Talk:World Wide Fund for Nature/Archive 1

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Budget amount for the WWF is incorrect based on the most recent data. Also the link is broken. Based off the 990 submitted in 2005 the correct budget would be $111,393,537. This is a small correction, I know. Infonation101 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WWF vs. WWF

The lawsuit with the World Wrestling Federation was by no means "settled" on May 6, 2002. For example, in November of that year, the Wildlife group asked for $360 million in damages. For another, the Wrestling group won a 2003 decision allowing them to continue promoting a videogame containing the "WWF" logo.

24.215.152.197 08:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)For some reason, correct and pertinent information is being repeatedly reverted by a user mistakenly invoking buzzwords like "inaccurate" and "vandalism." In my opinion, it's quite the reverse. Perhaps something can be done about this?

24.215.152.197 07:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)The unexplained reverting has happened again. Can someone do something about it?

Something has been done - you have been reported for violating WP3RR. - Chadbryant 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)The above poster continues to delete:

• the terminology for the lawsuit;
• the date of the result;
• procedural specifics of the WWF/WWE name change;
• subsequent legal action between the two groups;
• and details about WWE's obligations.

He continually replaces these with his less specific version. More than a fourth of this article's recent changes are simply his reversions.

In his determination, a trademark filing that has not occurred is relevant to the World Wildlife Fund. But WWE's proven, dated action of systematically changing their company website in direct response to the lawsuit is deemed "inaccurate." It's baffling.

All of the information that the above user is deleting is completely accurate, and is more detailed than his version. The above user insists otherwise, but refuses to offer further explanation or evidence. And all because of an unexplained loyalty to the date May 6th. A birthday, perhaps?

What a shame.

How was the Wildlife Fund allowed to bring a lawsuit against

WWE when the World Wrestling Federation was founded in 1952 and the Wildlife Fund was founded in 1961. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.147.22 (talk

) 15:45, August 12, 2007

I was wondering the same thing DeftalC3AU (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that the World Wrestling Federation did not actually use the initials WWF until sometime in March 1979 when World Wildlife Fund had already been founded. The odd thing is though, it didn't appear to bother the Wildlife Fund until 1994 when they drew up an agreement to use the initials. They then sued them in 2000 claiming that the Wrestling Federation violated the agreement.--

"revert to restore correct information removed by anonymous vandal"

24.239.177.32 17:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)"Vandal," eh? Still assuming good faith as always, aren't you?

The date on a WWE press release is non-notable. This page is about the World Wildlife Fund, not World Wrestling Entertainment. Every signpost along the transitional trail from WWF to WWE needn't be annotated here. May 5 is the date that the World Wrestling Federation abandoned its claim to the acronym "WWF," and that is all that needs to be included on a page about a totally different corporation.

Anyhow, why you'd put such stock into a press release dated May 6 (describing the events of May 5, BTW) when you were previously deleting the specific dates of the WWF/WWF lawsuit on this very page, is baffling.

On your user page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chadbryant, you write, "Chad no longer edits or participates in discussions concerning articles related to professional wrestling." Why minutia this unimportant would provoke you to break your vow, only you could say. Your first impulse was a good one.

64.131.196.204 00:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Judging from the page history, Chadbryant is the only Wiki user who thinks his edit to this Wildlife page is pertinent. Multiple users have reverted his edit(s). Considering this fact, and the fact that he previously received a 3RR ban for the same reversion he is still pursuing, perhaps CB will take his promised break from editing wrestling information, and think about the wisdom and good faith of continuing this behavior. I hope that this will be the case.

64.131.196.204 04:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Asked and answered. Try not to live down to expectations EVERY time.

64.131.196.204 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)And on, and on, and on. The enforced vacation didn't take, eh?

