Wikipedia:Covering philanthropy in biographies

Philanthropy is a significant part of many biographies, especially for wealthy individuals; however, to avoid unduly WP:PROMOTIONAL language, it is important to be careful about when and how it is covered.

When and when not to use the term
Calling someone a "philanthropist", as a descriptor, is a potentially value-laden label, and should only be used in the article voice when multiple high-quality independent sources do so themselves. Sources simply covering acts of philanthropy is insufficient - defining a person that way in the article voice, as opposed to merely noting individual acts of philanthropy, requires sources that unambiguously refer to the article's subject with that term. Similarly, referring to any individual act as philanthropy requires sources that do so - not every gift is philanthropic in its goals. Donations to political parties, advocacy organizations, religious charities and so on may have multiple purposes, which means that characterizing them under a heading of philanthropy or otherwise using that term requires high-quality independent sourcing that does so itself.

Coverage from a recipient of a gift is not WP:INDEPENDENT and should never be used to cite acts described as philanthropy in the article voice or to set the general tone by which such gifts are covered. Likewise, obituaries are generally not intended to be neutrally-worded and are poor sources to describe someone's actions in philanthropic terms or to establish due weight for gifts that they've given in the past.

Due weight
Many wealthy individuals give large numbers of gifts, and most large gifts will get at least brief, momentary coverage at the time when they occur; this doesn't mean that they all deserve a section in the article or that this coverage supports calling someone a philanthropist in the first section of the lead. In general, some possible ways to cover philanthropy and some rough guidelines for when it is due include:

Mentioned in the first sentence of the lead
To characterize someone as a philanthropist in the first sentence of the lead, it should generally be a WP:DEFINING aspect of their reputation and biography, as well as a central part of their notability. There should be high-quality WP:SUSTAINED, independent, nontrivial coverage - not merely passing mentions in other sources or brief coverage of individual gifts. Indicators that this is appropriate would include dedicated articles, books, or chapters in sources devoted entirely to their long-term philanthropy; broad coverage that refers to them primarily as a philanthropist; and the widespread existence of such coverage that, in general, that covers them solely as a philanthropist without mentioning or devoting significant focus to other sources of notability. If their philanthropy only has coverage because of who they are otherwise, then it likely isn't part of their defining notability and doesn't belong in the first sentence. Even if there is substantial coverage of their philanthropy, if the article's subject is high-profile and their philanthropy is clearly far below their primary sources of notability in coverage and focus, it may not be a major enough aspect of their overall biography for the first sentence of the lead.

Covering it later in the lead depends on how and to what extent it is covered elsewhere in the article; see below.

Mentioned in a dedicated section in the body
Caution should be taken when making philanthropy sections; since the term is non-neutral, it should generally only be used when it is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME description of their actions - and, as mentioned above, since characterizing anything as philanthropy is a value judgment, using it as a section header means anything covered in that section must rely on independent sources that characterize it as philanthropy. Dedicating an entire section to philanthropy requires that it be a major part of the subject's biography; again, this means that there should be significant coverage of it outside of coverage of individual donations.

If the only coverage that exists is as-it-happened coverage of individual donations, with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage and no broad-view sources describing the subject's philanthropy as a whole as a significant part of their biography, a dedicated section is likely inappropriate and could become WP:SYNTHESIS via combining a lot of individual coverage to give an unsourced implication of the subject's largess.

Mentioned in passing elsewhere in the article
When none of the above criteria is met, the proper way to cover philanthropic gifts (if they are covered at all) is to work them into the rest of the article, without combining them into one section - mentioning them in the appropriate part of a history section, for instance, or mentioning gifts that are covered in sources as reflecting the subject's views in sections dedicated to those views. If secondary coverage exists but consists only of passing mentions or brief articles of events without WP:SUSTAINED coverage, then coverage in a biography should be similarly brief and shouldn't be highlighted or emphasized by things such as sections or dedicated parts of the lead.

Considering how coverage of gifts would look and feel distributed throughout the article can also give a sense of whether it is appropriate to cover them at all. If they would be plainly undue and out of place scattered chronologically in a history section, for instance, then it's unlikely that combining them into a single section would make them more due.

Categories, infoboxes, and templates
Categorizing someone as a philanthropist (like any other category) requires that this be a WP:DEFINING part of their biography. Even if their philanthropy is well-sourced enough for coverage in the article, it is not necessarily appropriate for a category; biographies should be categorized according to the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for.

Roughly the same considerations apply to infoboxes and templates; by their nature, they put things in the article voice without room for context. Therefore, philanthropy should only be mentioned in them when the term is central to the subject's biography to the point that they are widely described that way; if there is substantial coverage of philanthropic gifts by the subject, but it is covered with more cautious language or is not treated as a defining attribute outside those sources, then this is better covered in the article body, both to avoid giving it undue weight and to allow for potential context and attribution.

Article titles
Article titles are required to be either neutrally-worded or the common way the subject is described. Since describing someone as a philanthropist is potentially non-neutral, it must be the common name or the most common way the subject is summarized in order to be used in an article title. When disambiguating someone, such as with John Doe (philanthropist), WP:NDESC likely applies.

Omitting entirely
Not every piece of coverage about someone is appropriate for a biography, and not every verifiable thing that they did belongs there. If the only coverage is WP:PRIMARY sources (eg. those related to the subject and those related to the gifts' recipients), it may make more sense to omit it entirely.