Talk:Philanthropy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links

Links from this page - to what I feel are an important set of article - which I had inserted have been removed:

• Essays on philanthropy in Great Britain

The articles are by Frank Prochaska of Yale University, probably the most prominent academic on British philanthropy. Do others agree these links should be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.230.14 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Other

"Technical definitions" section doesn't actually give a definition, so should be moved to the "External Links" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.188.215 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition

I just reverted an edit to the definition which while unsourced and written in a fairly POV manner contained some interesting assertions that would be good to incorporate if verifiable. Anyone know where this might have come from? -- Siobhan Hansa 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New redirects

I moved the Philanthropist article to a new name: List of philanthropists. The previously existing articles that redirected to Philanthropist will now redirect to this article now:

• Philanthropist
• Philanthropists
• Philantropist
• Philanthrapist
• Philanthroph
• Philanthrophist
• Philanthrophism

I'm also removing the merge proposal but if someone still thinks it should be merged, feel free to put it back.

Was that too bold? --B Fizz (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy, Misanthropy link "opposite" ?

The links at the bottom of the page describe the two as '(opposite)' According to philanthropy article: 'Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, time, or effort to support a charitable cause...' According to misanthropy article: 'Misanthropy is a general dislike, distrust, or hatred of the human species...' If so an action of charity and a veiwpoint of mistrust do not qualify as true opposites therefore the link is incorrect. Either the definition in the articles is incorrect and should be changed or the links are incorrect and should be changed. Nowiky (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

External References

I feel that the website www.greatergoodsa.co.za needs to listed in the external links. GreaterGood SA is a good link to the topic of Philanthropy, specifically that in South Africa. Any objections to this? Experience the gift (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The site while good in its own context does not (in my opinion) meet the needs of an encyclopedia. It's a "social marketplace" not a source of encyclopedic information about the subject of philanthropy. It does not appear to meet our guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy vs Social/Political Activism

Isn't it just a matter of viewpoint? One person could view their donation as philanthropy, while another viewed it as social or political activism. I think this needs to be explored more. Castravalva (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any good sources that we could use? -- SiobhanHansa 11:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy & Charity are different

In England at least, philanthropy and charitable are different. Philanthropy is a much wider act of providing good. Being charitable is much more about providing good in a more specific way that is related to charities and charity law.

For example, political activity cannot be charitable as political activity by charities isn't allowed. Yet there is political activity which could be considered philanthropic and doing good in a more general way.

So I would definitely favour keeping the two pages separate. TamaraStaples (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford's views

I removed the sentence about Ford from the article. Ford, in his book, argues for philanthropy, and against charity. Ford, in fact, is regarded as one of the leading historical philanthropists of the United States and his philanthropic legacy is easily cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWH76 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

the issue of making profits from philanthropic activities

"with no financial or material reward to the donor"

consider Pierre Omidyar's perspective that it's not at all inconsistent for someone to do good and to make money at the same time; Google.org has the same idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.46.19 (talk • contribs)

"Doing good" and "philanthropy" aren't similes. Are there reliable sources that take the position that philanthropy can involve profit for the donor? -- SiobhanHansa 00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with article on Charity (practice)?