Could somebody add some facts on what WWF does? And remove unimportant and uninteresting name dispute from years ago? The article looks like collection of outdated gossip from tabloid magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.166.43 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is a bit POV. It's just all stuffed with critics, but doesn't outline the successful projects. Why not give information on some typical well known projects of WWF like "Operation lock" [5] in South Africa? WWF tried hard to save a reservat for white monkeys by protecting them from black:

"During the same period, inside South Africa, WWF was running Operation Lock, ostensibly designed to save the black rhino. WWF Netherlands president, Prince Bernhard, father of Queen Beatrix, and John Hanks, WWF's Africa director and one of the continent's most outspoken Malthusians, financed a team of ``retired British Special Air Services commandos to infiltrate and sabotage so-called poaching rings. We have learned from sources inside South Africa that Operation Lock was at the center of what came to be known in the early 1990s as the ``third force, an outside paramilitary force instigating black-on-black violence between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party by carrying out targeted acts of violence, like the June 18, 1992 Boipatong massacre. The goal: to trigger a bloody civil war and prevent the end of the apartheid system and the reintegration of South Africa into the world community."

Source: http://www.fpcn-global.org/content/More_Scandals_about_programs_WWF

It should be outlined the positive role of the business interests of the members of the inner circle of the WWF, the 1001 club, with such projects? And guess what, there are a lot of more such fine WWF-activities like securing resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.229.91 (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a message on the article WWF saying "WWF could refer to the World Wrestling Entertainment (formerly known as WWF)" and "WWF could refer to World Wide Fun for Nature" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EKrib (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't necessary, WWF doesn't redirect here it is a disambiguation page. That's even better :) On that note... considering they are WWFN or WWFfN now, shouldn't they let Vince have WWF back now? Though if I were him I'd just keep the E, it is symmetrical. F is not a symmetrical letter in anyway. It is ugly because it lacks symmetry. Tyciol (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with That, World Wide Fund for Nature, should change the name to WWFN, instread of stealing the WWF Logo from now what is called the WWE or the World Wrestling Entertainment, The WWF logo was more organized than what World Wide Fund for Nature logo is. (CMpunk2010 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

What went wrong with the algorithms and the way this is made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaThinker (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error fixed in title. Nothing went wrong with the search algorithm. More people have searched for wrestling than for this. Search engine results are based on total search frequency, not your individual intention. It can't read your mind.

This fund was founded by Julian Huxley, an eugenicist and signatorie of the Eugenics manifesto on September,1939.In fact, ecology is just the new name for eugenics.In fact, all founders of this association were eugenicists.Agre22 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Can someone fix the infobox? |first president = H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands [6]

Simon de Danser (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've herd somewere that the WWF uses there position as a wilf life organization in order to conduct experiments on animals. Is there any truth to this accusation, or what?

According to a site by

PETA, Wicked Wildlife Fund

, WWF has pressured the US, Canadian, and European governments to increase animal testing of new and existing chemicals.

Personally, I'd like to see a brief mention of these controversies in the WWF articles. What do others think? Rosemary Amey 05:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, PETA isn't exactly a "reliable" source concerning such things. It sounds like they just want to make WWF look bad because they don't support the same radical opinions.

In 2003, I wrote to WWF-Canada and they confirmed that they "actively support" the seal hunt. ([Copy of our correspondence posted online.]) As far as I know they haven't changed their policy on the seal hunt. Has anyone corresponded with WWF in other countries? Rosemary Amey 22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, maybe this just me, but I think theres a HUGE difference between the canadian seal hunt and the preforming of lab tests on domesticated animals. The latter seems much worse then the former. Untill I see relieable evidence that indicates the WWF in these such things, I will not think eny less of them. Besides, we cannot hold the entire organization accountable for the acts of a few blood-thirstly yukons.

I can see why you'd think that, considering that medical testing on animals is singlehandedly responsible for the last 100 years of medical advancement, whereas seal hunting is done for food. These are clearly both evil, evil things, and should be stopped. Maybe you should donate more money to your local eco-terrorism group, like PETA, since you already buy all their bullshit propaganda hook, line, and sinker.--76.209.58.121 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosemary, from that correspondence of yours with WWF, it seems to me they are just trying to keep the ecosystem in balance. Too many members of a certain species can have as detrimental an effect to the environment as too little. Papadilos 09:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PETA = bullshit. I don't believe it... :-/ --HoopoeBaijiKite 09:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that — again — while

Why? Because there is no controversy to begin with. That article you have linked to is full of non-sense. You'd think the author would research the topic before refuting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.73.105 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Although that article is absurd, there is controversy about the WWF; however, I would be in favor of removing the funding information from all such groups, as the only value is to make implications which we could not include as statements even if confirmed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend we create a "Controversy" section that would combine several headlines already on the page. --Zkomes (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly a good idea, but we need to be sure that the controversies are all properly sourced; we don't need to verify that the controversies have any basis, but only that they exist and are somewhat notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Won't be enough I fear. Is someone like DeWeese, who has no background or knowledge whatsoever in these matters, be able to judge the controversies appropriately? He has not even the slightest idea what climatology is, yet he is very outspoken about the climate. A source like PETA, for all their over-the-topness, is better, because their judgement is based on some sort of scientific fact, not just politicized opinion.

