Talk:Donor-advised fund

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

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.

I feel that the article title should be "Donor-advised fund". It's not difficult to find sources that omit the hyphen, but its also not difficult to find sources that use the hyphen, realizing that "Donor-advised" is a compound modifier that screams out for hyphenation. These sites are not run by fools:

• Journal of Accountancy
• Charles Schwab
• Fidelity Charitable

I prefer to have WP use the hyphen and make some sources look illiterate than the other way around. The hyphen makes things easier for the readers, too. Chris the speller ^yack 18:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your astonishingly prodigious contributions. The lack of hyphen makes my teeth hurt too. I agree the hyphen is grammatically correct, but the title is a neologism. My impression is that the folks who helped invent the subject of this article do not hyphenate, and that most RS I have seen does not hyphenate. This question is frustrated by the pathetic state of the refs in this article. How would you characterize the bulk of RS? Hugh (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HughD: The unhyphenated form seems to be favored by the majority of the sources. Your point of view is valid; we only disagree on how much of a majority should exist before we go with the flow. I won't contest it further. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 02:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs a hyphen. Looks like a lot of RS use hyphens.

Hyphen:

1. Donors Trust
2. National Philanthropic Trust
3. Fidelity Charitable
4. CNBC
5. Vanguard Charitable
6. Boston Globe
7. The New Yorker
8. New York Community Trust

No hyphen:

1. Planned Giving Design Center
2. Congressional Research Service

Both:

1. IRS (both (hyphen) (no hyphen)
2. US News 2013 (no hyphen) / US News 2015 (hyphen)

Chris the speller and HughD, which other sources don't use hyphens? To me, it looks like it's leaning towards the hyphen. The fact that it's grammatically correct to have it tips the scales even further. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faceless Enemy: The non-hyphenated form is more common in sources. Donor advised funds are a relatively recent innovation. "Donor advised fund" is a neologism. The folks behind the innovation, which also serve as significant sources for the article, used the non-hyphenated form for their idea. This editing issue was discussed on the talk page in March 2015, above. This article was moved and changed without discussion and apparently with disregard of the consensus of the earlier talk-page discussion. Hugh (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought it was a "gnomish" move. I'll self-revert. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Thank you for the detailed research above. I think I was mistaken in my assessment of the most common usage. I think I gave too much consideration to too few of the earliest refs. Sorry. Hugh (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about having the encyclopedia prefer "donor-advised" but acknowledge "donor advised" as an alternate spelling? So the lead sentence would be "In the United States, a donor-advised fund or donor advised fund is a charitable giving vehicle..."? Chris the speller, is there a better way to address this? Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You had me at New Yorker. Today I learned not to cross Chris. IMO the non-hyphenated alternative is perhaps not worthy of documenting in-text, your redirect was plenty. I support your move. Sorry for the self-revert. Hugh (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faceless Enemy: If you feel any need to mention the sources that do not hyphenate, something like "Some sources omit the hyphen" might work, but I'm not sure it is worth mentioning in the article. Whatever you decide, be bold. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 01:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article should state whether this is a scheme recognised and defined by law, or just a pattern of private agreements. If it is not based in USA law, then this article is unduly USA-centric. At any rate, an authoritative definition of what constitutes a donor-advised fund needs to be referenced. Nemo 06:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Donor-advised fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.donorstrust.org/portals/0/PDF/Roundtable_WB_Interview_2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103105715/http://www.fpanet.org:80/journal/articles/2003_Issues/jfp1103-art8.cfm to http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2003_Issues/jfp1103-art8.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615160907/http://www.cof.org:80/files/Documents/Government/Charitable%20Reform%20Resource%20Center/05_Summary_of_S__2020_1128.pdf to http://www.cof.org/files/Documents/Government/Charitable%20Reform%20Resource%20Center/05_Summary_of_S__2020_1128.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]