Talk:Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

{{WikiProject California|class=C|importance=Low|sf

Requested move 3 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page has already been moved. Zanhe (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Zuckerberg initiative → Chan Zuckerberg Initiative – Correct capitalisation. 128.178.189.146 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Tax avoidance"

Without any lawyers. Of course people can give to their tax exempt not profits. Why shouldn't they. Forget all of this. More can benefit from plant diversity than paying taxes to crack heads in USA or welfare for over population in USA..... like Obama stealing money printing from me and being born in Kenya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D103:F073:D96D:94C:898F:E9CB (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One anonymous IP has been repeatedly inserting what appears to be original research describing the initiative as "tax avoidance". Note that this description is not only factually incorrect (tax deductions that follow the spirit of the tax code do not constitute avoidance), but potentially libelous, as tax avoidance is strongly viewed as unethical (see tax avoidance). Please note that WP:BLP applies here, as it does to all articles that directly relate to living persons. Other editors are strongly encouraged to revert such edits in the future as they see fit. 50.153.133.158 (talk)

So do you work for Zuckerberg? --2001:4898:80E8:C:0:0:0:B3 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a contributor did not sign up has no importance. The source is the key and I do not think that The New Yorker can be considered as original research. Could you specify clearly here which passages of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are potentially violated in this article? Peco Wikau (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I am open to discussing several issues that may exist in your edit and whether some of it could be kept, but as WP:BLP is taken extremely seriously and I believe it is violated (specifically, see my previous comment on the strong ethical implications of accusing an individual of "tax avoidance"), I will be reverting the content again until an administrator reviews this issue and decides whether BLP is indeed violated. Please wait. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence of the article cites between one and four sources. Again, could you specify clearly here which passages of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are potentially violated in this article? Peco Wikau (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Also, could you please explain why you did delete sentences such as the following?

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charitable trust but a limited liability company which can spend money on lobbying, do political donations, keep secret what it pays its top five executives and be for-profit.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Again, Peco, I would be glad to have that discussion with you if I had the time to do so, but as (I believe) this is a strong WP:BLP violation and you are currently edit warring with me to re-insert the material, I'm going to defer to administrator review at this moment in the hopes that the potentially libelous content is taken down first and we can actually discuss the issue. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content comes from the cited sources. I would like to keep it until you tell us (and we discuss) why it is potentially not appropriate. Could you please answer my two questions (above)? Peco Wikau (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

^ Jesse Eisinger, "How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself", The New York Times, 3 December 2015 (page visited on 4 December 2015).
^ Matthew Yglesias (2 December 2015). "Why Mark Zuckerberg's huge new donation is going to an LLC rather than a charity". Retrieved 3 December 2015.
^ Kerry Dolan, "Mark Zuckerberg Explains Why The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Isn't A Charitable Foundation", Forbes, 4 December 2015 (page visited on 5 December 2015).

I'll tell you why: it's original research and synthesis. You're taking references, drawing your own conclusions, then presenting them in the article as facts. I've reverted your changes; please do not add them in this fashion again. You're also flirting with the three-revert rule. Katie^talk 16:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell us why conclusions are problematic please? And could you tell me why you also deleted the above-mentioned sentence on limited liability companies? 16:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC).

I noticed you've now inserted a milder accusation, which I still believe to be a WP:BLP violation and needs to be removed immediately, in addition to its other problems (including verifiability and sourcing). I strongly recommend you read WP:COAT and WP:BLP first before editing this page again. Thanks. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors: The user repeatedly inserting the content has now been blocked after a discussion on WP:AN/I and edit warring with several admins. Since the user in question went ahead and trolled me by reporting me on vandalism in return, I'm going to presume a lack of good faith and a strong possibility that the user might re-insert the edits after the block expires or through sockpuppets, so please revert the problematic edits and report them on WP:AN/I if they resurface. Thanks. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The discussion does not answer my question: why was the above-mentioned quote removed from the article? Is it not a fact reported by common newspapers? 144.85.252.21 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

