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO.

Basically, it's a collection of advice on where stuff can be found when dumpster diving. It is also OR. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

List of terms

The list of unsourced terms should be deleted or referenced with a reliable source. Some of them sound very dubious. Grim23★ 05:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestion, we look forward to your references. Dumpster Diving reliable sources?. . . You could contact a tenured Harvard professor about DD or the Government ;-). Be sure you references are sound for there are some over intellectualizing individuals will not be happy no matter what reference you use and blithely delete other peoples entries without doing even a cursory verification. Septagram (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Having a long list of uncited nicknames for an article is not encyclopedic and just the kind of trash that should be removed. If you are that attached to the dubious and repetitive nickname list then sources should be found. It is better to have no information than incorrect uncited information, and removing this particular list of nicknames is not even removing any potentially useful information. I suspect this list just grows and grows, similar to "in popular culture" or "trivia" sections. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

List of alternative names

Okay. I've noticed that there have been a little bit of an edit war going on about the alternative names for dumpster diving. I have no problem with having an appropriate number of names, emphasis on appropriate, with the obvious stipulation that they be referenced. ONEder Boy (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a little abusive to ask for citations on the list of alternative names? It is not as though many of these commonly used expressions would be found in an "official" citable dictionary somewhere. It also seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy: as these expressions get listed in wikipedia they are bound to become more used. I am personally a big fan of "aggressive recycling". --Billjoie (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's hard to find sources for an "underground" activity but one of wikipedia's core policies is verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you want to present original research or popularise a term then a blog or personal website is the place to do it not an encyclopaedia. Grim23★ 03:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Huffington Post citations

It looks as if the author from The Huffington Post copied these uncitied terms from this wikipedia article around the 21 July 2008. Here's how the article stood then: [4] and the Huffington post arcticle: [5]. Grim23★ 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dangers of Dumpster Diving

I have never made a major edit before but I think this article could use a section about the dangers of dumpster diving. Her is a source that talks about how dumpster diving can introduce bedbugs [6]. Could this be integrated into the article? MAH! (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Idea. I found information under people who work at dumps and the hazards they face.Septagram (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SoCal student who set up a lucrative business?

Thank you Rossumcapek! WP works again! ww 14:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not a problem. Rossumcapek 06:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thieves

In the Items Commonly Found section the following

"Because dumpsters are not a reliable source of scrap metal for dumpster divers, some "proactive recyclers" may resort to stripping buildings and other installations of their valuable metals like brass fixtures, copper roofing, pipes, and wiring. This kind of scavenging has been reported in the United States,[14][15] the former Soviet Union,[16] Argentina,[17] Jamaica,[18] and others when either scrap prices or unemployment rates soar. This kind of activity is damaging, and can create unexpected effects, such as a very large fire in Brooklyn waterfront warehouses in May 2006. Authorities and scrap yards are increasingly requiring more proof of ownership and traceability."

is unrelated to dumpster diving.

This is merely suggesting that the same people who dumpster dive also steal metal from under-occupied buildings (and then goes on to tie that crime to causing a fire).

The relationship is clearly speculative and damaging to the reputations of those who do dumpster dive.

You simply cannot tie this sort of obvious crime to dumpster divers in a way that makes it relevant unless perhaps it is in a dumpster-diving stigma section.

I have removed this section from the article as per "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons [...]" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material 69.141.179.81 (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Not just is it unsourced, but I believe that a different title would apply to vandalistic thieves than "Dumpster divers" - speaking from someone who's done some diving and would never consider stealing stuff from a building.
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Though I do think that WP:NPOV may be more appropriate as it is definitely someone's uncitable point of view.
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I do believe you are right that NPOV is generally appropriate here, but I believe that tieing dumpster divers to crime (and that crime to causing mass fires) that it can seriously damage reputations and therefore does not require simple dispute but instead removal, stemming from the fact that I believe there is a precedent created via the Biographies of living persons, and while this is not a biography of a living person, it still refers to a group of people (i.e. people who dumpster dive) and can damage their reputations. 69.141.179.81 (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


