Talk:Private foundation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CapitalismWikipedia:WikiProject CapitalismTemplate:WikiProject CapitalismCapitalism articles

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content move, USA

Detailed content moved from USA subheading to separate page dedicated to private foundations in the USA. It's called Private foundation (USA).EECavazos 02:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new article

I started a new one, but I don't want to put too much into it should it not be adopted. EECavazos 07:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, should I be that this new article would be adopted rather than the old article be reverted, then I would add more. I'm sure the old article will not be reverted because it was an advertisement. EECavazos 07:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make this article less cluttered I'll create a separate article for private foundations in the USA. I'll create Private foundation (USA).EECavazos 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Foundation is a term specific to the USA, and is a specific type of 501(c)(3) organization, which is a USA charitable organization that is a non-profit organization. What should happen is that another article should be created called Foundation (charity), Foundation (worldwide charities), or Foundation (global), where all of the stuff that isn't specific to the USA is put, and so obviously, the worldwide tag should be removed from this USA-specific page. Fredsmith2 00:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of Foundation (global). Do you mean that an article called Foundation (charity) should be created? One already exists, I think.EECavazos 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the name Foundation in U.S.A. (charity), it's so ugly and unwieldly. What would be better? "Charitable foundation (USA)", "USA Foundation (charity)", "Foundations in the USA (charity)"? I'm terrible with making names.EECavazos 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private foundations exist elsewhere, they don't have the same substantive law as private foundations in the USA, but they do refer to them as private foundations. see [1](referring to "private foundation" as a Canadian charitable entity) If someone seeks to find information about Canadian private foundations they will instead find out about private foundations in the USA.EECavazos 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I was quite surprised when someone put that worldwide tag on Private foundation bu then I googled Canadian private foundation, because the gentleman who put on the tag was from Canada, and I found a few links to reputable websites that refer to private foundations in Canada. Strange stuff. I also did the same for Australia since it's a commonwealth jurisdiction, but I don't know whether England as private foundations beacuse they don't have anything at all you can refer to as a foundation that has specific law addressing it. Strange stuff.EECavazos 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a new page for the USA specific private foundation law, I put it in Private foundation (USA). Should this be too quick of me please forgive, I go through this wikipedia stuff in bursts. Besides, everything can be undone. I try to be bold.EECavazos 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on being bold, and thanks for contributing to wikipedia. I think that unless you can find something that references that other countries call their foundations "Private Foundations" then your attempt to world-wide-icize this probably would be considered original research. If "Private Foundation" really isn't a world-wide term yet, then this page should probably only be used to describe US private foundations.

I posted a link above that shows Canada using the term "private foundation" in reference to a charitable organization. Here is the link again Canadian Private foundation EECavazos 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for researching this out! Fredsmith2 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation in U.S.A. (charity) really should be merged into your article of Private foundation (USA). They're really the same thing, but the first one has a weird, awkward title.

The name is weird, but since community foundations exist there should be an overarching article that encompasses different types of American foundations in case someone is searching for information about American foundations but they don't know the distinction between a community foundation and a private foundation or that even one or the other exists. An article with a general title encompasing these two types of foundations would ensure that if someone ones to findout out about community foundations or private foundations but they don't know that there are such distinctions between the two foundations then they would discover such a distinction in a general article. From the general article they can then get more a more detailed article once they find out what kind of foundation that they want to learn about in the course of their wikipedia search. EECavazos 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't like the Foundation in U.S.A. (charity) as the name for that page. The grammar is marginal (Foundation should be plural), plus no one spells USA with periods. I think this should be renamed, or merged into yours. Fredsmith2 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie, senor.EECavazos 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole charity/foundation/501(c)(3) thing is a big mess on wikipedia. I really want to help to clean it up when I have some time. See my userpage section of User:Fredsmith2#501(c)(3) for some initial notes I've made on how I think it needs to be cleaned up.

I agree, it's a big ugly mess. I just glanced over your page, and the scale of this is staggering.EECavazos 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks, and please continue to making the charity sections better. Fredsmith2 08:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant!EECavazos 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

civil law

Brilliant addition of Sweden! The civil law sections needed filling in, actually as does the common law section with Australia and Canada. Where are some Aussie and Canucks when you need them?EECavazos 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would Canada be listed under the civil law section? It is most assuredly a common law jurisdiction. 2600:1004:B152:7609:A592:C778:907C:634 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article merger?

Do we need to merge Offshore foundation into this article? nirvana2013 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. nirvana2013 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People helping

People helping 203.135.47.56 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]