Talk:ClimateWorks Foundation

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Climate change Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide 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. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk · contribs) has been paid by ClimateWorks Foundation. Disclosure of employment given on user page

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 February 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PR Course, Souljaslim808, Numbah9, Mmalin21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is a nice Wikipedia article! I enjoyed reading it, and learning more about the non-profit ClimateWorks Foundation.

Lead: I found the lead to be informative and concise. I would recommend possibly removing or relocating the following sentence to another section of the article: “The ClimateWorks foundation has hosted a discussion on "accelerating global climate action" at Climate Week NYC.” I think that this sentence is a little vague as is and modifying it to add more detail would make the overall lead too detail heavy. The Efforts section may be a good location for this sentence instead.

I like the facts box that is to the right of the lead. It posts general facts such as founder, location, website, and more, which makes for quick and easy access to basic information. Since the nonprofit website is located in this box, I would suggest possibly removing the Official Websites link under the External Links section, to eliminate any possible repetition.

Structure: I found the structure of the overall article to be simple, and easy to follow. The section headers are all necessary to the article, and each has adequate information underneath them. The content looks to be consistent and relevant. The sections all appear to be displayed in a good order.

References: At the time of this peer review, all internal and external links were working.

The following links are not leading to an accessible article:

• "ClimateWorks Foundation Appoints New CEO; Julie Blunden, renewable energy industry veteran, to lead global climate and energy policy grantmaker; . Business Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni". (This source was corrected in class by professor McDowell) This source is also from Business Wire, so I would look into this more to make sure that it is not PR, and is appropriate for Wikipedia.

• The following citation had an extra unrelated link associated with it, so I fixed the citation:
  • Eilperin, Juliet (November 4, 2017). "EPA's new science advisers add more industry experts, conservatives to the mix". The Washington Post.

The following statement in the article does not have a reference: "For instance, Chinese cement production contributes to nearly 5% of carbon dioxide globally."

Overall, this was a good article!

Ari2019 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Overall, I think this article provides a lot of information relevant to ClimateWorks that give a very comphrensive overview of the organization. I especially like the paragraph on funding, as it is presented in a very objective manner. However, much of this information needs to be clarified and explained so the reader can get a foundational sense of who this organization is/how it works.

Lead:

• I think the clause "listed as one of the top 100 charities" could be made its own sentence somewhere else in the lead and allow the introductory sentence to stand on its own
• I don't think we can say that ClimateWorks actually slows global warming, so I think that that sentence could be reframed to discuss their goal or ambition relating to global warming
• I moved the last sentence to history because it fits as more of a historical event related to the company

History:

• I added "and Packard" to the first sentence to clarify who financed the report
• I would add more info on who Hal Harvey is/was
• please clarify what “rest of world” means. Is it every other country not in US, China, India, Europe, and Latin America? Is it just those who need extra help in climate change policy?
• A more condensed version of the original study can be put in history and expanded upon in another section
• Condensed the paragraph on Julie Blunden

Efforts:

• First sentence is confusing and is very long. Try dividing it into more digestible chunks
• Clarify what ‘upgrading’ means in second sentence if possible
• I split up the last sentences in the first paragraph so it would be clearer
• Most of the second paragraph sounds very PR-y. For example “ClimateWorks Foundation is able to offer and design the best techniques to halt global warming” is a subjective sentence and sounds like you’re advertising for their services

Partnerships/Funding

• Don’t rely so heavily on listing, instead try and mention each organization once with the information relevant to ClimateWorks to cut down on repetitiveness

Mmalin21 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article had a clear structure overall, which made it easy to follow while reading. It’s a great start to making the final product and was very informative. Each section also seems equally balanced in regards to the information presented in each category. I also made a few minor edits such as capitalization when needed.

Introduction section-

• I think the lead is written really well. It is clear and to the point of what the ClimateWorks Foundation is.

• "ClimateWorks Foundation, listed as one of the Top 100 Largest U.S. Charities by Forbes Magazine in 2016"- sounds a little too PR. Could just start with the second half of that sentence.

History-

• It is a good description about the history of the organization, how it was founded, and where it is now.

• “The ClimateWorks foundation has hosted a discussion on "accelerating global climate action" at Climate Week NYC.” – seems a little out of place in this section, could be worked into one of the above paragraphs in this section or placed in another section.

