Talk:World Wide Fund for Nature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wildlife Fund Wins Initials Tussle with Wrestlers[edit]

"After losing a court case".....? I thought the Wresting group volunteered to change their name. Kingturtle 21:45 16 May 2003 (UTC)

From a Reuters story:

Wildlife Fund Wins Initials Tussle with Wrestlers

LONDON (Reuters) - The World Wrestling Federation on Friday lost a legal bout with the former World Wildlife Fund over use of the initials WWF.

Judge Robin Jacob at the High Court in London ruled that the U.S. wrestling promoter, World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc., must not breach its 1994 agreement with the Wildlife Fund -- now known as the Worldwide Fund for Nature -- over restrictions on the use of the initials.

Graft 21:58, 16 May 2003‎ (UTC)

The WWF is much criticized[edit]

The WWF is much criticized by other, more principled environmental groups. Should there not be some sort of mention of this? I do not agree with this site entirely, but it does sum up the criticism quite nicely: 00:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph, and it's already bullshit: "The most influential of all animal and habitat protection groups internationally, WWF has been problematic since 1961, when founder Sir Peter Scott, a trophy hunter, recruited the leadership elite from among fellow hunters who feared that African independence would lead to the rapid loss of target species." Guess what Peter Scott never was? If you guessed "a trophy hunter", you'd be correct. He was the son of Robert Falcon Scott, and if there is one thing he never did in life, it's hunt animals for sport. In light of such a bald-faced lie, why even read the rest of this polemical article? Not that I would have anyway, since it doesn't cite its sources. Probably because it has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2007‎ (UTC)

This article is a totally disputed piece of propaganda[edit]

Conservatives, among others, dispute the claim that the WWF has a science-based approach. [ see, for example] To state this claim as fact means that the views of this article are those of WWF, which is the antithesis of NOV. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Gahh, what a load of nonsense[edit]

Great link, Cognition. Shall I quote from the only part of it that contains the letters "WWF"? You don't know me, dude; I'm so far right that I make libertarians look like weenies. Their friggin eyes water trying to look so far right ..... The only difference between corporations under fascist regimes and those under "western democracies" is who currently holds the WWF title.

Yup: your entire evidence for your multiple reverts is a post on a far-right discussion board that, the context makes clear, is about the boxing federation! Tannin 2 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

I copied the wrong WWF link. Here is the one I had meant to post, with conservative criticism of the WWF. [1]
And that post says, in its entirety, that the WWF supports the Kyoto protocol. That's not even a criticism, let alone evidence. Unless you can present actual evidence of support for your opinion, I will regard further attempts to deface the article as simple vandalism and deal with them accordingly. Tannin
It implies that WWF's agenda is left-wing and political, not science-based, so it supports my argument that the WWF's credbility is not universally accepted. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
How exactly does implication without evidence support your argument? Do you know what the word "argument" means? Apparently not. Apparently you think it means "name-calling".-- 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it is. --Iorek85 04:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What a nice unbiased piece you link us to, Cognition. As Tannin says, all the post says about the WWF is that they support the Kyoto protocol. Surprise, surprise that a conservation organisation should support an effort to reduce the pollution which is choking the planet. --Jimp 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Aren't there other companies and organizations initialed as WWF beside World Wildlife Fund and World Wrestling Federation? If there are, just turn WWF into a disambiguation page. --SuperDude 00:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

World Wrestling Federation is now World Wrestling Entertainment, have been since 2002

--Darryl Hamlin 07:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WWF should be a disambiguation page only[edit]

This page is a bit of a mess. To be clear, the World Wildlife Fund portion should be moved to its own article under a separate title, like many other organisations which have an acronym. Possible alternative titles:

At least the US branch calls itself "World Wildlife Fund" on the front page [2]Tokek 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Name[edit]

Shouldn't this article be named "World Wildlife Fund"? That is the policy, just like the NFL is at "Narional Football League" and WWE is at "World Wrestling Entertainment". TJ Spyke 22:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Alternate Move to World Wide Fund for Nature. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

WWF (conservation organization)World Wildlife Fund - Correct name of the organization, also follows tradition like the articles on WWE and NFL. It's currently a redirect page back to WWF (conservation organization)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support per nom. TJ Spyke 00:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose—"World Wildlife Fund" actually isn't the name of this organization; see [3]. Ardric47 04:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support rename to World Wide Fund for Nature per Oppose vote above. Vegaswikian 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose current request. Change the move request to "World Wide Fund For Nature" and I will support. Kafziel 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose current request. The title "World Wide Fund for Nature" is used only in some countries. The "World Wildlife Fund" is only used in Canada and the US. "WWF" is common to all countries. To put the entry under either of the full names rather than its globally known initials, would be to add geographic bias to the wiki entry. stedrayton 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, as per Kafziel, but use World Wide Fund for Nature; note: 'for' is not capitalised. – Axman () 09:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support moving & weak support target. WP:NC doesn't cover this situation except the general rules like "use common names". Obviously, WWF has precision problems and the longer forms are also commonly used; therefore, it makes sense to move this to one of the longer forms. Normally I would say World Wide Fund for Nature is preferable as it is the name used in most countries. However, in those countries, despite it being commonly known that for Nature is part of the name World Wildlife Fund or World Wide Fund is still used casually just because it is shorter, and, given that the longer name includes much of the shorter full name and there are no other organisations called World Wildlife Fund, the for Nature is IMO redundant. In summary, if both are about equally valid article names (which I think is the case), I'd use Occam's Razor with would suggest the nominated target title. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments
  • I like Vegaswikian's idea, make "World Wildlife Fund" a redirect to it though. TJ Spyke 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Anyone can change the redirect once the move is made. Vegaswikian 05:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Kafziel, I have no problem with moving it to "World Wide Fund for Nature". I made this move nomination and have no problem with the new name being "World Wide Fund for Nature" rather than "World Wildlife Fund". TJ Spyke 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that its current and historical names, and its official and common names, ought to be stated in the introduction. —Centrxtalk • 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of "World Wide Fund for Nature" as the primary location for this page. I'm less fond of "World Wildlife Fund" as a target, but that's still better than the status quo. Either way, though, WWF should stay a dab page. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WWF vs. WWF[edit]

