Talk:Charitable organization

message: The Legal Definitions section of the article is country specific and should not be a part of the general article. Worse, it doesn't even say which country (though most users can guess).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.42.92.28 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Country specific information under legal definitions

message: I removed a link to an article that was used as an example of charity supervision.  The example used was quite a good one (UK Government insisting the RSPCA put human needs first) put was part of a larger article attacking the RSPCA on a self-published website dedicated to attacking the same charity.  This can't be considered a reliable source.  However the website did say the jugement was heavily covered in the March 27, 1996 Guardian.  If anyone has access to that, perhaps they could see if it is a suitable reference and put it in instead. --Siobhan Hansa 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charity Supervision example

message: I don't think old age is a service. This should be reworded. YB3   (talk • contribs)  05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword General? 

message: I have no objection to the removal of Bridie Goldstein Run for Children from this page; I was only trying to provide an additional link for the article, which was listed under Wikipedia:Orphaned_Articles. I do think, however, that the reference to wp:Undue was not exactly apropos. More to the point might be  WP:NOT#DIR. Sincerely, and with thanks for your attention, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing all charities 

message: It seems very difficult having one page for charitable organisations in all countries. The legislation, tax treatment etc differs from one country to another. Even the wording differs. In the UK the word charity is mainly used, but in the US what are called charities in the UK are generally called foundations, public charities, and the words non-governmental organisation, are used in many countries now. Having a british charitable organisation page might make it much easier to make it verifiable, and there could also then be a separate page for American charitable organisations.
Also, I think that there is quite a lot wrong with the first few paragraphs, but although I could correct some of it from a British perspective, I couldn't do much about it from a worldwide point of view. I could explain private foundation, charitable trust, endowment etc but only the british meaning. TamaraStaples (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please contribute your knowledge of the British perspective particularly if you could produce enough content to produce more pages dedicated to the British perspective.  There is a dearth of articles on the British perspective in this area and this needs to be remedied. EECavazos (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulties of a single charitable organisation page 

message: At present info on supervision, tax treatment & regulation is all in seperate places for different countries, which makes it hard to follow and to reference. Also, quite a bit overlaps e.g. supervision and regulation. Would it be considered an improvement if I put all the info. on England together, everything on Australia together etc? TamaraStaples (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of all info on one country? 

message: In England what other people spell organization, we spell organisation. The page is titled organization, so should the word be spelt organization throughout the page, and if so what happens when people look up charitable organisation? Some advice would be appreciated.TamaraStaples (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We use redirection pages so if someone looks up charitable organisation they are automatically redirected to this article.   The English Wikipedia serves English speakers around the globe so variant spelling is accommodated.  Wikipedia's manual of style basically state that spelling should be consistent within an article and that we decide on spelling dependent on if the subject is "native" to a particular country (e.g. the article on Winston Churchill should have British English spelling) and if not then whichever flavour of English is first used should be stuck with.  In this article it's American English so it's all "organization" unless it's part of a proper name or the like.  A primer to help with the difference is available here -- SiobhanHansa 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Funnily enough though you are wrong about English. See Fowler's usage and abusage of English. The older and more correct spelling is organization which for example the Cambridge University Press has always used. But English people who aren't very good at spelling (or went to Oxford) use Wikipedia too so we accomodate them with redirects. --BozMo talk 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of organisation 

message: I know some Brits will hate me for this, but England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland do not need separate sections.  They should be consolidated into in pan-UK section with subsections.  I realize the counter-argument will be "but they have separate legal systems" which is all well and good, but so do (in some senses) the various regions in federations (US states, Canadian provinces, Australian states, etc.), and we generally subdivide articles primarily by sovereign states first, and by region next.  Also I'm adding a Canada section. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  By country sections: UK (and Canada) 

message: I found: Bocquet, Greg. "The 20 Worst Charities in America." Main Street. June 1, 2010.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Worst charities"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Charitable organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080423014307/http://www.seniorsnetwork.co.uk:80/constitution/unincorporated.htm to http://www.seniorsnetwork.co.uk/constitution/unincorporated.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206100622/http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk:80/askncvo/index.asp?id=107/ to http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/askncvo/index.asp?id=107/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915081559/http://www.sfsgo.com:80/guaranteecompany.asp to http://www.sfsgo.com/guaranteecompany.asp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Maybe you could say while there are thousands, if not millions, of charities, there are still millions worldwide starving to death, even in the USA? Pepper9798 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still millions are starving 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charitable organization. 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.ncvo-vol.org.uk/askncvo/index.asp?id=107%2F
*Added  tag to http://www.llw.co.uk/charity_act.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601040526/http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/authorised-charities.html to http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/authorised-charities.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charitable organization. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329054436/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd164.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd164.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Throughout this article, there are two different spellings of the O portion of the NPO (organization or organisation). Consider changing all to one spelling for clarity purposes Kmoran350 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider edits to 'organization' 

message: I dont think trying to put all this content into one article works.   I propose to separate out articles for individual countries.Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think this article needs a fair amount of work- the background section is clearly slanted towards British and US history and that should be improved to present a more worldly view of the subject- many articles are set up with this intro to the subject then sections on how the subject is applied in multiple countries.  Foundation (nonprofit) and Private Foundation are set up this way and it seems to work well on those pages.  Clearly several of these smaller countries do not have enough info to be their own article. Additionally, there can always be separate articles for each country that are linked in this article.  Tchouppy (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries

message: It has been proposed by another user who didn't sadly bother to post here or provide a rationale. I will do it instead: it is hard to see how Public benefit organization concept is separately notable, through it is a legal term in Polish, at least, for such an organization in a tax-deduction context. Is this enough to warrant a stand-alone article? Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the page should be merged. Charitable organisations by definition are for public benefit. Ihaveadreamagain 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Public benefit organization]]