There seems to be a fundamental overlap between these two articles. While the article on Charity (practice) currently seems to have more of a focus on religiously motivated giving, that isn't necessarily fundamental to the concept any more. The current content in the article would seem to fit in a discussion of Philanthropy under religiously motivated giving. EastTN (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with merge.--Kozuch (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are important differences between pure "charity" and "philanthropy". Charity refers to the instance or practice of giving to the less fortunate, especially in the context of very pressing humanitarian needs such as disaster relief, or care for the sick. "Philanthropy" is typically used in the practice of sustained generousity for a specific area or areas as a calling, often in retirement. For instance, the act of building a library in every US town providing that the town supply the land and the staff is an act of philanthropy (in this case, Carnegie's); similarly, the funding of onngoing university research (e.g. the Ford Foundation) is an act of philanthropy, not charity in a pure sense. Similarly in the case of micro-enterprise loans to the poor; delivery of money, medicine or food as gifts would be "charity"; giving a loan that needs to be paid back as part of a program to help the poor is not; it is a form of "philanthropy". Certainly, there is much overlap between the aims, methods, and results of charity and philanthropy. But they are different. Note also that the US government, for tax purposes, distinguishes between "public charities" and "private foundations", both of which are concerned with giving. I would therefore suggest keeping separate entries.Icewater5 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction that you're drawing. I wonder how general that usage really is, though. My impression is that we tend to use "philanthropy" when someone gives a very, very large sum of money, and use the term "charity" when more modest sums are involved, but that there's no essential difference between the two. ("Philanthropy" is simply charity wearing a tuxedo.) Even your examples get fuzzy - gifts of money for short term needs that you characterize as charity are made by private foundations that you characterize as "philanthropic." Micro-loans that you characterize as philanthropic may be funded through public charities. While the US tax code does distinguish between different types of tax exempt entities, it's all charitable giving whether it goes to a school, church, non-profit foundation or other similar organization. The tax distinction between a public charity and a private foundation is based on the origin and structure of the organization, and not the specific activities undertaken - a public charity and a private foundation could both run identical soup kitchens or micro-loan programs, and maintain their distinct tax identities. EastTN (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the 2 articles should be kept seperate. While yes there are a lot of similarities, those who donate to charity, offten donate one time, and a small amount. Where as someone like Bill Gates and his wife and other rich people donate generous amounts annually to chartiable organizations. Therefore to say anyone who donates money should be lumped togther in one group, I belive is incorrect, as there are 2 seperate groups of donateies.--Navy blue84 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would draw a slightly different distinction - the act of charity is about giving to those worse off than yourself in order to better their lives. Philanthropy - which may or may not be charitable - is simply about giving. You do not necessarily look to benefit those who are not as well off as yourself. Your intentions for instance, may be to promote a particular philosophy (political philanthropy) or to provide for others of your own economic level in a way that reflects well on you (donation to your club to get your name on a chair) or benefits your own interests within your community (donations to your child's private school that are not about providing scholarships to the less wealthy). These are all acts of philanthropy but not really of charity.

Merging the two articles could be done but would lead to one poorer article in my opinion. I think it's better to make the relationship clear and link the two articles as appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 10:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SiobhanHansa's distinction makes sense to me - it deals with the fundamental purpose behind the giving. I don't think the dollar amount is critical, because there's no natural threshold involved (e.g., you can't say that "$9,999 is charity, but $10,001 is philanthropy"). (But you may be able to say "donating to build a playground for low-income kids is charity, but donating to restore the opera house you frequent is philanthropy.") EastTN (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this proposed merge. Charity and philanthropy are different things - and it is not simply delineated by the amount of support given. Charity is the act of giving to those in need (the poor, helpless, etc.). Philanthropy is giving to socially beneficial causes - in other words, causes that help the greater good or communities. Yes, they may overlap, but they are by no means one and the same. Take, for example, a gift to a wealthy university like Harvard - charity? No. Warren Buffet's gift to the Gates Foundation - charity? No. In fact, the concept of philanthropy has evolved to mean something like giving to empower and create sustainability of the receiving organization. Charity does not have the same meaning in practice.

I've just read the philanthropy article for the first time today and was pretty surprised at what I found there - it is riddled with errors using "philanthropy" and "charity" interchangeably (particularly in the cases of arguments against, when Ford nor Nietsche ever condemned philanthropy - they both disagreed with charity as far as I know). Sorry I don't have more time to write about this, but this proposed merger is based on a striking misunderstanding of these concepts/acts. BWH76 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There should definitely not be a merge. Charity is the action of giving to those in need whereas philanthropy is the philosophy of it and I see none complaining about merges regarding philosophy. Further, philanthropy is for the greater good and is completely different from any charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaxus (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with this proposed merge. The two articles should be kept seperate. There is no consensus to merge the two articles, so I think we should close this. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition II

There's something wrong about the article in general. The word philanthropy means "goodwill to fellowmen, especially active effort to promote human welfare". So far, all right. That is consistent with the definition provided by the article. But then you give examples that could hardly make justice to the concept. I mean, when Warren Buffett gives away $37 billion to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that's a public event where someone is getting a moral reward. In business, that can be considered as a long-term investment.