It definitely is something. Seems more of a weird tangent as if those who dumpster dive for scrap metal may eventually graduate to becoming "proactive recyclers" - or inotherwords, vandals and thieves.
But, no matter how I try to look at it, I dont see the connection or it's relevance to the article. :-)
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 07:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Grim23 for reverting that once more with the comment "Notable diving events: cnn source from original describes attempted theft not dumpster diving"
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you(plural) really need to be so serious about what contents belong in Wikipedia? I can see some rigidness required in science and important subjects, but Dumpster Diving? Again, there is little editing for useful bits and much blanket deletions because it is easy. Most articles in Wikipedia could be reduced to just a few sentences or better yet, one, with little loss of definition >;-). For example:"Dumpster diving is the practice of sifting through commercial or residential trash for usable items". Voila. Done ;-) Septagram (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I am really confused... you are saying that creating the best possible verifiable articles on Wikipedia should be considered a "joke" or a reason for inappropriate humor? I like having fun as much as the next guy, but seriously, when I come to Wikipedia to read about something, I'd like to find information that is verifiable and even explains the content to a level that someone unfamiliar with it can gain some level of understanding of it.
Had I not known (from experience and from knowing others) what dumpster diving was, I would have assumed (from your not "serious" edit, that it involved criminals breaking into buildings and ripping their guts out. While I know that is not the case, and assumed good faith that it was not a poor (and inappropriate) attempt at humor, I do know plenty of others who have never even heard the term, much less know what it is.
I guess on this, our perspectives (on how Wikipedia should be treated - or what constitutes vandalism) differ. :-)
Anyway, based off the fact that you simply seem to see it as a "not being serious" about what contents go into an article, I will assume that we should just ensure it never gets reinstated. I must admit though, if it is re-added, with your explanation above, I'd assume it wasnt a good faith and was instead an attempt at vandalism for the sake of humor or the need to not be serious when contributing to an article.
Apologies I am being so serious.


Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I deeply apologize if my comments on the DISCUSSION page was flippant and missed the point that blanket deletions throw out useful information. Granted the section needed edited because it made a bad connection between legal DD and what others do. Never the less, if you have been DD with metals, you know that the actions of those people who take metal without permission impact DD and the authorities are creating procedures that also impact DD. Now as for my edits on the ARTICLE. I feel they are correct and in good faith and would appreciate appropriate criticism. Please refrain from diatribes and assuming worse case scenarios, some are illustrating the point that I wish to avoid.Septagram (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh... we're all human... I dont think I was as pleasant as I could have been either (and sincerely apologize if it seemed so).
As for the new edit, I'm all for it. I think that the wording changes states what you were originally trying to say in a very good fashion, and without the accidental implications of the first couple attempts.
I've seen similar problems in just such the scenario you described... so I think it's a great addition as you've currently worded it.
Thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Do you(plural) really need to be so serious about what contents belong in Wikipedia?"

One mans not so serious contents are another mans very serious contents.

Richard LaBorde (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest revision to this statement?

There is another big reason why people DD in various communities.

"Dumpster diving can range from a one time spontaneous seeing and retrieving of a useful item from the garbage, to an individual's preferred low-impact lifestyle, to a full time livelihood when economic opportunities are not available."

That reason is to provide food and/or clothing to those who are low/no income. In my experiences (which have been in that area), the group involved in such would hold daily, twice weekly or weekly "cookouts" (like a soup kitchen) and provide hot meals for those less fortunate.

(not suited for article probably, just waxing on) Sadly, some local supermarkets started replacing dumpsters with trash compactors. We were fortunate enough that a couple of the local big grocery store chains would work with us and not dispose of good food (food going out on the night of it's "Sell By" date) on the days we were scheduled to come by. One store manager from a chain "down there" was actually doing it against company policy.

Regardless, (and off my tangent), there are such informal food kitchens, and similar ventures in a lot of cities (there is actually an organization devoted to this, but their name escapes me at the moment) that DD solely for that purpose.