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. 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? 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) 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 (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.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"revert to restore correct information removed by anonymous vandal"[edit] 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,, 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. 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. 04:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Asked and answered. Try not to live down to expectations EVERY time. 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)And on, and on, and on. The enforced vacation didn't take, eh?

Testing On Animals[edit]

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.
WWF has also been criticized for condoning the Canadian seal hunt, whaling, sport hunting, and trapping. According to PETA, WWF was founded by hunters.
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.-- 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)

Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.[edit]

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.


Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation[edit]

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.


Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of WWF article[edit]

It's obvious there has been a lot of discussion about the name of this article. I apologise for adding my contribution about 8 months too late. Sorry. The WWF website is quite clear that it is WWF now, not the World Wildlife Fund (except in US and Canada), and I couldn't find any WWF national organizations that are using "World Wide Fund for Nature". It just seems wrong to use a defunct name. There is a special page about the confusion where WWF try to clear up the WWF/expanded-names issue. [4] Unsuccessfully obviously. I think the page should be called WWF (conservation organization). --Fintim 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that link confirms that World Wide Fund for Nature is the correct name for the page. - Ctbolt 07:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why does it say World Wildlife Fund for Nature in the lead? That seems to be a mix that isn't right anywhere! 03:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it. Why didn't you do it when you wrote this? would have been easier.--Shadowdrak 20:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WWF logos.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:WWF logos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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)

WWF & WWE[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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))

Incorrect Budget Information[edit]

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)


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 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Projects like "Operation lock"[edit]

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."


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 (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Polar Bear "Lies": Why No Controversy Subhead?[edit]

It would seem that — again — while conservative groups and individuals are full of criticism and at least contain a controversy subhead in the Wikipedia articles about them, liberal groups have little if anything negative. When looking up the WWF, I didn't even want to add text; all I wanted to do was put a link to an article (The World Wildlife Fund's Polar Bear Lies by Tom DeWeese) in the external links subhead or simply through a footnote. Because there is nothing negative about the group, that was impossible. True, I could add it myself, but I don't have time, and the critics telling us to do it ourselves rarely explain why it is so common on Wikipedia for conservative groups and individuals to be full of criticism while their liberal equivalents have little if anything negative. Asteriks (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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 (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)

Why doesn't this appear first in Google - it's about 10th or something - even Wrestling is higher[edit]

What went wrong with the algorithms and the way this is made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaThinker (talkcontribs) 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.

Founded by eugenicists[edit]

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)

Controversy section[edit]

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. Aldo L (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing report in German Television[edit]

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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. (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)

Bias in the section regarding the wrestling organization[edit]

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 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Title of organization[edit]

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 (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 [10]) — GRM (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Factual accuracy questioned for the section "ARD documentary"[edit]

The section named ARD documentary has a {{Disputed-section}} template dated July 2011. In several parts of it, the citation templates has been placed by June 2012 (diff). Again, on September 2012, an IP questioned the content of the sections by writing.(diff)

this may not have actually happened so please choose you research sites carefully.

It is better to remove the section unless required sources are added.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 11:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Add quote ?[edit]

Perhaps add this quote to the page:


  • 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. Gregkaye (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ The long and the short of Roger - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

ARD documentary[edit]

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 Spiegel Online article in German [11]. Traumrune (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Someone vandalized this article with “Template:Kaka”. Can someone remove said vandalism without messing up the article?—Bde1982 16:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

To the person who reverted said vandalism, thank you.—Bde1982 17:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2016[edit]

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: Not moved. Consensus says that we follow MOS:CT.(non-admin closure) Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 12:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

World Wide Fund for NatureWorld Wide Fund For Nature – The official name of the organization contains a capital "F" in "For". Take a look at What do the initials WWF stand for? on this website and the articles of other national WWF organizations. Thanks. (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: We don't follow official styling, and the short coordinating conjunction "for" would be lowercase in an ordinary English proper noun. See, e.g., WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TM and MOS:CT. And the "WWF" initials can stand for the prior "World Wildlife Fund" or the newer "World Wide Fund". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:CT. Darkday (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2016 (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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World Wide Fund for Nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)