In general, criticism from other environmental groups, scientists etc = OK, criticism from political pundits with a MBA but no background in the natural sciences = not OK. Otherwise, it'll make matters worse (is Alex Jones a reliable source?).

But overall, I think a "Controversies" section would be in order. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have an e-mail from WWF Paraguay about criticism to them for not acting after an anaconda and an alligator were entered into the "show business" in a local mall. Their response is that they are more interested in land use than anything else. I don't know if that's germane or not.

talk

) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A disturbing report was transmitted in Germany on 22-23 June 2011 on the ARD.de national television channel. A copy of the report, which I will translate in the next few days.

http://programm.daserste.de/pages/programm/detail.aspx?id=DECB2B6FDA2C242F119126FBCE2A45B1

The documentary "Der Pakt mit dem Panda" by Wilfried Huismann was re-aired by the German network ndr on 04,16,2012. Among others the documentary contains a interview with a german WWF representative in wich she declarers, the WWF Germany has no position towards genetic engeenered foodcroop.

Der Pakt mit dem Panda © WDR/SWR Länge: 45 Minuten High Definition Stereo Videotext Was uns der WWF verschweigt Film von Wilfried Huismann Der WWF gilt als größte Umweltschutzorganisation der Welt. Fast grenzenlos ist das Vertrauen in seine grünen Projekte. Mit aufrüttelnden Kampagnen zielt der WWF direkt auf das gute Gewissen der Spender - alle sollen sich beteiligen wenn aussterbende Arten geschützt und das Klima oder der Regenwald gerettet werden. Vor 50 Jahren wurde der WWF gegründet - am 11. September 1961. Heute ist der WWF die einflussreichste Lobbyorganisation für die Umwelt - weltweit. Dank bester Kontakte zur Politik und zur Industrie. Eine ständige Gratwanderung zwischen Engagement und Käuflichkeit. Ein ganzes Jahr arbeitete der Dokumentarfilmer Wilfried Huismann an einem Film, der das grüne Bild des WWF entzaubern wird. Hinter der Öko-Fassade entdeckte der Autor während seiner Dreharbeiten weltweit Geschichten voller Sprengkraft. Die Dokumentation will die Geheimnisse des WWF ergründen. Sie wird zur einer Reise ins Herz des grünen Empire und sie erschüttert den Glauben an den Panda.

Eine CoProduktion von WDR und SWR

Die in der ursprünglichen Pressemeldung vom 11. Mai 2011 enthaltene Aussage, wonach das ARD-Team auf Borneo (Indonesien) „kein einziges Organ-Utan Schutzprojekt des WWF" gefunden hat, halten wir nicht aufrecht. Gleiches gilt für die Formulierung: „Der WWF nimmt Geld von den Unternehmen und verschafft ihm das Gütesiegel für nachhaltige Produktionen", soweit dadurch der Eindruck erweckt wird, das Unternehmen würde gegen Geldzahlung ein WWF-Gütesiegel für nachhaltige Produktionen erhalten. Hierzu haben wir uns auch gegenüber WWF Deutschland zur Unterlassung verpflichtet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SidKane (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WWF would like to see some balance restored and some factual additions made to the section posted on the ARD documentary on the WWF page - as posted, allegations are being represented as statements of fact. We are proposing some text as below which maintains the original post in its entirety with some slight edits to note allegations and claims and adds some additional factual material from WWF on those particular claims.