No idea how to include that in a small phrase... writing new content is not my strong point.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Food Not Bombs is the organization, and there is a link to them near the bottom of the page. As for reasons why people DD, I don't see why this sort of listing of 'good reasons' to DD is necessary. Seems to me that it is just DDers trying to counter-act stigma, but in an encyclopedic world you must act as though there are no stigmas and just tell those truths which are really necessary. Listing essentially why the editor thinks people might DD is superfluous, the fact is that people do and that is more important. Richard LaBorde (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bingo, that was it, and I was a part of it - and that was the reason I DD'd (and helped cook). Virtually all my food was store bought. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic

I've tagged two sections as off topic, because they mention rag 'n' bone men (and the like) but not what they have to do with "dumpster diving". Maybe the differences could be explained (as mentioned above I think the container is one of the crucial differences). Grim23★ 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Bye and Good Luck

Sorry I have been gone for a while and not keeping up with the recent slew of edits to Dumpster Diving, but I need to leave this article. Several months ago, a blind Dumpster Diving “friend” asked a Dumpster Diving family member of mine to help with cleaning up scrap. Later, the site owner said the blind man did not have permission as he gave sometime earlier and called the police. So far my family member (not the blind man) was charged by the court $111,000.00 (and could have been sentenced 12 years) for two pick-up truckloads of scrap (the owner said things like light poles, a 10,000-pound spool of copper wire, 20’ steel girders and pipes, construction equipment, and more was taken). The interesting thing, the site owner got all the items back (and more) the family member removed and the police lost the evidence pictures of the scrap he took. Several days ago, the same family member was asking permission (a policy he has always followed) from the owner of a dumpster when seven police officers showed up to arrest him (saying contents of Dumpsters are the owner’s property). The police left him standing exposed to the elements for over a half hour as they waited in their cars until the owner came. The owner gave permission to dumpster dive and the thwarted police left. From this and numerous similar events over the years, my family member has again fallen seriously ill for several days and has not yet recovered. This family member has been a 24/7/356 Dumpster Diver for over fifteen years. Over these years, I have watched his (and other Dumpster Divers) physical/metal health, wealth, and my house decay from living the Dumpster Diving life and from continual harassment by the Police/Code Enforcement/Zoning. The reason he chose this “glorious” vocation is because he had, or now has, a bad back, knees, teeth, hernia, arthritis, and more. Social Security has been taking years to determine his case. The court now wants him to find a full time job or do day labor to pay his fines (eureka!). Therefore, I need to set some priorities and try to save family.

Before I go, I would like to thank those who just recently edited the Dumpster Diving article and cleansed all those unpleasant bits and sections. Here is some advice for future Dumpster Diving editors and hope it is helpful. Be on watch for those people who think Dumpster Diving is some delightfully enjoyable past time or some altruistic “green” endeavor. These individuals may not realize, as other more seasoned Dumpster Divers do, that no matter how much lip stick one slaps on the equivalent of road kill on the economic highway, it’s still TANSTAAFL and it is not beautiful or can be made otherwise. These individuals, with the best of intentions, will continually diminish the plethora of negative aspects of Dumpster Diving as not to offend readers and accentuate the positive, but instead will accidentally hurt readers and Wikipedia. For instance, Dumpster Diving can be quite dangerous if done by amateurs who do not follow proper safety. Food poisoning can be disabling or even fatal. Waste can be hazardous (legally, mentally, physically, chemically, and biologically). If well meaning editors who remove safety warnings or inconvenient information because it is repugnant or casts a bad light on Dumpster Diving, then some readers may become endangered from the lack of information. One worse case scenario is if a reader, after seeing an optimistically slanted Wikipedia article on Dumpster Diving, goes out and tries Dumpster Diving and gets sick, hurt or worse dies, Wikipedia will likely suffer, be sued for the Dumpster Diving article, and the lawsuit will make the news. A while ago, I started writing Dumpster Diving additions on mental and physical health issues, and safety and hazards (using landfill worker data and WHO data on 3rd world junk pickers) to protect all parties, but time ran out and I was busy. I still think these would be good additions to the Dumpster Diving article. Finally, Dumpster Diving should be left to the poor, advocating Dumpster Diving for anyone else is taking away the few rungs on which the poorest of the poor can garb hold to and pull themselves up. Good Luck. Septagram (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the Trivia section.

