Talk:Wyss Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Wyss Campaign for Nature
Hello! @Spintendo: 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:
- In 2018, Hansjörg Wyss pledged $1 billion and the Wyss Foundation launched the Wyss Campaign for Nature with the goal of helping to protect 30 percent of the planet by 2030. The campaign was launched as a partnership with the National Geographic Society, The Nature Conservancy, and other non-governmental organizations.[1][2] The campaign will work to convince the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which will be next held in Beijing in 2020, to commit to protecting 30 percent of the world's lands and oceans by 2030 through creating and funding the management of protected areas. The Wyss Campaign for Nature will also increase its direct support to locally driven conservation projects. The campaign is the mechanism by which the Wyss Foundation provides philanthropic support to create and grow protected areas around the world.[3] Upon its launch, the Wyss Campaign for Nature pledged $48 million to conservation projects which will help protect approximately 10 million acres in 13 countries, as well as 17,000 square kilometers of ocean. Organizations initially receiving grants included Aves Argentinas, Fundación Flora y Fauna, Fundatia Conservation Carpathia, the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust, and The Nature Conservancy.[3] The Nature Conservancy was granted funds to expand its Blue Bonds for Conservation program in the Caribbean, and to conserve more than 200,000 acres of Australia's Murray–Darling basin.[2][3] As part of the partnership, the National Geographic Society will document and share stories about conservation successes and setbacks.[3]
References
- Prest, M.J. (November 7, 2018). "Wyss Foundation Commits $1 Billion for Conservation: Grants Roundup". The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
- "Wyss Foundation Commits $1 Billion for Land and Ocean Conservation". Philanthropy News Digest. November 1, 2018. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
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. @Chetsford: 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.
| Sentences and their claims | Timeframe | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| In 2018, Hansjörg Wyss pledged $1 billion and the Wyss Foundation launched the Wyss Campaign for Nature with the goal of helping to protect 30 percent of the planet by 2030. | Past Present and Future (c. 2030) | This claim is not clear in its wording—it deals with future goals and present acts which could also be described as past events: pledging (or pledged) money. I would add that even though pledge/ing is described as a past/present event, the root word pledge itself means "a promise to pay", so that the main thrust of the sentence describes something which has yet to happen. Only the promise, or the pledge, places it in the past/present. "Launched" also places it in the past, but the question then becomes what are we placing in the past with the word launched. The particulars around a launch — which in this instance most-likely means an announcement of actions which are planned to take place, rather than the actual actions having occurred — places this sentence on the fence for what it is communicating here. Using the word goal with launched and pledged places it in the past and the future. |
| The campaign was launched as a partnership with the National Geographic Society, The Nature Conservancy, and other non-governmental organizations. | Past | The only sentence featuring a claim which has undoubtedly already occurred, it is nonetheless problematic for another reason: "other non-governmental organizations", which means nothing, as it is four words which describe both anything and nothing. |
| The campaign will work to convince the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which will be next held in Beijing in 2020, to commit to protecting 30 percent of the world's lands and oceans by 2030 through creating and funding the management of protected areas. | Future (c. 2020–2030) | Parts of the text mentioning when these actions will take effect ("The campaign will work to convince") make it clear it's a future action. I might add that this future action is an act of convincing (which implies future, because someone already swayed would be described as convinced). This 10 year-long act of convincing is clearly an ongoing event with an end date set for the future. The words creating and funding are both present tense, but apply in this case to the future. |
| The Wyss Campaign for Nature will also increase its direct support to locally driven conservation projects. | Future | "will also increase" makes this abundantly clear it's a future action |
| Upon its launch, the Wyss Campaign for Nature pledged $48 million to conservation projects which will help protect approximately 10 million acres in 13 countries, as well as 17,000 square kilometers of ocean. | Present and Future | This is two claims placed under one sentence. Although the pledging of the $48 million places it in the present (which I'll repeat is not actually paying, but rather pledging to pay) the main thrust of the sentence is the protection of the various areas of land and ocean, which are future events (undoubtedly after any "pledge" to pay is actually paid for) |
| Organizations initially receiving grants include Aves Argentinas, Fundación Flora y Fauna, Fundatia Conservation Carpathia, the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust, and The Nature Conservancy. | Past | This sentence is unique in that it is the only non-problematic mentioning of a past event in the entire paragraph. But when one looks closely, even the granting of funds appears to be a multi-step process with the use of the phrase "Organizations initially receiving grants", which implies that the receiving of grants is a process which is in its initial stages — as if some as-yet determined act needs to occur for the transfer of funds from the grants to be completed and therefore fully placed as a past event.[a] |
| The Nature Conservancy was granted funds to expand its Blue Bonds for Conservation program in the Caribbean, and to conserve more than 200,000 acres of Australia's Murray–Darling basin. | Past and Future | Again, this is multiple claims placed into one sentence. The granting of funds can be described as something which has already happened (unless it's an initial granting of funds as in the sentence above) but the conservation is arguably a future (or at least ongoing) event |
| As part of the partnership, the National Geographic Society will document and share stories about conservation successes and setbacks. | Future | As this claim describes drawing up a balance sheet of success and failures which have yet to occur, this clearly is a future event. |
Regards, Spintendo 07:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Notes
- If by the use of the word initially it is meant to imply that these organizations were the first to receive grants, then that is how it should have been worded (e.g., "The initial organizations to have received a grant.."). Readers unfamiliar with grant-making might assume that "initially receiving grants" implies that the grant process itself is what is in the initial stages, and not the choosing of receivers of the grant. An example of this:
"Citibank was initially receiving payments from Ms. Sparkling postmarked with her Dade county address. After she moved to Ft. Myers, Citibank received the remainder of her payments postmarked with the Ft Myers address."