As no one gave any reason not to publish the sentence mentioned above about the company structure (limited liability company) since more than forty-eight hours, I will add it to the article. Please, do not hesitate to discuss the article content here. Peco Wikau (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Peco Wikau is now blocked for sockpuppet abuse. Someone should review the significant edits to this article. I don't know enough here to judge what, if anything, should be reverted. Alsee (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the way that you guys handled this content dispute is very strange. Nobody actually answered the question of why the information from the above-mentioned sources, about the charity actually being an LLC and bringing tax benefits to Zuckerberg and Chan, is not worthy of inclusion in the article. It looks like you guys just went after the editor, Peco Wikau, rather than actually addressing the substantive content issue. That's really bad form, and not worthy of Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an independent tax attorney with no conflicts. The content here is factually inaccurate (the primary source for the Securities and Exchange Commission filing - the 8-K - discloses precisely what was pledged and the entity to which it was pledged). Further, the tax laws are clear that contributions to LLCs in exchange for membership interests are largely tax-neutral (see Internal Revenue Code Section 721(a) - also a primary source). It is further obvious that under the law, an LLC may have any lawful purposes, whether for-profit or not-for-profit - but that is a State law, issue, not a federal tax law issue. It is aggravating to professionals who practice tax law to read a slew of poorly-written media articles about a famous person's tax and estate planning and then have their inaccuracies repeated in Wikipedia simply because a reporter was sensationalizing a relatively transparent estate-planning transaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4600:65D4:5C7F:78D0:DA19:6463 (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit the article, but you have to cite your claims. I understand that you are a tax attorney, but Wikipedia works on the basis of verifiability, not the expertise of individual users. If the majority of what we would consider reliable sources says one thing, but an individual user (perhaps with significant expertise) says another thing, we can't simply trust the expertise of the user over the sources. Your expertise isn't worthless here, however. It should enable you to go out and find reliable sources. I encourage you to lay them out here before making substantial changes to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts (photo, empty section, and mission statement)

One of my edits was recently reverted by 128.178.189.47 with the summary "Activities is a key point of any foundation or company. And the picture is relevant to the name and founders." There are, as I understand it, three issues here, so I'm going to open three sub-sections below. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Chan and Zuckerberg

I'm not a fan of having the photo of Chan and Zuckerberg in the article as it currently exists. It's a (candid) photo of them from well before the CZI was started, and it's not really directly related to the organization. Also, given the length of the article, the photo is a major proportion of the article as a whole. I think the photo is therefore undue unless and until we get a section on the founders (not really needed) or some other way to make it directly pertinent to the article. Really, a photo of the founders speaking in their capacity as heads of the CZI would be ideal. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that 'a photo of the founders speaking in their capacity as heads of the [foundation] would be ideal', but we do not have any. They created a foundation, announced it personally and named it according to their names; I think that it is all right to have their picture here. 128.178.189.50 (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I thought the photo was there because they're in the Czech Republic and their foundation is called "CZI". Anyone with me on this one? 39.50.249.225 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Statement

As described in WP:MISSION, simply parroting a mission statement is usually useless to the reader. I don't see any reason to leave this one in the lead, especially given the fact that it's already in the infobox. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that there were a rule of Wikipedia saying that the information of the 'infobox' should also be present in the article. 128.178.189.50 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Empty section

I can't find anything on this, but to me it seems a bit silly to have a completely empty section on "Activities" when the organization has not yet had any. Can we just comment it out for now? Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information required

Hi Am hassan from pakistan please help me about this that how i can use this and how i can earning so please tell me about all this at my email hassanarshad.bwn@gmail.com Am waiting of your reply Thank you. Hassan688 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you found what you needed, Hassan. Can someone archive this?DonCucos (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The philanthropy of this organization is a farce

Jonas Salk donated the Polio Vaccine to humanity. Full stop. Literally nothing from this organization resembles that type of philanthropy.

Even the Prop 13 modification seems to suffer from a horrible conflict of interest issue given Zuckerberg simultaneously leads Facebook which would likely benefit from all the low margin industries that would leave the state, leaving a lot of valuable industrial property (and housing formerly occupied by workers from those industries) up for grabs. Facebook would likely benefit from a lowering of the corporate tax rate that would be enabled by a split roll.

Please be careful with sources and especially primary sources for this article and topic. I found a CNBC article that mistakenly labeled the CZI a nonprofit organization. It seems it's just a Mark Zuckerberg interest group.TekashiNine (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jesse Eisinger, "How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself", The New York Times, 3 December 2015 (page visited on 4 December 2015).

[2] Matthew Yglesias (2 December 2015). "Why Mark Zuckerberg's huge new donation is going to an LLC rather than a charity". Retrieved 3 December 2015.

[Forbes-3] Kerry Dolan, "Mark Zuckerberg Explains Why The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Isn't A Charitable Foundation", Forbes, 4 December 2015 (page visited on 5 December 2015).

[1]

[2]

[3]