Talk:Conservation International

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment 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. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservation International Philippines: Potential Page

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Hi, my name is R.D. Mira and I'm a student at Louisiana State University. For my conservation biology class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Conservation_Biology_%28Kyle_Harms%29), I was interested in creating a page for Conservation International Philippines. However, I am finding that besides looking at their webpage, I can't seem to find any information about how they were founded or who their leadership is. There is a variety of interesting case studies and articles about CI Philippines, but that is about it.

I was wondering if you knew of any resources or avenues I could pursue to help gain more information. RDMira (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the dispute? I do not see any comments here. 68.100.23.60 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC) a visitor[reply]

Greenwashing ?

Is it true that there are clear connections to this topic ?--Nemissimo 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article sounds like an ad

This article waxes lyrical about all the wonderful things Conservation International is doing to save the world. It really sounds blatantly like an ad. But in the conservation community, the organization is cited as one of the leading players in helping corporations greenwash their brands. There is nothing about this important topic in the article. I added a relevant link to a URL that discuss CI's role in greenwashing. See also:

Maybe these links should be collected. I don't want to make this an attack on CI, but simply to show balance since there is controversy surrounding their support from corporations and governments. Allthingstoallpeople (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent editing

A one article account and an anon recently edited the article to contain a great deal of corporate information, and removed all criticism. I have reinserted the criticism.--Mongreilf (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Conservation International targeted by a group of reporters from Don't Panic TV who posed as a major American arms company and asked if the charity could 'raise [their] green profile.' Options outlined by the representative of Conservation International (CI) included assisting with the arms company's green PR efforts, membership of a business forum in return for a fee, and sponsorship packages where the arms company could potentially invest money in return for being associated with conservation activities. Conservation International agreed to help the arms company find an 'endangered species mascot' Film footage shows the Conservation International employee suggesting a vulture North African birds of prey as a possible endangered species mascot for the arms company because of the 'link to aviation'.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/877241/conservation_international_agreed_to_greenwash_arms_company.htmlCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

perhaps, much condensed, put this in the article?--Mongreilf (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sockpuppetry?

A one edit account User:3bobs recently removed all negative information from this article, and tagged the edit as minor. The edit has been reverted and an inappropriate minor edit template has been placed on their talk page. Just a heads up.--Mongreilf (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Board of directors

There is no dispute about the truth of this section's content, just its relevance in an encyclopaedic article. Eg, Apple Inc has almost nothing on its directors, ExxonMobil has far less than this article, so I've trimmed all but the top posts.--Mongreilf (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit

Just a heads-up. It's been years since I went for a major edit (I think I'm talking 2006 here), but this page seemed in particular need of some sprucing up: more about the org, more about the criticisms, and more citations. Waddlesalong (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been targeted for greenwashing

Two users are deleting negative information. Perhaps they work for CI or its PR lackeys. In any case, it is not acceptable to remove verified and referenced information just because it doesn't fit with the corporate spiel. If this continues the issue will be referred to arbitration and the users User:3bobs and User:Waddlesalong may be banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingstoallpeople (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I do work for CI. But with all due respect, I'm not trying to delete negative information -- you'll note that both the Nation and Don't Panic pieces are references in my "criticism" section, along with other pieces critical of the organization.

What I am trying to do is to get this article to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV standards -- standards I believe are being violated by referencing pieces highly critical of CI without the inclusion of any sort of counterpoint. Specifically, I'm talking about: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Yes, there is ample criticism of CI, but there is also ample praise; all I'm asking is that we have the countervailing viewpoints reflected here. Further, some of the sources quoted here -- e.g., the Ecologist -- are highly opinionated blogs, a priori opposed to CI, which would seem to violate both the "questionable sources" and "self-published sources" content guidelines.

If you are striving for balance, don't just delete the bad stuff. Include your counter point and/or "ample praise" instead. Again, continued deletions of valid information will lead to users being banned. (Not to mention articles in various media reporting CI's attempts on Wikipedia to hide its record of greenwashing.)Allthingstoallpeople (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm biased, and the edits I made are not the end-all, be-all, but my concerns are constructive, and I've tried to express them politely and comprehensively. I'm willing to discuss + reach consensus on the page, if we can get past the personal "PR lackey" attacks. (Finally, I have no idea who 3bobs is, and I agree he/she needs to stop wantonly deleting negative commentary.) Waddlesalong (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last note: Though the critiques made in Johann Hari's Nation piece are (mostly) found elsewhere as well, I do wonder whether it's an appropriate source for criticism of CI + its donor expenditures, given the apologies he has made for plagiarism in his work. I would also note that CI receives positive scores from watchdog groups like Charity Navigator. Again, this is not about undermining criticism, it is about an NPOV and the use of non-questionable sources. Waddlesalong (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Coffee took out sections on well-documented reports about CI's greenwashing. I reverted the edits. Allthingstoallpeople (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The company website, not Wikipedia, is the best place for a list of execs to be

Leadership In addition to Chairman and CEO Peter Seligmann,[28] CI counts among its leaders:

President: Gary Edson Chief Operating Officer: Jennifer Morris Chairman of the Executive Committee: Rob Walton, chairman of the board, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.[28] Executive Vice Chair: Russ Mittermeier, a notable herpetologist and primatologist Vice chair: Harrison Ford, actor[28] Member of the Board of Directors: Ian Khama, president of Botswana[24][28][29]

108.28.181.105 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems and reassessment

Conservation International is an incredibly controversial organization. A good chunk of this article, maybe one-half to one-third is devoted to discussing criticisms of the organization. Should that not be reflected in the lead? I would call this an "obvious omission."

Also, most of the stuff that isn't criticism is sourced directly from Conservation International and reads like copy. This is a major problem. Overall, I would not call the article "suitably referenced." I am going to reduce the rating from B to C and tag the section "Approach to conservation" with Template:Promotional (standout sentence: "On a per-paper basis, Conservation International's scientific output research is among the most influential of any conservation organization in the U.S., and ahead of top research universities and other NGOs," sourced from the organization's own impact report). To be honest, "History" is pushing it a little too.

If you feel that these actions have been taken in error, feel free to remove the tag and reassess the article, but please explain why. Thank you. Spookyaki (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]