However, I know encyclopedias will only show what is already published in official accounts. So go ask governments or privately owned research groups or such, and see what you get (not). Even so, there is at least one study that shows how "philanthropic acts" in males are related to seduction, and the authors even call this "the peacock's tail". Therefore, whether or not this kind of act is "altruistic" (another point in the article), should be considered a matter of debate.--Quinceps (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

criticism

how many poor people actually see this allegedly donated money. also the philanthropists rarely donate quietly, they play a trumpet before them and make sure everyone sees them donating. 70.59.6.187 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs work

I was very disappointed in this page. Barely a stub. Needs a lot of work. Wish I could do some of it now, but it'll have to wait. Here is an external link to a resource, for anyone who might wish to beat me to it. --Christofurio 14:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ncpl/about/about.html

It certainly needs editing work (not my forte) but it's a good start. Social activism and philanthropy for example is very good and relevant but needs a rewrite. I'll add a cleanup tag. --Singkong2005 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I will also add information in this talk page if I can find some in a reputed print book. [Very VERY old books, of course](My IP is not permanent.) KH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.131.69 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, whoever has the abilty, time, motivation, and info to clean up this page could add some info about carnegie and the "Gospel of Wealth" but overall it gives a very simplified description that was useful for my purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.212.20 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs facts like Bill Gates is the number 1 philanthropist giving away 28.8 Billion dollars (source: CNBC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.10.134 (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that Warren Buffet recently donated $31 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.--Tadhg 21:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look to 'adopt' this page when I get a chance ... I'm of the view that it does not make sense to merge it with charity.--Yukif (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs a lot of work. I'd suggest starting by adding a reasonable history of philanthropy to give the page some context. It could be divided into three sections: History in the West, History in the East, and History in the US. The best resource for this would be the work of Kevin Robbins (West) or Peter Dobkin Hall (US) from The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. Also useful would be: American Philanthropy, Robert H. Bremmer, Chicago University Press. DannyLeigh13 (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

bill gates?

there is a bit of mention of bill gates here

is it still philanthropy if one is only nice to some charities, and deforming to others? --Steve (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson?

hes given over 300 million dollars, founded heal the world charity, co wrote we are the world, wrote what more can i give for 9/11, wrote heal the world....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechode69 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I've read a substantial amount of Nietzsche's works, and while he does condemn pity, democracy, and anything common or lowly, he has never, as far as I know, opposed philanthropy. In fact, on the contrary, he suggests being even more kind and gentle to those in a lower social/economical class than oneself. Therefore, I will remove any and all misinformation about Nietzsche opposing philanthropy... 76.183.21.36 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ted Turner

What about the 1 billion Ted Turner donated to the United Nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.240.148 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Individuality and culture/quality and POV issues

Briefly looking at this page (only wanting to check the spelling), I have an overall impression that there is a lot of POV, OR or near-OR, and similar. One item I find positively objectionable is the claim:

[...]individuality did not yet exist—that requires culture.

I cannot in anyway see culture as a pre-requisite for individuality. (This apart from the complication that "culture", and to a lesser degree "individuality", is very open to interpretation, which makes the sentence highly ambiguous.) Michael Eriksson (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett encourage other billionaires to donate half their wealth to charity. Story: http://www.kansas.com/2010/06/17/1364243/gates-buffett-urging-billionaires.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richita (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural impacts of modern misinterpretation PROBLEM

The Section "Cultural impacts of modern misinterpretation" seems to be poorly formatted, rambling, and looks like somebody's propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.205.253 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

meaning unclear

Hi, is it just me or does this sentence not make any sense?

" ... Put simply, philanthropy is not the pursuit of excellence in every facet of human life, for every human life, by imagining and implementing new systems, to bring that philosophy to fruition. ... "

It looks to me like whoever wrote it missed a word or something around the middle where it just seems to go haywire

...and apologies for not signing this because i have no idea what you are on about re 4 tildes & the help file on the subject didnt help... perhaps this is some kind of wiki-speak, and if so, dont you think it would help not to use such terminology as if everyone who has input has to do a 6 day course to understand how to follow your guidelines? ...if you cant explain it in under 10 seconds ULTRA clearly, i am not going to be bothered with it, and if that means my comment gets ignored or i cant contribute to wikipedia any further, well believe me that is wikipedias loss not mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galacticpresident (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

?

concerning yourself with what section of society philanthropy emerges and what direction it flows is completely irrelevant.

assuming that it always flows down to 'the public' from corporations or governments is a conceited, blinkered and sorry point of view to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.115.82 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

typos in edit log

Meant that words, noun phrases, commonplaces can be quoted without attribution but an obvious actual quote of text in a lede needs an actual or implicit source. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Millenial OR

"Then at the beginning of the 21st century the word began to reenter" or something to that effect. Pure BS. In fact it's some editors perception of their life course as that of a people, together with overblowing the Gates / Buffet action. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy not altruistic?

