Talk:Wyss Foundation

Wyss Campaign for Nature
Hello! I noticed you removed the content about the Wyss Campaign for Nature per WP:FUTURE. I understand if a few problematic details should be trimmed, but does the entire section need to be removed? The campaign is ongoing, funds have been distributed, the donation and goals are significant, and there's lots of secondary coverage. Of course, the 2030 goals are future-oriented, but the campaign itself is very much in the works. Here was the content:



Can you clarify which content in particular is problematic? I assume the campaign should be mentioned in some form, but a standalone subsection under "Conservation" may not be necessary. Spintendo, would you care to take a stab at appropriate text, or if you can clarify what's wrong, I can try to trim the text.

Is this just a tense problem? For example, should the text say "The campaign is working to convince the parties..." instead of "The campaign will work to convince the parties...", and "National Geographic Society is documenting..." instead of National Geographic Society will document...", etc?

The campaign launched in 2018, so I'm not fully understanding how WP:FUTURE applies. I am curious if you have any thoughts here as well, since you moved the draft into the main space. Thanks in advance to you both for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 05-JUN-19
Wikipedia should ideally be about past events. But this paragraph deals little with the past — it's mostly about future, hoped for events yet to occur. When it does mention the past, it places those claims in sentences which arguably contain more future events. Let's look at this paragraph sentence by sentence. Regards, Spintendo  07:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request to return mention of the Wyss Campaign for Nature
Based on User:Spintendo's feedback above, I'm submitting a request to add back a short mention of the Wyss Campaign for Nature, which is an ongoing campaign and has already distributed funds, according to appropriate secondary coverage. This source says, "Of the grants already awarded, the Nature Conservancy received $6.9 million to expand its Blue Bonds for Conservation program in the Caribbean and create a sustainable agriculture zone and protected area covering more than 200,000 acres in Australia's Murray-Darling Basin." I propose adding the following text to the article:



I understand the campaign has future goals, but that's true of many conservation projects. I've tried to draft language focusing on the past, as requested, but I've kept "which has a goal of protecting 30 percent of the planet by 2030" so there's some description of the campaign's general purpose. Again, the campaign has received significant coverage (searching "Wyss Campaign for Nature" at Google News yields hundreds of returns), so at least minimal mention seems appropriate. I hope this satisfies User:Spintendo's concerns above, and I'm open to text adjustments. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This Guardian source also says funding for the Murray–Darling basin project was provided in part by the Wyss Campaign for Nature. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim should be limited to what the money spent has paid for. For example, the 55 million to "buy two cattle stations along the Murrumbidgee River near Balranald in New South Wales". Spintendo  08:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spintendo, I understand you prefer only mentioning already funded projects, but adding claims about specific accomplishments without giving readers a basic understanding of the goals and relevance of the Wyss Campaign for Nature seems problematic. Do you have any proposed text in mind for describing the campaign? Inkian Jason (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is problematic about mentioning events which have already occurred. What seems to be problematic is the belief that in order to have a basic understanding of the subject organization's conservationist activities, readers must be aware of the goals and relevance of these issues only as explained through the lense of the Wyss Foundation's own interpretation of those elements (via their press releases issued to the Chronicle of Philanthropy and Philanthopy News Digest). It's that interpretation alone which these claims are asking requiring the readers to know before "basic understanding" can take place, which I think sells the readers short on what they are able to comprehend with regards to a simple act of purchasing land in order to conserve it from the damaging use of others. Regards, Spintendo  12:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering
On behalf of the Wyss Foundation, I propose adding mention of the organization's funding of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. There are several recently published sources confirming the project, including Harvard. I propose adding:



This seems like a straightforward update, but I don't edit the main space directly so I'm seeking assistance from another editor to review and update the article on my behalf. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Hub Project
According to the New York Times on April 13, 2021: "Long before he emerged as a potential champion of journalism with his bid for Tribune Publishing, the Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss quietly created a sophisticated political operation to advance progressive policy initiatives and the Democrats who support them. The organization, called The Hub Project, was started in 2015 by one of Mr. Wyss’s charitable organizations, the Wyss Foundation, partly to shape media coverage to help Democratic causes. It now has 60 employees, according to its website, including political organizers, researchers and communications specialists. Mr. Wyss and his charitable foundation are not mentioned on The Hub Project’s website, and his role in its creation has not been previously reported." [emphasis added] Novellasyes (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, I saw this article too. Just added content here copied over from what I had previously put at Hansjörg Wyss. I also tagged this article with a paid contributions tag since it has been almost exclusively created and edited by a disclosed paid editor. Disclosure is great, but what's not so great is that this article looks promotional and is hard to distinguish from the group's own website. It needs significant work to become an encyclopedic article. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time to work on any of this for the next few days but came across Wyss because I'd been working on the Tribune Publishing acquisition story. One thing I noticed is that both Stewart W. Bainum Jr. and Hansjörg Wyss utilized COI editors on their pages. (For Wyss, you have to look at the talk page archive). They seem to have used the same paid editing company FWIW. [[User:Novellasyes|Novellasyes] (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What I infer about the Wyss Foundation from the recent coverage in the New York Times that is linked in the newer section of this article called "Political advocacy" is that the foundation's website only talks about some of their giving. The NYT article says that their website doesn't mention the fairly substantial political advocacy giving that they have engaged in. This just goes to show that independent RSes are very important when discovering facts about an entity, since entities don't have to disclose everything they are up to, and apparently this one didn't. Novellasyes (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits to Conservation subsection
Hello! I'm here on behalf of the Wyss Foundation with an edit request. On August 28, an IP address editor added new text to the Conservation subsection. The new text claims that the Campaign for Nature is "highly criticized by indigenous rights groups, human rights organizations and the environmental movement" and is supported by two citations—a June post on a website called Open Democracy and a March article from the New York Times. Neither of these sources make any reference to the Wyss Foundation or Campaign for Nature. Both do, though, detail criticisms of the 30x30 initiative more generally.

