Talk:Voluntary sector

Nonprofit/Voluntary sector organizations are becoming more diverse in how they are approaching operations. With that in mind, I propose the addition of a Marketization/Commericalization section to this page.Ellingtonaustin (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Voluntary Sector page has been redirected from a page called Third Sector. Clearly they are not the same thing. Can we have a Third Sector page and a voluntary sector page? The Voluntary sector is one part of what is seen as the third sector that aslo includes Co-ops, social enterprise etc.

One reply to the above:

There is no standard internationally recognised and agreed definition of voluntary sector, voluntary organisation, community group, third sector, social enterprise, non profit organisation, NGO etc which provides neat boundaries between each one of these and the others. We could debate the boundaries between one and another ad infinitum. Social enterprise can be seen as part of the voluntary sector. A charity shop is social enterprise, for example, falling within a voluntary organisation. By the way, I don't know who set up the redirection above and I am not directly commenting on that.

Cheddington2001 12:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...since writing the above, I have noticed that the sector in Wales is gradually moving away from talking about the 'voluntary sector' to talking about the 'third sector'.

[[Cheddington2001 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

There seems to be a need for a modest bit of coordination so that there is some discussion somewhere of the definitional/categorization issues among the three (or more???) economic sectors. There is a WP Organizations project that may have something to say about this. I'm not sure that we've got a good definition for what makes a given organization a member of any of the sectors. I think that the core public sector entities (sovereign and subsidiary executive, legislative, and judicial entities) have their own criteria. Individuals and families are always (?) excluded from this kind of classification effort. What might make a clan governmental? If it performs a social welfare function, is it third-sector? In more "advanced" economies, organizations can be in any of the three sectors. The leading criteria, I think, are ownership, control, and whether run for profit by law. It would be interesting to see how the big international organizations define the three sectors. DCDuring 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a more extended debate about "Third Sector" - whether it does/should encompass 'voluntary', 'community', 'faith group', 'social enterprise', etc., etc. I agree with the above that there isn't (and probably shouldn't be) a clear SINGLE definition of the term, but I'd like to see some more outline. The Public Sector in the UK is increasingly using "Third Sector" to try to define all non-Govt/non-private agencies, and I'm not sure Third Sector organisations are involved in that debate enough. In line with that, I'm trying not to use 'not-for-profit', or 'nonprofit' (US), as some of the Third Sector organisations we work with have to make a profit to survive. Isn't it where that profit/surplus goes that defines better? 'Not-for-PERSONAL-profit' is better but a large mouthful! My own organisation struggles to break-even, but unless we make a non-personal profit, we will disappear and then won't offer our services to our beneficiaries. The era of Public Sector "free money" (grants without strings) disappeared a long time ago... --Fatuousplatitudes (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits and merge

Google results:

--Neutrality^talk 03:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can a redirect from "third sector" be implemented please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article's scope

This article is severly conflicted and confused. The name and lead of this article talks of volunteer non-profit organizations. However, the the term "third sector", which is a redirect, also describes what are also called public-private parterships (PPPs).

So, the question is, should the article be moved to the current redirect of "third sector" with the lead more clearly explaining the scope of the article, as the article really describes both uses of that term? Or should the material about PPPs be moved over a seperate article with that title, with third sector becoming a disambiguation page? oknazevad (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- I think the whole issue is confusing and rather full of woolly thinking. If you have a not-for-profit organisation would the plumber also have to give a no-profit quote? And the supplies he uses, do they also have to be without the profit that people actually live on? The plumber and his children have to eat, too - so since not for profit is not sustainable through the whole supply chain it's not a good categorization.

With the so called NGOs there is a bit of a problem when they seek to be political like the Soros 'Open Society' organisations. These NGOs, international ones in particular, are not accountable to anyone but claim a sector of power and influence for themselves. When a society lives in rented apartments and most have casual jobs it becomes more and more problematic to spend time unpaid. It shows up in many organisations, churches and political parties. Spending unpaid time was for the middle class, but that has been reduced so much that volunteering and charitable activities will only be possible for those who have their living anyway, the retired and wealthy. 2001:8003:A0B9:EF00:CDCF:677:E001:7DAF (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Run-on sentence

Donating to private religious organizations remains the most popular American cause, and all religious organizations are entirely privately funded because the government is limited from establishing or prohibiting a religion under the First Amendment.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augerspectre (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a run on sentence. It does have a dependent clause to explain the first clause, but that does not make it a run on. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok Augerspectre (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]