I thought I saw here long ago that, Philanthropy is not altruistic. By helping others, the donor always profits by other people's helps, or by getting a good reputation. What's more important, this is the ultimate purpose of Philanthropy. And, that's the difference between philanthropy and charity. Is it really true?

xin_jl (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropinism

"Philanthropinism" (note: not Philanthropism) redirects here without explanation. It is a nineteenth-century German system of education (see Webster Dictionary 1913), not the same as Philanthropy. 86.135.115.218 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right - I just found this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropismus which I think is the same thing. Thus, I think that redirect is in error. If you're willing, why not change the redirect to a brief article, and add some references, and link it to the German version (you could even ask the editors of the german page if they might help translate so we have an english version of the page. --Karl.brown (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it to do that, I'm afraid. Just happened to come across it in Webster. Maybe the redirect should be removed. 86.128.241.168 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the redirect, created a sub article. if anyone can help translate Philanthropinism from german (or other languages) please give it a shot. --KarlB (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction should mention the Greek origin of word

You should mention at the beginning of article that the term is of Greek origin, from Greek φιλάνθρωπος, φίλος philos means "loving" or "caring for" and ἄνθρωπος anthropos means "human being" in the sense of "humanity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.219.168 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is Philanthropy and Charity, which denotes the charity to philanthropy. Having over said that, take the e.g of donating to foreign countries. The U.S. donates million of dollars to foreign country to maximize good relationship within that country. Another e.g is that U.S. also donates million dollars in foreign country in disaster area. Now, defining Philanthropy and charity is totally different. If U.S. donate money in foreign country that money is going back to U.S., simply by giving the agreement to buy the equipment from U.S. and etc. That money was not considered a charity because fine print was calculated by philanthropy. Take another examples, if I give $10,000 to Salvation Army, that money is tax deductible. Charity is simply giving money or material to unfortunate people, Philanthropy is simply raise money to that account. (e.g., Private Hospital, City project, Military instalation and so on.)

Thanks, Michael Aquitania, BS CJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.121.8 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bequests

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see the word "requests" used a few times in this article. Should those not be "bequests"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will-o-the-west (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits of this date

I have added NPOV and other tags to the Lilly School, subsection which is a cleart advert for the School, written by someone promoting it and so too close to the subject. It clearly violates WP:NPOV.

At the same time, in the IU School's attempting to elevate itself, the section (now a subsection) makes claims of uniqueness that have to be counterbalanced by the history of the existence of many organizations that study and support philanthropy. While the School may be the first—even of this I am not sure, because it currently appears only as a self-published claim—it certainly is not the first degree granting body (which dates to CUNY and Duke in the 80s), nor is it the first to focus study on philanthropy, which has been going on at least since the post WWII era, likely earlier.

To whit, compare the Lilly schools claims and date of founding, 2013, to the dates here:

As a field of scholarship, philanthropy has been largely unmapped terrain -the least understood aspect of our national life, says John G. Simon, a professor of international law at Yale University. / But the situation is changing. In the last year, centers focusing on philanthropy have been established at Duke University and City University of New York. Courses for undergraduates have been introduced at nine colleges under a program organized by the Association of American Colleges and financed by a group of corporate givers, foundations and the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel. / And doctoral candidates in a variety of fields are discovering…" (Teltsch, NYT, 1986)

And,

…a number of Rockefeller-associated organizations soon took the lead in studying philanthropy in North America. Together, Keidanren (the Federation of Economic Orgnizations), the Japan Society of New York, the International House of Japan, and especially the Japan Society for International Exchange, became involved in efforts to study various aspects of philanthropy [vis-a-vis post-war Japan]. With the guidance of close Rockefeller associate Datus Smith, JCIE established a program known as the International Philanthropy Project… [ca.] in 1974.