• "For example, China could save 3.5 gigatons by improving generation, while the United States could save .09 gigatons with more efficient buildings."- Seems like puffery, not sure if an example is needed here.

• "Hal Harvey, who has since then left ClimateWorks Foundation in December of 2011, is now succeed by Julie Blunden.Blunden was appointed the foundation’s new Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of ClimateWorks on May 21, 2012."- Both sentences need a citation.

Efforts-

• I think that this section does a good job of informing the reader what the organization does and specific details about how it works.

• "For instance, Chinese cement production contributes to nearly 5% of carbon dioxide globally."- Needs a citation.

Mck24 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Overall, great work. The sections in your article are relevant, important, and clear to follow. For the most part, with the exception of some words and phrases I pointed out, your article offers neutral content. You have solid, reliable sources, but there are missing citations for some of your sentences. It would be great if you could find one or two more sources. Some suggestions you might consider for your Wikipedia are the following:

Lead: Your lead sentence reads as propaganda by adding “listed as one of the Top 100 Largest U.S. Charities by Forbes Magazine in 2016”. I think you should omit that information from your lead sentence and add it to another part of your article. Instead, focus your lead sentence on explaining what exactly ClimateWorks is and what they do. Remember that your lead sentence should give the reader a good grasp about what your article is about.

History: I think there is room to improve your description on the Sudoku plan. There might be people reading your article that do not know what Sudoku is or how it works, so you can give a brief description of Sudoku and how it applies to ClimateWorks plan. Also, do you know if the Sudoku plan remains in place after Hal Harvey left ClimateWorks? If not, you can probably add information about the plans the new President, Julie Blunden, has for the foundation. Also, your last sentence about the discussion on “accelerating global climate action” is not relevant to the rest of your section. You can move that sentence to another part of the article, perhaps your “Efforts” section, and give a brief explanation about the discussion hosted by ClimateWorks so it doesn’t seem like the sentence was added without purpose.

Efforts: Great first paragraph, but I think you should explain in more detail what you mean by “better practices”. Also, in the example you give about Chinese cement production, it is unclear when you say “in an effort to stop cement factories from upgrading”. Explain what you mean by upgrading. Additionally, be careful when you say “ClimateWorks Foundation is able to offer and design the best techniques…” because it sounds like PR. Unless it was stated by one of your sources, don’t use the word “best” to refer to their techniques. As I mentioned earlier, instead explain what those “best practices” are.

Partnerships/Funding: Great section overall. The only suggestion I have is to describe what some of the partnered organizations are to give the audience a better idea of how a certain partnership with an organization is important and relevant to your article.

CaC9 (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I wanted to give my feedback on this draft. Tagging Mmalin21, Numbah9, PR Course, Souljaslim808.

• I moved the information about the Forbes list to the lead. Putting it into the history section felt a little odd since it didn't really fit into the timeline. It could be seen as a little promotional, but I think that the main issue is that it just interrupted the flow of the section.

• In the same section you put down Hewlett and Packard, however the foundation that was part of it was actually the Hewlett Foundation. While the foundation was created by the Hewletts, who also co-founded the company, it's not exactly the same thing. Be careful of small details like that. (In all fairness, I thought the same thing for the longest time myself!)

• I changed the information about the potential in gigatons to refer to information from a specific report, so it's not as vague.

I will likely have more, but wanted to explain what I've changed so far. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK, more feedback!

• The Daily Mail is not seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia because it's a tabloid, so this needs to be replaced.
• With the partnerships/funding section, I'd avoid the list format. You can mention that they've funded or worked with various organizations or people, but you don't really need to list them out or even list each one. What's more important is that you describe the work that was created by notable partnerships or funding. This would rely on coverage in independent and reliable sources, of course. Beyond that, the individual partnerships/etc are seen as a bit too much of an indiscriminate detail for Wikipedia.
• I'm not really certain what step-by-step contributions really means, to be honest. I've changed this to just efforts, since this is a bit more straightforward, and merged it with the other sentence.
• Within the same section, some of the content is played up a little. Be careful of this, as it's easy for some things to slip by that may seem harmless elsewhere but are seen as promotional on Wikipedia. I've tweaked this section as well. I've removed the "for example" sentence in the first paragraph since it felt kind of unnecessary, since it's kind of a given that China would need to reduce their emissions given the setup earlier in the article. I've also merged some of the sentences in the second paragraph to make it more succinct.
• Avoid relying too much on a single source, like the NYT piece. This needs more independent and reliable sources. Academic and scholarly sources would definitely be helpful as well.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your dedication on this fantastic article! Tagging the top editors - Mmalin21, Numbah9, PR Course, Souljaslim808 - as well as their instructors ZachMcDowell and Ian (Wiki Ed), as I would like to humbly submit some updates to the content since the last substantial edits to the article were made in 2019.