Furthermore, the plural "grants" leaves open the assumption, again for those unfamiliar with how grants are bestowed, whether or not the payments are made in one payment or in installments. The organizations themselves being described as receiving "grants" strongly implies that they received multiple grants or one grant in installments. The assumption may be that organizations receive "a grant" if it was one grant paid at one time, thus this may be a better way to describe a grant versus grants plural.
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:
- In 2018, Hansjörg Wyss pledged $1 billion and the Wyss Foundation launched the Wyss Campaign for Nature, which has a goal of protecting 30 percent of the planet by 2030. The campaign was launched by the foundation in partnership with organizations including the National Geographic Society and The Nature Conservancy.[1] As of November 2018, as part of the campaign, the foundation had granted funds to the Nature Conservancy to expand its Blue Bonds for Conservation program in the Caribbean, and to conserve more than 200,000 acres of Australia's Murray–Darling basin.[1][2]
References
- Prest, M.J. (November 7, 2018). "Wyss Foundation Commits $1 Billion for Conservation: Grants Roundup". The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved June 5, 2019.
- "Wyss Foundation Commits $1 Billion for Land and Ocean Conservation". Philanthropy News Digest. November 1, 2018. Retrieved June 5, 2019.
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
askingrequiring 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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:
- In 2019, Wyss contributed $131 million via the foundation to Harvard University's Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering.[1][2]
References
- Di Mento, Maria (June 7, 2019). "Swiss Billionaire Hansjörg Wyss Gives Harvard $131 Million for Science-and-Engineering Institute". The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved June 7, 2019.
- Cam, Deniz (June 7, 2019). "Swiss Billionaire Hansjoerg Wyss Commits $131 Million To Harvard University". Forbes. Retrieved June 7, 2019.
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hansj%C3%B6rg_Wyss/Archive_2 look at the talk page archive). They seem to have used the same paid editing company FWIW. 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
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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[1] and a March article from the New York Times[2]. 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?
New paragraph |
|---|
|
In 2018, the Wyss Foundation launched the Wyss Campaign for Nature, pledging that it would donate $1 billion to the project.[3] The campaign aims to protect 30% of the world's surface by 2030.[3][4] The campaign is backed by the National Geographic Society and other international conservation organizations.[3] The 30x30 plan has been criticized by some indigenous rights activists for potentially dispossessing human inhabitants from historically occupied land.[5][6] Other tribal organizations and leaders have endorsed the initiative, however.[7][8] The Wyss Foundation has financially supported Indigenous-led conservation efforts,[9] 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.[10][11][12] 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".[13][14] References
|
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, Netherzone. 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, Novellasyes. 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
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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:
- The organization's logo: I've uploaded it to Wikipedia here File:Wyss Foundation logo.png
- Type: Private foundation, non-profit[1]
- Legal status: 501(c)(3)[1]
- Purpose: Conservation, education, advocacy
- Area served: Worldwide
References
- "Wyss Foundation". CauseIQ. Retrieved March 21, 2022.
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)
Partly done: (please ping on reply) Happy Editing--IAmChaos
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--IAmChaos 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)- @ZH for Wyss Foundation: 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
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! I am here on behalf of the Wyss Foundation with a follow-up to my last edit request. Thanks so much to IAmChaos for making the infobox changes, and thanks to Z1720 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:
Added the logo to the page after checking the rationale.
Not done the Purpose parameter, as a source was not provided, and purpose is not explicitly stated in the article.
Question about second paragraph
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi there. I work at the Wyss Foundation and I have a question about the second paragraph in the introduction section.
My understanding is that the introduction of a Wikipedia article is intended to summarize key points from the body of the article. I asked Mathglot, Tarlby, and other editors at the Wikipedia Teahouse, and they confirmed that this is correct.
