Talk:World Wide Fund for Nature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	Spain Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Wildlife Fund Wins Initials Tussle with Wrestlers 2 The WWF is much criticized 3 This article is a totally disputed piece of propaganda 4 gahh, what a load of nonsense 5 Ambiguity 6 WWF should be a disambiguation page only 7 Article Name 8 Requested Move 8.1 Survey 8.2 Discussion 8.3 WWF vs. WWF 8.4 "revert to restore correct information removed by anonymous vandal" 9 Testing On Animals 10 Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries. 11 Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation 12 Name of WWF article 13 Fair use rationale for Image:WWF logos.jpg 14 WWF & WWE 15 Incorrect Budget Information

[edit] Wildlife Fund Wins Initials Tussle with Wrestlers

"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

[edit] The WWF is much criticized

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: http://www.bilderberg.org/bernhard.htm#1994 80.126.3.128 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.

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

Conservatives, among others, dispute the claim that the WWF has a science-based approach. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3bfbaf6424.htm 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)

[edit] gahh, what a load of nonsense

Great link, Cognituion. 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".--76.209.58.121 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

{IDRIVErela}}

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)

[edit] Ambiguity

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)

[edit] WWF should be a disambiguation page only

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:

• WWF (conservation organization)
• WWF (World Wildlife Fund)
• World Wildlife Fund

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

[edit] Article Name

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)

[edit] 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.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "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?

[edit] Testing On Animals

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.--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)

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

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

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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.

Sincerely

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)

[edit] Name of WWF article

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! 86.143.51.25 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)

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

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)

[edit] WWF & WWE

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)

[edit] Incorrect Budget Information

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)