It seems like a separate article about 30x30 would be a better place to detail endorsements and criticisms of the plan. That said, I can understand why some mention of criticisms would seem relevant here, so I've attempted to revise this paragraph so that more context is present about the Wyss Foundation's support for Indigenous-led conservation efforts. I have also replaced citations that linked to the Wyss Foundation website with third-party, reliable sources. Can someone please review this revised paragraph and, if they feel it meets Wikipedia requirements and improves the Wyss Foundation article, make the update?

In 2018, the Wyss Foundation launched the Wyss Campaign for Nature, pledging that it would donate $1 billion to the project. The campaign aims to protect 30% of the world's surface by 2030. The campaign is backed by the National Geographic Society and other international conservation organizations. The 30x30 plan has been criticized by some indigenous rights activists for potentially dispossessing human inhabitants from historically occupied land. Other tribal organizations and leaders have endorsed the initiative, however. The Wyss Foundation has financially supported Indigenous-led conservation efforts, including the effort to establish the Qat'Muk Central Purcell Mountains Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area in British Columbia, the Dehcho First Nations-led management plan for the Edéhzhíe National Wildlife Area in the Northwest Territories, and the Indigenous-led Gayini conservation project, a sustainable conservation area in Australia’s Murray Darling Basin. The foundation also supported the retirement of oil and gas leases within the Badger-Two Medicine area of the Lewis and Clark National Forest in support of a Blackfeet-led "Traditional Cultural District".

Thank you. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ZH, I answered you on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas talk page why I am unable to help despite my commitment to Indigenous conservation efforts. I also want to mention here that to remove criticism from this article to a new one may run the risk of violating WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Netherzone (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up here, too, . I've replied in full at the WikiProject but did want to underscore here that my request above is definitely not to remove criticism. I am okay with including criticism so long as it is clear what the criticism was about. The language on the page now says that the Foundation's Campaign for Nature was "highly criticized by indigenous rights groups, human rights organizations and the environmental movement." But neither of the sources cited make any reference to the Wyss Foundation or Campaign for Nature, though both do detail criticisms of the 30x30 initiative more generally. If the other details in my draft are considered promotional, then I understand not including them, but could the wording about the criticism still be addressed? ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I did some work on this in the article. Novellasyes (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . The edits resolve my concerns about the text, so I have marked this request as being answered. Many thanks. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits to infobox
Hello! I'm here on behalf of the Wyss Foundation with another edit request. Looking at other foundation pages on Wikipedia, I noticed that there is more information about the Wyss Foundation that can be included in the infobox table to give readers a quick reference for key facts.

The items I'd like to ask editors to add are:


 * 1) The organization's logo: I've uploaded it to Wikipedia here File:Wyss Foundation logo.png
 * 2) Type: Private foundation, non-profit
 * 3) Legal status: 501(c)(3)
 * 4) Purpose: Conservation, education, advocacy
 * 5) Area served: Worldwide

Aside from the type and legal status, the other details are covered in the overall Wikipedia article, so I have not provided specific references for them. Can someone please review and make these additions if they are appropriate?

Thank you. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Pending a rationale for use. See the image page which states: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. See the image page for more links and information. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed image above has been deleted, so I am closing this request as answered. If you would like to propose another image, or upload this image with the appropriate rationale, please open a new request below and a reviewer will determine if it should be included in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up for logo
Hello! I am here on behalf of the Wyss Foundation with a follow-up to my last edit request. Thanks so much to for making the infobox changes, and thanks to  for the nudge about the logo.

The logo is re-uploaded and I've taken care to fill in the fair use rationale: File:Wyss Foundation logo.png

The note about the rationale on the image page seems to be pro-forma and it looks like someone needs to review the image and confirm that the rationale is complete. I noticed last time that if it hasn't been added to an article then it gets deleted very quickly. Could someone please review the image and add it to the article so that it doesn't get deleted again?

Also, can the Purpose parameter be added to the infobox, with the following listed: Conservation, education, advocacy

Can someone please review and make these additions if they are appropriate?

Thank you. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Notes for this edit request:


 * the logo to the page after checking the rationale.
 * ❌ the Purpose parameter, as a source was not provided, and purpose is not explicitly stated in the article.
 * Closing edit request as answered. Z1720 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)