Talk:Climate Group

Neutrality
The Climate Group is funded and heavily populated by business leaders, so cannot be said to be independent as is stated in the introduction. The article needs to be balanced out to recognise the organisation's business bias, noting that there is a dissonace between the corporate view of climate change prevention and that of many environmentalists and climate scientists.

--Farnishk (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Climate Group counts both business and governments among its members. There is no link between members and the governance of the organisation.

As for funding: Business members and corporate sponsorship provide less the 20% of The Climate Group's 2007-2008 funding. Approximately 50% of its 2007-2008 funding came from foundations, other NGOs, and other donations - and another 26% from the philanthropic HSBC Climate Partnership (which also provides philanthropic funds to Earthwatch, WWF, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute) supplied around 26% of 2007-2008 funds. (See the 2007-2008 Annual Report linked to - and/or funding section now posted - in the original article.)

--Marthajeanne (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality continued
This article appears to have been written by members of The Climate Group, which violates Wikipedia policy. Could the authors please identify themselves and cite the sources of their information?
 * I don't know if the article was written by members or not, and it doesn't necessary invalidate the edits if it was, but they should at least make their interest clear. The bigger problem is just that the article is obviously biased and doesn't have proper citations to support its claims.  We should try and change the article to meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards. The article also badly needs citations, from reliable sources, supporting what it's saying.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify: The article appears to have been written by employees of the Climate Group, not merely members, specifically, two people who are employed by the group in the public relations department, so neutrality is a big question, and many factual bits of information are glossed over ("operations in India are underway." They were well-established, then the head of the country operations left, now they are looking for a replacement). The entire contents reads like the organization's press kit (and in fact large portions of the text are taken directly from the press kit).

This article was DEFINITELY written by the PR people who work for the Climate Group in London. It is total PR fluff, on top of being badly written and difficult to understand - I recognize the writing style and know who wrote it. It also ignores the reality of the organization, how it was formed, its REAL history, alleged accomplishments. It conceals facts and contains a lot of misleading information. Basically, it is a glossed over brochure (the material is in fact largely lifted verbatim from the organization's brochures and promotional materials). It's not a real representation of the facts. I spent considerable time reworking it to represent reality - including the massive problems being experienced by the US operations and the fact that the group DID have a well-established operation in India that fell apart when its director left - the text says "operations will soon be underway" but fails to mention the large office that existed there in 2008 but now is largely gone).

I invested quite a bit of time fixing this, to be ACCURATE and represent reality, it appears the PR people deleted that and put their promotional material back in. There are SERIOUS problems with the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article, it should be fixed or deleted. Right now it's just an advertisement for the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamondevalera2 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality or deletion
This article still has not been corrected to contain factual information only and to have a neutral point of view. Right now it reads like an advertisement, and changes made to make it more accurate and factual have been systematically removed or altered to remove information which is unflattering but factually accurate. I would like to invite the people who are making these changes to join the discussion and explain the reasons for these changes. I will attempt to once again edit the article to be more factually correct and make it a more appropriate Wikipedia entry. Remember that Wikipedia articles should be more like encyclopedia articles, not a blatant ad or PR piece for the organization.

In the mean time, the page has been nominated for deletion. So I think the choice is factual accuracy or deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamondevalera2 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a look at an earlier version of yours, . This starts:


 * ...Operations had been underway in India, but the recent loss of the national director, Preeti Malhotra, call into question the organization's ability to effectively operate there. Moreover, the organization's US operations have suffered heavily due to financial difficulties. Roughly half the staff have been laid off (including the North America Director) and operations in the US have continued thanks only to a heavy cash infusion from the UK office.

If that is true, it ought to be in the article, but it ought to be sourced. Without sourcing it can't stay William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading a December, 2010 'The Climate Group' report on China's Low Carbon Cities (English summary []), I checked this Wikipedia article and found this discussion. By no means do I claim to be an expert on the subject ( low-carbon cities), but I felt The Climate Group's report read like a promotion which lacked balance or discerning substance/insights in a very important energy area. I share your concerns. Jimrothstein (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, however, not a place for user's personal opinions on the level of insights in an organisations' reports, especially where not based in expertise. Only a summary is available in English anyhow, with the full report in Mandarin. A quick search shows it received widespread coverage in Chinese papers (China Business News, Hainan Daily, Xinmin Evening Post, China Economic Times, China Business Times, Dezhou Evening Post, Qinghai Daily...).

I've attempted to add in references and improve language neutrality. Where notable content on financial struggles can be referenced, by all means include it. RFinighan (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Climate Group → The Climate Group — As can be observed in all the references that discuss the organisation, the full name of the organisation is 'The Climate Group', not 'Climate Group'.--RFinighan (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.