Here is a starting list—please see the following references—of further organizations that might appear in that section, with concomitant reduction in the coverage of the Lilly School (please expand, signing after new entries):

• Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, City University of New York, founded 1986, apparently the first, alongside Duke* Center for Effective Philanthropy, founded ca. 2005
• The Center for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society (CSPCS), Sanford School of Public Policy), Duke University, founded 2008, following efforts dating to 1986
• Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, International Fellows in Philanthropy Program, founded 1988
• The Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent, UK

Bonne chance, in making the section neutral, and the coverage of the history of the study of philanthropy accurate. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See also next Talk section, on what I observed after skimming for sourcing, section by section. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

General widespread WP:VERIFY issues

Starting with the Etymology section, and extending thereafter through the article, a pattern of text addition that violates WP:VERIFY has developed. This is especially true with the Etymology and Classical philanthropy sections, which are essential essays from one or a few editors that clearly violate WP:OR in the repeated allusions to the scholarship of others, without actually citing anyone. The Modern philanthropy section is better, but there are still unsourced essay paragraphs that are in place. The same extends to the bulleted section on gifts, which at least could readily be annotated to differentiate sourced from unsourced entries (and dated from undated).

Please, fellow editors, stop the slide of this article toward being a text-dumped mess, impossible to move to Good Article (GA) status. All non-common knowledge content should be sourced, per WP:VERIFY—and claims to understand etymology and practice dating back to ancient Greece and Rome are not common knowledge—and no ideas of editors, based on primary sources alone, belong here (without violating WP:OR).

Please, help stop the pattern of essaying and text dumping. This is an important article. Please leave inline and section and article tags until the particular issues are, over time, cleared up. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Taxation policy

This article is missing a huge factor influencing charity/philanthropy known as taxation policy. In the case of someone like Gates, If I understand tax law properly, Gates never recognized gains on his Microsoft stock because he never sold it. But when he donates it to charity, its basis would be stepped up tax free and he would get a charitable contribution write-off equal to the value of the stock at the time he donated it.

This is less of a factor today as, our capital gains taxes are ridiculously low. But during the Clinton years, the capital gains rate was 28% and that means that it is not just Gates giving to his charity but the US Treasury that is giving too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.11.41 (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis added, to call attention to potential improvements to the article. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Termination of foundations

This is a subject that I think should be put into the article. Here is one reference. Beatty, Sally, Families Wrestle With Closing Foundations, Wall Street Journal, April 27,2007. This is outside my interests and expertise. I hope somebody picks up the ball, so to speak. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

Article placed in further reading. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism found

I added copy paste-tags, for the following reasons, part evidenced, part suspected. Note first, as described above, the "Etymology" and "Classical philanthropy" are unsourced essays, which I originally ascribed to editor WP:OR. Now there is reason to believe that the texts may have been cribbed verbatim or close paraphrased either from UK-derived "Catalogue for Philanthropy" web materials (click "read more" at end of appearing text to see in full), or perhaps from Chapter 1 and other places within the book advertised there, "Philanthropy Reconsidered" (2008) by George McCully.

Specifically, the "conventional modern definition" now appearing in the WP article's "Definitions" section, originally appeared in the lead. (I have since paraphrased that content in the lead, to remove the problem and embarrassment.) The web content at [1] clearly matches that of this definition, and so either the WP article was sourced from it, or both were sourced from the same place. The website is clearly taken from the book. The WP article states no source. These sentences are therefore clearly plagiarised (direct cribbed ideas and wording, without attribution).

Given the close parallels in construction between the remainder of the web material at this site, and the material appearing in the WP article's "Etymology" and "Classical philanthropy" sections, there is reason to suspect that parts of these essentailly unsourced sections were taken verbatim or near verbatim, also from the book advertised at the above webpage, or from the webpage materials (not all of which have I time to review).