It was as follows-- "Notable diving events {{Trivia|date=March 2010}}

  • In the 1960s, Jerry Schneider, using recovered instruction manuals from The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company, abused the company's own procedures to acquire hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of telephone equipment over several years until his arrest.
  • The Castle Infinity game, after its shutdown, was brought back from the dead by rescuing its servers from the trash.[1]
  • In 2001, dumpster diving was popularized in the book Evasion, published by CrimethInc.
  • Food Not Bombs is an anti-hunger organization that gets a significant amount of its food from dumpster diving from the dumpsters at small markets and corporate grocery stores in the US and UK.[2]
  • March 18, 2000, 55 Oscars reported stolen were found in a Los Angeles dumpster behind a grocery store. The salvage man, Willie Fulgear, 61, received a $50,000 reward and two tickets to the Oscars. Later, his reward money was stolen from a safe in his apartment.
  • Charles Manson wrote and recorded a song entitled Garbage Dump which dealt with dumpster diving. It appears on his album Lie: The Love & Terror Cult.
  • In the television show The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack the main characters regularly dumpster dive in search of candy.
  • Author John Hoffman wrote two books based on his own dumpster diving exploits; The Art and Science of Dumpster Diving and Dumpster Diving: The Advanced Course: How to Turn Other People's Trash into Money, Publicity, and Power, and was featured in the documentary DVD The Ultimate Dive.
  • British television shows have even featured home renovations and decoration using salvaged materials. Changing Rooms is one such show, broadcast on BBC One. Recovery of still-useful items from discards is well-known in other cultures as well; James Fallows noted it in his book written about his time living in Japan. However, much of the richness attributed to dumpster diving in Japan ended with the collapse of the nation's economic bubble in 1990." 70.20.177.78 (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/06/21/0133233.shtml?tid=206&tid=209&tid=10
  2. ^ Greenwell, Megan (2006-08-16). "Diving for Dinner - washingtonpost.com". washingtonpost.com<!. Retrieved 2009-05-07.

addendum to the "Films" section

Hello, I recently came across the 6th episode of season 1 of the animated TV show "The Goode Family". That particular episode is about FREEGANS. Maybe the reference to it can be added to the page.

193.190.66.36 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Gilles, from Belgium.

Im at a peculiar computer otherwise I would put dumpsterworld ddoott com as a link

dumpsterworld ddoott com has a lively discussion area where people list their finds as well as lighting n "grab thingy" technologies

Links to forums should be avoided, also new sections should be started at the bottom of the talkpage, comments can be signed with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Cheers Grim23★ 01:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2008-freegan-day1.3.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2008-freegan-day1.3.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

University Assignment

Hi fellow wiki-ers! I will be working on improving this article as an anthropology assignment through the Wikipedia: Canada Education program. Overall, I aim to improve the encyclopedic quality of this article, add additional information on health and safety risks associated with the endeavor of dumpster diving, as well as include additional references.

Feel free to give suggestions on further edits needed!

Thanks! :) DonGabrieli04 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Resources

I will be gathering my information from these various sources:

Trash Wiki, How to Dumpster Dive, The Dos and Don'ts of Dumpster Diving, as well as Victoria C. More's ethnography entitled "Dumpster Dinners: An ethnographic study of Freeganism" from the Journal for Undergraduate Ethnography. DonGabrieli04 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I will also be working on adding sources where citations are needed from the previous edits done by other contributors.

DonGabrieli04 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

MTA Peer Review

Great touch ups to the article, I love the topic! I would suggest perhaps adding more citations where it is outlined or removed the "citations needed" if already added. If you could maybe find examples of the instances of injury or death of individuals who have participated to give it could give a more well-rounded view on the topic. Also it might be beneficial to find sources for the list of terms which dumpster diving it called by because I know I'd be personally interested in learning more about the different origins. Keep up the great work! :)MelaineH (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Uses the term "tatting" yet this word which is a type of lacemaking (look it up in wiki!) is the only term not given a citation - perhaps one needs to be added or this term should be removed. kersti (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

links

linkspam. the article have 15-25 mostly advertsing about dumpster diving, there should also be added some links with arguments why it is illegal in many places--80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the 'Further Reading' section is overloaded with useless links. I'll remove some of them if you are not going to.
Get some notes in so people know we need more inline-sources and info, not links to how you dumpter. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Why would we avoid putting links about how dumpster diving is performed on an article about dumpster diving? According to the external links policy: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding should be linked to. It also says Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. and this article is definitely overcrowded with Films, Notable instances, In popular culture, See also, Further reading and External links. Oh, and it also has 25 reference, which is a lot for a short article however that's more about the relevance of the sources than the amount. I've removed pages from 'See also' and 'External links' but there's a lot more to go. EvilKeyboardCat (talk)