The second paragraph in this article's introduction currently concerns a separate organization, the Berger Action Fund.
Although the Berger Action Fund and the Wyss Foundation are affiliated, they are in fact different organizations. It thus doesn't make sense to have half of the introduction to the Wyss Foundation Wikipedia entry be about a different entity, especially as the information about Berger is never referenced again in the body of the article.
Could editors move this material to the Political advocacy section, maybe as the fourth paragraph? The information about Berger's relationship with Wyss could then be briefly summarized in the introduction. (Maybe: "The Wyss Foundation has an associated 501(c)(4) advocacy group called the Berger Action Fund that shares facilities and staff and has faced scrutiny.")
Thank you for reviewing this request. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'll try to answer as soon as I can. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- This makes total sense to me, and I've implemented your request. Any other editor may contest it, if they wish. If so, please ping me so I can read the rationale. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this, MediaKyle. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Why is the Wyss Foundation having any say in this article? ~2026-53805-7 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this, MediaKyle. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Why is the Wyss Foundation having a say in this article?
This feels against the rules of Wikipedia. If this was a famous person's article you wouldn't want that person having a say in their article. Like if it was an author. This just screams not a neutral pov, and even if it is neutral, it shouldn't come from the Wyss foundation. ~2026-53805-7 (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Edit Requests for March 2026
| The user below has a request that an edit be made to Wyss Foundation. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 409 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. |
I have suggestions for correcting inaccuracies on this page. I have a WP:COI as an employee of the Wyss Foundation and am submitting these suggestions for review by independent editors.
1. What I think should be changed:
In the Political Advocacy section, beneath “The Hub Project” subsection, please replace the first sentence of the first paragraph:
Change from:
In 2015, the Wyss Foundation funded the establishment of The Hub Project, which seeks to help the Democratic Party be more effective at conveying their arguments through the news media and directly to voters, and to shift "...the public debate and policy positions of core decision makers".[1]
Change to:
In 2015, the Wyss Foundation funded the establishment of The Hub Project. According to a 2021 article in The New York Times, the group was created partly to shape media coverage to help Democratic causes, and its 2015 business plan said it would work behind the scenes to “dramatically shift the public debate and policy positions of core decision makers.”[1]
Why: The cited NYT source does not support this wording. The article doesn’t state that The Hub Project seeks to help the Democratic Party, which is a formal organization. Instead, it states that the group formed “partly to shape media coverage to help Democratic causes.” Converting “Democratic causes” to the “Democratic Party” with no supporting source constitutes WP:OR. The suggested replacement accurately reflects the scope of The Hub Project’s work as described in the source. This is a very serious error. There are major legal limitations around directly supporting political parties and Wikipedia, unlike the NYT, is not properly making this distinction.
2. What I think should be changed:
In the Political Advocacy section, beneath “The Hub Project” subsection, please replace the second sentence of the first paragraph:
Change from:
The Hub Project is part of Arabella Advisors, a leading vehicle for funneling "dark money" on the political left.
Change to:
The Hub Project is part of a network of funds managed by Arabella Advisors that the New York Times characterized as a major channel for “dark money” spending on the political left.
Why: Subjective language like “funneling” has been rewritten in a neutral manner and I’ve attributed “dark money” directly to the source.
3. In the Political advocacy section, please delete the first paragraph:
The organisation funds Democratic Party political causes through Arabella Advisors and its related entities.[2]
Why: The cited NYT source does not support this wording. The NYT article doesn’t state that the Wyss Foundation funds any organization that is part of the Democratic Party, which is a formal organization. Instead, it states that the groups it funds help “Democratic causes” and help “advance progressive policy initiatives and the Democrats who support them.”
Converting “Democratic causes” to the “Democratic Party” with no supporting source constitutes WP:OR. This is a very serious error. There are major legal limitations around directly supporting political parties and Wikipedia, unlike the NYT, is not properly making this distinction.
4. What I think should be changed:
In the Lead section, please replace the second sentence of the first paragraph:
Change from:
The Wyss Foundation funds conservation efforts as well as Democratic Party political causes through Arabella Advisors and its related entities.
Change to:
The Wyss Foundation funds conservation efforts as well as progressive causes through Arabella Advisors and its related entities.
Why: As discussed in items 1 and 3, the Democratic Party is not named in the New York Times article. Wikipedia is conflating causes with support for a formal political party. This should be corrected in the Lead, just as in the body of the article.
Thank you for reviewing. JQDC (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Vogel, Kenneth P.; Robertson, Katie (13 April 2021). "Top Bidder for Tribune Newspapers Is an Influential Liberal Donor". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
- Vogel, Kenneth (3 May 2021). "Swiss Billionaire Quietly Becomes Influential Force Among Democrats (Published 2021)". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 March 2025.