As I am tangentially affiliated with ClimateWorks Foundation, I cannot implement these changes myself. I defer to other editors about how/if to make changes. To ease the burden of this, I have made suggested changes in a draftspace version of this article in my sandbox. Please see it here, along with a detailed edit history. I understand that my edits are only suggestions and that updates to the mainspace article are entirely up to the discretion and generosity of the editors who desire to make them. Thank you for considering implementing these changes and please let me know if I can answer any questions or be of any help. – Cassiville (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an addendum to my note above, below is a summary of the changes I propose in the sandbox, by section. All in all, these edits would significantly expand the number of independent sources that the article cites, as well as update the majority of the information to reflect sourcing from the past 1-3 years.

– Cassiville (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, this is a request that I'm making as an employee of ClimateWorks Foundation, acting on the organization's behalf.

Starting small, I want to suggest two additions to the infobox table that seem to be commonly included in other non-profit organization Wikipedia articles:

• Legal status: 501(c)(3) organization^[1]
• Type: Non-profit, foundation

Also, the logo in the infobox is our old logo. Our new logo file is here: https://www.climateworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/cw-logo-white-bg.svg

Could someone review and make these updates? If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. I'm planning more requests to help add better sourcing to this article and correct and update information about the organization, so if editors have any pointers, that would be appreciated. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I've  Implemented the infobox changes, though for the new logo, you will need to upload it to Commons first via the upload wizard, and file a VRT ticket (the upload wizard will provide instructions for how to do so.) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, User:MSK! Can I ask: is it possible to add "foundation" in the Type, as well as "non-profit"? Also, I was able to upload the logo on Wikimedia Commons, here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ClimateWorks_Logo_2026.svg

Would you mind adding this to the infobox now? Thanks! TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, User:MSK! If you're around, I hope you'll be able to look at my future requests. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, this is another request that I'm making as an employee of ClimateWorks Foundation, acting on the organization's behalf.

For this request, I suggest adding a section that provides an overview of how the foundation is organized. I suggest keeping a short summary about leadership within this section and removing the overly detailed paragraph about past leadership from the History. I also suggest putting the section about donors as a subsection within this one. In short, the draft below includes:

• A summary of how the foundation is organized and the geographic split of its work
• Summary of leadership (allowing the details about leadership from the History to be cut, since they seem too in the weeds about those individuals’ past and future roles)
• Moved the section about donors to be a subsection of this suggested new section
• Retitled "Partnerships and donors" to "Donors and grantees"; the current content and my suggested update don't include any actual "partnerships", so it feels more accurate and less confusing to title this "Donors and grantees"
• Rewritten content about donors, to summarize major donors
• A paragraph summarizing regional grantees, which would replace the sentences about Greenpeace India (which feels more appropriate for that organization's article; the funding was not a major grant for ClimateWorks) and Energy Foundation and Green Tech, since that one is flagged as not having a reliable source, and is less recent

Could someone review the draft and make these changes? Let me know if I can answer any questions or help with anything. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:MSK, would you be willing to review this request too? Thanks! TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! A question, is ClimateWorks is organized as a non-profit foundation [...] intentional? If it isn't, then ClimateWorks is a non-profit foundation [...] is more grammatical. msk 22:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying so soon, User:MSK! Yes, it was intentional as a formal way to state that the foundation is officially registered as a non-profit, but either phrasing is fine. If you think it's better to say "is a non-profit" that works just as well. Do you have any other feedback about the request? TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think "is a non-profit" probably is enough, since the infobox and lead make it clear enough that ClimateWorks isn't some kind of unregistered non-profit (which iirc the guidelines disallows anyways). I'll hopefully finish reviewing and implementing your suggested edits tomorrow. Cheers! msk 04:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should be  Done. msk 19:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review, User:MSK, it looks great! TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, this is my next request that I'm making as an employee of ClimateWorks Foundation representing the organization.