Pro and con list

This article's pros and cons section strikes to me as very poor formatting - jumping from the Zabbaleen of Egypt keeping the streets clean to UK cookery books on expired food within a single subsection - and the WP:PROCON lists' cardinal sin: unresolved WP:NPOV issues. One man's pro is another man's con, and taking sides is not encyclopedic writing. Also, removing bullet points hardly hides the fact that it's a list rather than WP:PROSE.

Reading through the section, there are lines of thought that can be organized better than this fragmentary and confused form: sociological aspects, environmental aspects, legal aspects (which has it's section already), by country (though listing by country hardly makes more sense) etc. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Check out the format a few years ago before it was "improved". Septagram (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The pro and con list format has been reformatted into prose within the article, and much additional content in the article has been reorganized. North America1000 06:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 03:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose that Waste picker be merged into Garbage picking. I think that the content in the first article can easily be explained in the context of Garbage picking, as one is an agent and the other is the practice. The overlap is huge, maybe some slight broader meaning in the second but really. It'd make a stronger article combined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. obviously Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  • First, I've got to ask who structured this merger proposal discussion with sub-sections to 'edit' for voting. I've never seen it done this way compared to any other such vote, and I think it may be a barrier to participation, as well as a reduction in the way people typically express the strength of their opposition or support. It also reduces or eliminates the ability to have a threaded discussion. As far as the suggestion goes, I understand the concept here, but what is being missed is that waste picker is a job or category of jobs, whereas garbage picking is usually a hobby. It would make more sense to look into combining waste picker with rag-and-bone man, Junk man, Karang guni, although there may be good reasons to keep some of those as independent articles too. Centerone (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The topics are different enough to warrant separate articles. Also both articles are of decent length, and combining them would create one very large article. North America1000 01:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per NorthAmerica1000. smileguy91talk - contribs 03:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per NorthAmerica1000. However, we may connect the articles with words and hyperlinks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose two different things. Waste picking is salvaging of waste materials for personal use while garbage picking is a/an government/industrial procedure.--Chamith (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your oppose, ChamithN, but you got your facts wrong as to the nature of garbage picking and waste picker. Centerone (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Centerone:, perhaps you are right. Though over where I live garbage picking is done by the government. However I still do oppose the merge as per Northamerica1000's points.--Chamith (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per NorthAmerica1000, Suggest someone closes this seeing as it's not gonna happen. –Davey2010Talk 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

  • Size of both articles allows us to merge to make an article that is not too big overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Waste picker article, where shall we put the differences between waste picking and garbage picking? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel that the article should have a few information about waste picking but not fully merge the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Garbage Picking to Dumpster Diving Move/rename should be reverted.

Uhmmm, okay, so you just did a move/rename without any discussion? SERIOUSLY??! Uhm, okay let me tell you why (besides lack of consensus) that was a bad idea. First, dumpster diving is AS THE ARTICLE STATES is called different things in different countries. Dumpster Diving is a (mostly) US centric term. Secondly and MORE importantly. Garbage picking covers going through trash in a lot more situations than just in dumpsters! Less importantly, but still important is the fact that dumpster while commonly used is basically a genericized trademark. I don't know if someone still owns the trademark, but other companies may call their large commercial trash receptacles different things. Uhm, perhaps you should revert your move. Centerone (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Centerone: The article refers to dumpster diving throughout. Then I did a google trends comparison. After that I was 100% convinced was the right choice so I was bold and did it. The term doesn't appear to literally refer to dumpsters, but the generic process of going through bins for some reason or other. Je ne regret rian Deku-shrub (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like you are claiming willful ignorance. Centerone (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, I performed imperial research, proof read the article and followed Wikipedia's policies. Hit me with a decent rebuttal and we can kick this through Wikipedia:Requested moves Deku-shrub (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't tracked the language use in the article, it is the case that people in the article have mistakenly over-used the term dumpster diving incorrectly when they are sometimes talking about other things. That being said, this article references and is about a whole lot more than just picking items out of dumpsters. The term does literally refer to dumpsters. Just because some people are vague or loose in their usage of language, does not mean that it's not a specific term, and clearly the over-use and incorrect use of the term in the article needs to be fixed. Dumpster diving and garbage picking or trash picking is NOT the same thing. It's like the ship and a boat argument. All ships are boats but not all boats are ships. "_Garbage picking_ is the practice of sifting through commercial _OR_ residential waste to find items that have been discarded by their owners, but that may prove useful to the _garbage picker_." That is, all waste sources. Not all waste is found in dumpsters. Not all trash receptacles are called dumpsters or are even sized or look like dumpsters, and the term is a US centric term anyways, as well referenced in the article. Performers of these actions do not all go in dumpsters. Karung guni go door to door, Zabaleen collect trash from individual residents in standard trashbags then take the stuff elsewhere to sort. Rag-and-bone men collected specific items from individuals and businesses. Gleaners collect agricultural waste and detreitus from fields. "Artists often use discarded materials retrieved from _trash receptacles_ to create works of found art or assemblage." Garbologists go through all sources of waste. Private investigators do too. California vs. Greenwood (the case referenced in regards to trash picking was about trash left outside the home, on the curb, NOT in a dumpster. Police frequently can go through _household_ curbside waste to catch criminals (that's what CvG was basically about.) There are many more references and mentions in the article which can be pulled out, but I think that's enough. Centerone (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Dumpster diving is used in such a way to mean to sift through any type of rubbish container, regardless of the brand or shape of said container Deku-shrub (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That's your opinion of the use of language. It's neither accurate or true to real world examples as well as references made in this very article! Centerone (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some sources:
en.wiktionary.org - "the act of recovering, for any purpose, discarded items that would otherwise be sent to a landfill"
collins "the practice of searching through dustbins for discarded but still usable or valuable objects such as food or clothes"
Urban dictionary Dumpster diving is looking for treasure in someone else's trash.
OED "To search through a rubbish container (especially a dumpster or skip) for food, items of value, etc."
http://dictionary.reference.com "the practice of foraging in garbage that has been put out on the street in dumpsters, garbage cans, etc., for discarded items that may still be valuable, useful, or fixable."