"German public broadcaster ARD aired a documentary on the 22nd of June 2011, allegedly showing how the WWF cooperates with corporations such as Monsanto, providing sustainability certification in exchange for donations (a form of greenwashing). WWF has rejected the allegations as factually wrong misrepresentations - it is not in “a partnership” with Monsanto and sustainability certification for commodities (not companies) requires independent assessment against social and environmental sustainability criteria drawn up by multi-stakeholder round tables. By encouraging high-impact eco-tourism, the program alleges that WWF contributes to the destruction of habitat and species it claims to protect. WWF-India is not active at the tiger reserve given as the example, but it is active elsewhere seeking to limit adverse tourism impacts and better sharing of tourism benefits to local communities. The program also alleges WWF certified a palm oil plantation operated by Wilmar, a Singaporean company, on the Indonesian island of Borneo, even though the establishment of the plantation led to the destruction of over 14,000 hectares of rainforest. Only 80 hectares were ultimately conserved, the ARD documentary claims. According to the programme, two orangutans live on the conserved land, but have very slim chances of survival because no fruit trees remain and the habitat is too small to sustain them. To survive, they steal palm nuts from the neighbouring plantation, thereby risking being shot by plantation workers.[25] WWF notes that the plantation filmed is PT Rimba Harapan Sakti, which has not been certified as a sustainable producer by the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil. Aerial photographs show that around 4000 hectares, or about a third of the forest cover, has been conserved."

Editorial comment on this suggested edit would be appreciated. We would propose to wait until 11 July to review any comments from the community 83.77.249.27 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Contributed by Phil Dickie, Head of News, WWF International

The author of the text suggested in the comment above was careful not to remove or edit any criticisms. Unfortunately, that makes the resulting text hard to read. The suggested text also adds some counterclaims which have not been verified by a third party, either. The media seem to simply report the controversy rather than checking the claims. The current article does need changing, however; the paragraph about the documentary presents disputed claims as facts. For now, I suggest that we give a short(er) summary of the essential claims made in the documentary, clearly indicate that they are disputed, and link to both sources ([7] seems to document the WWF's position). Rl (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of WWF, we appreciate your notation in the article that the factual accuracy is disputed. I am willing to try to make the suggested submission less confusing (possibly through paragraphing) and to reference what can be referenced. It is difficult to reference a negative, for instance - WWF just does not have a partnership or relationship with Monsanto - but elsewhere there are links, aerial photographs etc. It would be an improvement to have the allegations clearly identified as such, but with respect, I would submit that WWF should be able to indicate any significantly faulty factual basis to allegations retained or summarised in the article. 85.2.48.92 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Phil Dickie, Head of News, WWF International

I said "short(er) summary" because I am afraid making the text about the documentary longer will give it

undue weight

(which quite frankly is already a problem with parts of this article). I checked the German Wikipedia because their editors are closer to the sources. I like their version: a separate article on the documentary and a brief paragraph in the WWF article, reproduced here in its entirety:

In dem Dokumentarfilm Der Pakt mit dem Panda von Wilfried Huismann aus dem Jahr 2011 finden sich diese und auch weitere Vorwürfe gegenüber dem WWF. Der WWF veröffentlichte daraufhin einen „Faktencheck“ auf seiner Webseite, in dem er mit Argumenten und persönlichen Statements auf die Anschuldigungen reagierte. [8][9]

Alas, our WWF article is in pretty bad shape and doing it right would take more time than I can spare. I replaced the paragraph in the article with the text suggested by the WWF representative (with minor fixes). This is not an endorsement. I don't like the text, but it's less bad than what we had. I know many would argue that removing the whole paragraph would be a better choice, but not mentioning the documentary at all is not much of an option. Meh. Rl (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In 2000, the World Wide Fund for Nature sued the World Wrestling Federation, which wasn't the right thing to do (now named WWE) for unfair trade practices ... On August 10, 2001, an English court ruled in favour of the World Wide Fund for Nature, even thought this should not have been made...

This does not seem like a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.255.244 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The section named

[1]

• definitely, another one to add could be the one quoted by Professor Short, with whom he was working on elephant populations in Zambia. “You know, I have often thought that at the end of the day, we would have saved more wildlife if we had spent all WWF’s money on buying condoms.” These quotes show the realism of what was going on in Scott's mind.
  talk
  ) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In Germany there was not only a television documentary but also a book by Wilfried Huismann: "Schwarzbuch WWF - Dunkle Geschäfte im Namen des Panda". The author and WWF found an arrangement about some points. See the

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061114234625/http://www.internetnews.com:80/bus-news/article.php/3_1038611 to http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3_1038611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061013110155/http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com:80/agreements/wwf/worldwildlife.1997.01.20.html to http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/wwf/worldwildlife.1997.01.20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