For this new request, I suggest updating the History for a full summary of the organization. Right now, the History heavily focuses on the founders and gives a lot of weight to details that could be summarized or even trimmed. In short, the draft below:

• Summarizes the founding history, removing the overly detailed explanation of the initial strategy
• Removes the paragraph about two former leaders sourced from a press release and a profile page
• Removes the sentence about a discussion at Climate Week in 2018 since this seems like a minor/non encyclopedic detail
• Adds sources and details about the foundation's developments to present day

I've tried to keep this succinct to help reviewers. Please let me know if there are additional details I can share. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, User:MSK and thanks again for the help so far. Would you be able to review this update, too? Thanks in advance! TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit busy right now with other (some of it onwiki) stuff right now so I won't be able to fully review this in the near future, however some at first glance suggestions.

• first 3 sentences are all about the founding of CW and are a bit redundant to each other
• There might be too much detail on the Design to Win report, some of it could probably be trimmed
• The sentence on criticism in the 2020s could probably be expanded to explain the explicit rationale behind the criticism.
• The "By XXXX, the organization had _____ billion in grants" might do better moved to the donors and grantees section.

Cheers, msk 18:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick reply, User:MSK. I'll work on making some updates to the draft with this feedback and get back to you soon. Appreciate your help. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for that initial feedback, User:MSK. Below is an updated version that:

• Trims down the first few sentences to make it less repetitive
• Reduce details about the Design to Win report. I had included more because of the article's current level of detail, but it's fine to briefly mention the report if you think that’s best.
• Added a line to explain the 2020 critiques
• Removed the sentences about the amount of grants awarded. Could this sentence be added to Donors and grantees? As of 2026, the foundation had made around $2 billion in grants to organizations and initiatives globally.^[1]

Thanks! TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, User:MSK. A quick note here that I'll be reaching out to WikiProject Climate Change to see if anyone has time to review this. Your review is very welcome if you have the time, but understand if you're busy. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@TDM for ClimateWorks Thanks for going through the process, I have posted the update -- I removed a few sentences, that seem to put undo emphasis on initiatives or practices "specific to ClimeateWorks's self-identity". I did a couple of fact checks and links, but for future updates:

• it would be great to have more external coverage if you have it, especially about the impact of specific programs.

Sadads (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

 DoneSadads (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, User:Sadads! All the changes you made make sense to me. I'll definitely keep your suggestion in mind for future updates, though I'm happy to see the page updated for now. Thanks for reviewing this. TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user below has a request that an edit be made to ClimateWorks 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 610 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.

Hi, this is a new request that I'm making as an employee of ClimateWorks Foundation representing the organization.

Now that the rest of the article has been updated, I have a small correction for the infobox and I also suggest cleaning up the introduction and providing a straightforward overview of ClimateWorks Foundation.

For the infobox, as the History discusses and as confirmed by multiple sources, the founders of ClimateWorks are the three foundations: Hewlett Foundation, McKnight Foundation and Packard Foundation. Can the "founder" entry in the infobox be changed from Hal Harvey (who was the first CEO) to:

• Founders: Hewlett Foundation
  McKnight Foundation
  Packard Foundation

For the introduction, the draft below:

• Removes the outdated sentence about the organization's mission, replacing it with a simple statement that the foundation focuses on climate change
• Adds a sentence noting the organization's founders
• Removes sentence about the 2016 listing as a Top 100 Charity by Forbes, as this is included in the History but doesn't seem important enough for the introduction
• Removed the sentence about the Partner Circle, as while this is correct this doesn't feel important enough for the introduction and doesn't have an independent souce
• Added a simple statement to note that ClimateWorks provides grants and support to other organizations
• Added a sentence that notes the amount of grants given as of 2026

User:MSK or User:Sadads would either of you be able to review this request? Thanks! TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:MSK, sorry if you've already seen this, but I'm hoping that you might have time to review this as it's a smaller request? TDM for ClimateWorks (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply