Talk:Philanthropy

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)

question??

Why is it that if it's from the wealthy it's "Philanthropy" but when its from regular folks its just "charity"???

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 aalot of chaching monay 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)

Other

"Technical definitions" section doesn't actually give a definition, so should be moved to the "External Links" section.

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.

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?

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

Needs facts like Bill Gates is the number 1 philanthropist giving away 28.8 Billion dollars (source: CNBC)

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

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

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.

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)

Philanthropists

As of June 2006, the largest charity giving ever in the U.S. is by Warren Buffett: $37 billion.[1] Adjusted for inflation, this amount is higher than past givings by Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.[2] Shawnc 09:43, 26 June 2006 (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)

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)

Meow meow meow meow meow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.96.5 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 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.

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Turtles

I like turtles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.134.107 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 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)

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)

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)