I've not found a single definition which makes the case that the term is exclusively applicable to looking through a specifically sized or shaped container Deku-shrub (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The two reliable sources there both specifically mention dumpsters or skips. We could find similar sources for the definition of ships, but that doesn't make it right or accurate. While the use of dumpster diving may be more loosely defined, it simply does not cover _all_ aspects of garbage picking. Garbage picking is the all-inclusive term. It's not the same thing as dumpster diving. Dumpster diving as a term simply does not cover all the aspects of what all the people who do this stuff who have already been mentioned do. It is NOT dumpster diving when the Zabaleen and the Karang guni go door to door collecting bags of waste, it's not dumpster diving when a garbologist collects a few weeks of a household's trash in order to study what the public throws out and how they live, it's not dumpster diving when the police or a private investigator goes through a drug dealer's curbside trashcan, it's not dumpster diving when an artist collects the remains of a garage cleanout, or any of many varieties of sources of waste in order to make art, it's not dumpster diving when someone goes to the town dump or landfill and brings back useful materials. People simply picking up furniture or useful stuff from the side of the road on trash day would typically not say they went dumpster diving. Besides the fact that a few of your sources do mention dumpsters, you also edited the quote from one of your sources in a way that left out that they were indeed talking about dumpsters. Urban dictionary: "Dumpster diving is looking for treasure in someone else's trash. (A dumpster is a large trash container.)" - you left out the part that explains what they were talking about. Second definition there: "Actively searching through trash in commercial or residential DUMPSTERS to find discarded but usable items;" The term dumpster diving simply does _not_ cover so many different aspects of what is discussed and covered in this article. Is it a common term that is used to discuss one activity of waste recovery by the average person? Yes, of course. But it simply does not cover all practices, methods, situations, or sources of waste and materials. It is not an appropriate title for this article. Centerone (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not ensure the extended use definitions have their own section then? Deku-shrub (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
What.... exactly do you mean by that? Centerone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
We disagree about the scope of this article. I feel the new name can encompass everything, you feel this excludes certain definitions. Why not leave the core definitions as-is, create a separate section on 'waste-picking' which covers activities not traditionally covered by dumpster diving? That way you don't have to worry about content being excluded from the article by the new name? Deku-shrub (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The article ALREADY encompasses everything, the new name doesn't. I wouldn't and shouldn't have to "worry" if you would simply revert the renaming move you made in the first place. The fact that you demand a "decent rebuttal" yet refuse to acknowledge the clear examples presented, or even debate me on the specific points is an issue. Dumpster diving is a subset of garbage picking, garbage picking is not a subset of dumpster diving, gleaning is not a subset of dumpster diving, the organized waste collection and sorting by the zabaleen, the karaguni, rag and bone men are not subsets of dumpster diving, California vs. Greenwood does not specifically apply to dumpster diving, but rather to all garbage picking, etc. etc. etc. Furthermore, I don't and shouldn't have to create a "separate section" on 'other things' because the article is already about them! I don't disagree about the scope of the article. I disagree about your belief of the application of a term to things that it clearly does not apply to! It sounds like you're acknowledging that the term is infact exclusionary, otherwise you wouldn't suggest a separate section which shouldn't be necessary in the first place! Centerone (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to move the actual page name or not? Deku-shrub (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, I do not have the ability to do that. (I tried to undo your move but I couldn't.) I don't know if that is because you can't undo such a move or what. I've never done a page move before. Centerone (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Status Section Rewrite