I have not been able to find any official reference to the change of the name of the organization to "The World Wide Fund for Nature". The international website uses 'WWF'. Where is the documentation of the name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.187.60 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the WWF UK website, the name was changed in 1986, resulting in serious confusion, which "led the WWF Network in 2001 to agree on using the original acronym as its one, global name - the acronym that it had always been known by since its inception way back in 1961: WWF" (see [11]) — GRM (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The recent development section relies entirely on sources published by WWF or an organization that is now a part of the WWF, so I have tagged i with the 3rd party template. I am going to check the rest of the article for any similar issues. Toad02 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Founding: Morges Manifesto also relies heavily on self published sources (though not as heavily). I will put the same tag, but feel free to delete this one before disucssing it here, as I am not positive if this is the correct thing to do (I won't tag you for edit warring). Toad02 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

After reading the article, I've decided to tag the entire article with this template. There are quite a lot of self published sources. Toad02 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The removal of controversies from investigative reports from several organisations from several years in the lead goes against the

First, I am completely neutral to this incident and to this organization, but you seem to be really interested in adding in the report from Buzzfeed and words like "They have attacked African and South Asian villages, torturing, raping, and killing villagers" , which has up to this date been an accusation. Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news platform, it should include facts only in the lead. Thirdly, this investigation by Buzzfeed being one of "the most important points", as you mentioned, is your own opinion but not a consensus, Wikipedia:Consensus. Fourthly, your saying "[my words are] not a valid argument" is also your own opinion without any evidence or reasoning. OxbridgeGate (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Sources are not Buzzfeed or news articles alone but includes detailed investigation from Survival International of which the PDF has already been cited and the new Buzzfeed article cites several more reports from other parties which I will add them. The WFF has not disputed the claims and even acknowledged the existence of the 2015 internal report by them which details Human Rights abuses and the new Buzzfeed article contains an interview with the reports author. These are facts even though you claim it to be merely "news". The reasons you provided for the removal contradicts the guidelines you cited for the removal and [WP:NPOV]. It is recommended that you read the citations before making edits. Also note that threatning to call administrators is not a good idea. Threatning to call admins over non-existent edit warring is not going to end a dispute in your favour.

In addition I have additional sources from non-news articles based on investigations. Both the Survival International 1 2 3 and the Rainforest Foundation 1 has investigated human rights abuses for years but the necessary sources has already been added. You aren't providing enough reasons to remove it despite several investigations by several organisations all agreeing that Human Rights Violations took place.I need a valid justification for you to denying them as not being facts and only concentrating on the Buzzfeed investigation-

UmdP

20:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

1) You really have to follow logic and keep in mind the point of our conversation: whether or not it is needed to add in your description of this controversy in the lead section of this article. Besides it, I have not denied or agreed with any of the content or online sources you mentioned, since I am completely neutral to this incident and to WWF.

2) The only opinion I have is, again, this controversy does not need to be included in the lead section. The rationale is quite simple: this controversy is clearly still being investigated, and before any final consensus it is still an ongoing incident, which does not summarize the most important facts in this article (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but not a news platform - this does not mean that all the content you described & added is news, it only means that Wikipedia should not be written in a manner as a news platform which may keep an ongoing incident in its lead section.

3) I have been utmost polite and my edits have been completely neutral. But you have not. I guess you may have been biased and targeted me as a protector of this page who tried to "white wash" WWF, which is false. And, you have reverted my edits twice and this is a clearly sign of edit war, which was the reason why I mentioned the "three revert rule" and the administrator.

4) After all, with my objection, in order to make changes and include this "controversy" in the lead you will need support from other editors to reach consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus), since the original lead section has been well-established. Otherwise, please do not add in the content in the lead section. OxbridgeGate (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a major controversy and has been for years. As per the

WP:LEAD

guidelines The lead must have a summery of major controversies yet the article has none. That is a white wash

Provide source for the "Controversy is still being investigated". The controversy has been investigated several times by several organisations including Buzzfeed, Survival International, Kathmandu Post and the Rainforest Foundation. The only investigation you are talking about is an internal investigation by the WWF. If you deny these investigations while accepting only the internal investigation by WWF then that goes against

WP:NPOV

.