The bottom line: Large tracts of unsourced text always violate WP:VERIFY. Here, if they do not violate WP:OR, they likely violate WP:COPYVIO, and at very least, the "conventional modern definition" was taken from [2] without attribution, and so is plagiarism.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The perceived book source (McCully, 2008), whose subtitle and further content were incorporated into the lede and "Definitions" sections, and apparently in the "Classical philanthropy" section as well, does indeed appear in the article as a citation, though misplaced in the "Modern philanthropy" section (now moved to "Further reading"). Cited are pages 1-21 (Chapter I), entitled and subtitled,

" 'Promethean Fire: the Archetype'—from its first coinage in ancient Greece, in Prometheus Bound, philanthropia meant "the love of humanity," or of what it is to be human, an educational and cultural ideal." (see archive URL in the McCully source, in "Further reading.")

Compare this with the content of "Definitions" section, which is the original, purportedly plagiarised text. See also the URL for this book, for more insight into the similarity of this Chapter I and the WP "Classical…" section; the citation now appears in "Further reading" (via Amazon link, unfortunately, but it allows you into the book). Once again, McCully appears clearly to be the source, though it is no where cited in relation to the ideas and phrases borrowed from him; hence, the claim of plagiarism is maintained. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Advertisement

The tags do a pretty good job at explaining it but I'm just gonna remove that advertisement. It's too obvious an ad. I think nobody would deny that so I'll delete it in the name of consensus. BeefDaeRoastLXG ^praat 11:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

I am planning to edit this article to reduce the absurd amount of maintenance tags present as per Wikipedia:Tag bombing. My aim is for it to remain clear what the issues are for any editor that wishes to improve the article while avoiding excessive tagging which very easily becomes annoying to the reader. 128.243.2.144 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please list specific issues with the article here on the talk page instead of using a massive amount of highly disruptive tags. 128.243.2.144 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Limited Target of Philanthropy

I removed the reference to "the betterment of human beings" from the "Usage" section. Wouldn't large donations to animal rights or human-independent ecological concerns be concerned philanthropic, even in the conventional sense? Wbakker2 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but in that case the given definition "Philanthropy means the love of humanity" should also be corrected into a broader scope.83.98.229.18 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

For instance, some monkies tend to be much more empathic and self-sacrificial to each other than humans.83.98.229.18 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to horticulture?

"Philanthropy was modernized by Sir Francis Bacon in the 1600s, who is largely credited with preventing the word from being owned by horticulture."

What? Horticulture? Any references? KIAaze (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Celebrity philanthropy into Philanthropy. I think that the content in the celebrity philanthropy article can easily be explained in the context of philanthropy itself, and the philanthropy article is of a reasonable size that the merging of celebrity philanthropy will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Plus the article seems promotional anyways and does not deserve a stand alone. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

question??

Why is it that if it's from the wealthy it's "Philanthropy" but when its from regular folks its just "charity"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.51.170 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer. Partly b/c the Rich can afford better PR and media attention!! Philanthropy + Insincerety = HYPOCRISY!! (ie Need to reform image of a say robber baron). Giving (by the Rich) is usually good but it usually helps the Giver "Philanthropist's" Image more than it does the donee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.51.170 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy is different than charity not just because of the amount of money, but also in the way that people use it. People refer to charity when they're talking about giving money away to individuals in need. Philanthropy describes more of a strategic type of giving, to a group of people, a specific cause, or an organization with the end goal of helping humanity, not just a specific few individuals. When one gives a beggar a dollar, that is charity. On the other hand, giving money to an organization that promotes a certain type of policy, with the end goal of helping mankind, would be considered philanthropy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.11.254 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Charity conjures up images of food, clothing, housing, medical care and other basics. Whereas philanthropy implies museums, parks, libraries universities... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.11.41 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, and I dispute that there is any substancial difference between charity and 'philanthropy' as it has come to mean in any meaningful way other than the orders of magnitude being 'donated'.

Sure, the focuses may be different; but that's simply because billionaires CAN literally use their money to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want with, and don't even feel it.

Furthermore, look at the Wiki article for just about any billionaire you can think of (minus Donald Trump, naturally). Bet every single one of them says 'philanthropist' in the lede! One would begin to think that billionaire and philanthropist have become near perfect synonyms. and the way the word philanthropist is now used, they practically are -_-. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Philanthropists

As of June 2006, the largest charity giving ever in the U.S. is by Warren Buffett: $37 billion.[3] Adjusted for inflation, this amount is higher than past givings by Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.[4] Shawnc 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

why not just write in the lede 'philanthropist is another word for billionaire'? Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)