Just a note that I believe the legal status section should be rewritten so that it is more clear and organized. I think it should probably be laid out in such a way as to list how it is legal in many countries, the various potential legal concerns (legal arguments for and against), and then country by country (or more regional) references. Legalities of garbage picking may vary by areas as small as cities and towns. It also may vary based on the type of and location of receptacle. Different rules may apply to standard household trash containers vs. commercial containers, for general waste containers vs. specialized collection such as recyclables, etc. Centerone (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have a rough consensus that the proposed name is the common one. Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


Garbage picking → Dumpster diving – As per discussions, I think this is a more common name and best represents the article Deku-shrub (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  • STRONGLY OPPOSE As per discussions. This is not a common name for the activity, it's a subset activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centerone (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 August 2015‎
  • Support - as it stands the article is entirely about the subject of diving in dumpsters in US and European cities, with the exception of one short paragraph in "Performers" which links to several related articles (karung guni, zabbaleen, rag and bone man, waste picker, junk man, gleaning). We're not doing the reader any favours by presenting the article as being about the general practice of "garbage picking", when it's not. Would suggest that garbage picking becomes a disambiguation page linking here, and to the related articles. --McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
And per my comments below, "dumpster diving" seems a well-understood term used across the US, UK and Australia, while "garbage picking" appears unknown outside the US (possibly because "litter picking" means "picking up litter and disposing of it" in the UK and Australia). --McGeddon (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The phrase "garbage picking" sounds more like a phrase used to represent a form of service involving picking up and removing pieces of litter on roadsides. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't about employees employed to pick through and sort garbage at a waste processing facility; rather it's about the more general salvaging from trash, not specifically about the paid employment. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused by your reasoning. Can you better explain why you think the term needs to be about paid employment? Or why it needs to be at a "waste processing facility"? Or why you think it isn't? There are several examples in the article as to how people are earning their living doing this, or at very least are subsisting based on the materials they salvage. Centerone (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Centerone and per WP:ENGVAR - The article states and I quote "the practice is called dumpster diving in American English in the US" - So thus only the yanks use "Dumpster Diving" and the rest of the world use different terms, Everyone more or less would know Garbage and one would (or should) come to the conclusion that picking could either mean picking from the road or bins/skips ...., I appreciate because of British English and American English there's always going to be issues with these but IMHO Garbage Picking seems neutral/balanced here, Personally I think the article should never have been moved and per ENGVAR it shouldn't be moved now. –Davey2010Talk 17:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: Seems as though you have a quite valid systemic bias concern. Do you have an alternate option of what to name this article than its current title or its proposed title, at least to remove the ambiguity from the current title? Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Afraid not, I thought "Garbage" was already an american word and assumed "Picking" is a worldwide term so kinda assumed Garbage Picking was fine, I too a point agree it should be moved but to a name that's more neutral which atm I'd have no idea what the could be, (On second thoughts and as I said above I think Garbage Picking is the best title here) –Davey2010Talk 17:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If anything, "garbage picking" actually seems to be more of an Americanism; plugging the phrase into a search of UK and Australian news sites returns literally zero results, while "dumpster diving" returns plenty. (In the UK, the similar term "litter picking" refers to the collection and disposal of litter from an area, so the title "garbage picking" may be actively confusing to UK readers in addition to being US-centric.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
What about "trash picking"? Oh, wait, you're talking about news sites only.Centerone (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a problem in my doing that? Searching prominent news websites seems like an easy way to compare how terms are used in reliable sources on a country-by-country basis. --McGeddon (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
What do you call your trash in the UK? Do you not have garbage? I don't know, I just did a UK search and I got a bunch of hits. I'm trying to sort through to figure out which are just re-branded US .com's, but this was near the top: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253819/The-slumdog-ballerina-Garbage-picker-14--grew-Manila-ghetto-Philippines-promising-ballerinas.html Centerone (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The UK generally uses the term "rubbish". dailymail.co.uk has two articles that use the term "garbage picking": the one you link (which uses the term in the URL and body, but has - perhaps significantly - swapped it out for "rubbish picking" in the actual headline) and one about New York dumpster divers which uses "garbage picking" once and "dumpster diving" fifteen times.
Against those two articles are maybe 150 on the same site that use "dumpster diving" instead. --McGeddon (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Searching http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=garbage%20picking I get a ton of articles where either the term "garbage picking" or "picking garbage" is used in a way to describe people surviving by pulling useful products out of the trash. I tried searching for dumpster diving, skip diving, and skipping, and I get next to nothing that seems appropriate. Centerone (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like that's a historical archive that doesn't go much beyond 1950. Adding quotemarks around the search term, I can't see a single story in there that uses the words "garbage picking" to describe an activity - only sentence fragments ("...upon heath and garbage, picking up a stray leaf..."). --McGeddon (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I was initially going to support the move believing that Dumpster diving is the common word. However, when I did a Google search, Dumpster drive only got 883,000 hits while Garbage picking got 1,340,000 hits. Thus, this request (based on WP:COMMONNAME), IMHO, is contradicted until this is proven wrong. -- Chamith (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
My methodology produces this Deku-shrub (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That's more than enough to nullify my comment. I will back up my !vote for now as I want to know what Centerone meant by saying it's a subset activity. Because a move has to be precise. In my experience however, Dumpster diving is same as Garbage picking. -- Chamith (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm not at all debating it's a popular term. I will concede that all day every day that it is a popular phrase. That being said, my point is that it's NOT a common name for 'garbage picking', because it's not a name for the same thing as garbage picking. It is one form of garbage picking, but the article covers many more forms that, even with a loose definition of dumpster diving, cannot in any way be seen as or called dumpster diving. It's a ship and a boat. Dumpster diving is garbage picking, but garbage picking is not dumpster diving. I've already laid out all the current examples in the discussion above. I don't know what else needs to be clarified. Centerone (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
COMMENT I didn't comment when I initially voted because I figured everybody would read the discussion above.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Garbage_picking#Garbage_Picking_to_Dumpster_Diving_Move.2Frename_should_be_reverted. My key position is that dumpster diving is simply not a replacement term for garbage picking; it's not a common name because it's simply not the same thing. You can get caught up in the numbers of when and where the terms are used, in how one term is more popular than another, but it's pointless because it's not the same thing. Someone brought up precise but I don't think it's accurate to say that it's "too precise" as discussed in that wikipedia policy because in several ways it's actually exclusionary of several topics covered by the article, or maybe that is what they mean. Could it use a new name? Maybe; I personally use the term "trash picking" more commonly, but that new name should not be dumpster diving for all the reasons I already stated. Centerone (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dumpster diving. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dumpster_diving/Archive_1&oldid=1153389870"