Pls avoid constantly repeating "I am neutral you are not". I never said anything you accuse me of saying to you. English is not my first language but I am good enough to not accidentally insult people. Reverting edits more than once is not a sign of editing warring. You can see this is my first group of edits in this page and I am not trying to push my personal neutrality as a point in a dispute. Your neutrality is not relevant and neither is mine as long as the article gives adequate weight. I did not remove anything positive about the organisation and only added a major controversy that has been plaguing the organisation for years that has been well documented by multiple organisations. By ensuring that no controversies are added to the lead you make sure that

WP:UNDUE

weight is added in favour of the organisation. Criticism of the article is quite limited and my additions does not create any issue of false balance.

Your decision to only keep positive information in the lead section is all based on false claims like claiming it is purely News articles or referring to the claimed WFF investigation to call it "still under investigation" to disregard previous investigations by multiple organisations since 2016. If you are attempting on gaining a consensus then you need to try, not use false excuses to remove content and claiming neutrality in every single post does nothing to push your views. If you keep blocking criticism I am willing to go to the arbitration committee for a neutral mediator. -

UmdP

00:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not want to argue over whether you actually wanted to start an edit war. But since you had made two to three reversions within 24 hours, you had shown the trend, and thus it was reasonable of me to give you a warning. That's it, and let's stop this meaningless argument. Now, you want proof for "still being investigated"? See below. A controversy of this magnitude warrants extremely careful handling and independent investigations from various authorities. So why don't all of us wait for these investigation results and then decide whether or not to include such controversy in the lead section? Just WAIT for the conclusive results of these investigations below (probably there are more) and stop using the derogatory term "white wash". Wikipedia is not a news platform that reports the intermediate steps of ongoing incidents and investigations in the lead. Most importantly, I did not write this article, and the lead section has been well established for long time before this incident. Remember, it is NOT me who needs to gain consensus and make changes to the lead, it is YOU. You need to gain consensus before making such a big change, not me.

1) UK Parliament investigation on the way: ^[1]

2) UK Charity Commission investigation on the way: ^[2]

3) United Sates investigation on the way: ^{[3] [4]}

4) WWF investigation on the way: ^[5]

None of the investigations you cited have started. There is a difference between demanding one and starting one. Also I have added all the sources necessary of all the currently known investigations from multiple years and you have yet to provide a proper justification for completly ignoring multiple investigations from multiple organisations from several years. Further you have failed to to justify the reasons for removal of content based entirely on your opinion. According to the reason you claimed it is because "the lead section "is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." Please do not add in News content involving disputed or controversial topics. Add in facts only. Please comply with Wikipedia policy and remain neutral". However I have made it clear this is not news while you have conveniently ignored that

UmdP

09:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed report (actually, many of them on the subject) is absolutely encyclopedic and should be included in the article. It is very well sourced and links to numerous WWF internal documents and reports. The organization has been asked for comments, which it declined, consistent with the pattern of hiding abuse complaints described by BuzzFeed. Any internal or external investigations are orthogonal to the original article. They may add more details in the future, but are no in any way precondition to publish the currently available information. The only possible issue I have with the current version is that the whole abuse discussion was stuffed into the lead, which is a bad practice. This should be described in a separate section, the lead might contain a brief mention about the organization being "subject to complaints" and linking to the details.Cloud200 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read the above thread, and I strongly believe that the controversy should be stated in the LEAD. I agree that the lead is white washed without it. I believe we should clarify that it is under investigation, but simply because it is news doesn't mean we can't site a reliable source saying "WWF is currently under investigation for X Y and Z, and they have offered no response to these allegations since they were reported in 2015" (or something like that). I strongly dislike the emphasis put on consensus in a discussion that clearly pertained to only 2 editors, and therefore could not actually have consensus (but that's not related to the article). I believe that consensus has now been established by

I don't feel comfortable editing the article itself, but wanted to note that there seems to be a misattribution of the quote "The new edition will certainly provide no differentiated analysis of the work of the WWF." In the cited source this quote is not attributed to a spokeswoman for filmmaker Wilfried Huismann but to Marco Vollmar who, according to the cited source, is a WWF executive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.201.125 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. Corrected. Scientific29 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't they make a Coke advert and help promote ( or even create ) the infamous bee update in Minecraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.62.116 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)