- Category:Non-governmental organizations by country (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I question the deletion of this category because in the deletion discussion, I do not see evidence that the people commenting were familiar with the concept of a "non-governmental organization".
"Non-governmental organization" (NGO) is a jargon term that usually is equivalent to "nonprofit organization". That point should have been raised in the deletion discussion, but was not. Some countries, like the United States, say "nonprofit organization" whereas other countries, like India, have no nonprofit sector and only have an NGO sector and "non governmental organizations". "Nonprofit" and "nongovernmental" are both defining concepts of organizations and of equal importance as concepts.
These merges recently happened
If these deletions stand, then probably we also need to make the following merge
Categories typically are not supposed to have intersections, but since these categories are massive (1000s of organizations), it does seem reasonable to divide them into commercial organizations, government organizations, and either or both nongovernmental or nonprofit organizations. All countries have a concept of commercial sector and government sector, but then some countries imagine a nonprofit sector and others imagine a nongovernmental sector. It is a cultural choice to call these organizations one or the other. Rarely is a country discussed in a single source as having a separate NGO sector and nonprofit sector. For example, the NFL and FIFA are both football leagues, but one is a nonprofit and the other is nongovernmental. Both have very strong ties to the governments especially for funding their stadiums and coordinating events, and both are associated with a major commercial sector. It would not be right to call the NFL an NGO or FIFA a nonprofit organization, but rather best to use NGO for FIFA (which it is) and NPO for NFL (which it is).
Nonprofit/nongovernmental are perpetually confusing terms. In nonprofit-minded countries people say, "Aren't businesses non-governmental?" and in countries with NGOs they say, "Aren't government organizations nonprofit?" The problem is that the terms "nonprofit" and "nongovernment" cannot be understood literally and they are technical jargon with a certain meaning unrelated to profit or government. Nonprofit organizations sometimes generate profit and nongovernment organizations are sometimes a part of government, but these are still widely used concepts and categorizations.
A better merge, but one that would probably be seen as prejudiced to the Western world, would have been
This merits a little more discussion. Can previous participants please comment further if you feel this merge should stand?
Thanks everyone for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (without prejudice) and merge as proposed but to alt. name Category:Nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations, or Endorse procedurally but return to CfD for discussion of proposed different merge (which ever is more processually "happy"). Merging the nonprofits and NGOs to one cat. with both names will ensure there's no ENGVAR confusion. And the hyphenation is not needed (people who actually work in this sector usually do not hyphenate it, a change that happened gradually over the 1990s, while I was working in that sector). If people want to fight to preserve the hyphens, I won't fight back, but they should be both no-hyphen or both hyphenated, not mix-and-match. The nom is right that most NGOs are nonprofits in different lingo, and vice versa; while there are some nonprofits that have strong governmental ties, especially surrounding the UN and EU (but also here and there around US and other national governments), it's OK. Our categorization system does not have to be a model of Vulcan logic, just useful enough to our readers and editors to suffice. Any org that straddles the line can be dual categorized, or we can create a quasi-governmental category for them, or whatever. I figure 95% or so of the entries in both the nonprofits and (former) NGO categories are the same kind of organization at the encyclopedic level, even the regulatory structures in which they fit are not a 1-to-1 match. So this would be a better merge than the last one contemplated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Corrected the "Support" wording to "Overturn", and revised further to clarify. Lots of categories are blurry, so we subcategorize to unblur them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bluerasberry: Thanks for raising your objections or concerns here. Indeed, when nominating these categories, I expected a bit more discussion, but it's unfortunately not unusual that too few people care about WP:CfD discussions. More generally, contributors often only notice all kinds of RfCs after they were concluded. That's why we have processes to reassess concluded discussions.
- Endorse deletion Now, from what I can see, the closing administrator, who happens to be very experienced with categories, didn't make any procedural error. The recent discussion was closed after 9 days without a single objection, after the preceding one had been closed after 13 days with unanimous support. Also, while it wasn't further examined by other participants, in my nomination, I did acknowledge the (partial or loose) equivalence of NGOs and non-profit organizations ("we have the widely corresponding Category:Non-profit organizations by country").
- Still, I can see your point. We are regularly facing these kinds of problems, with terms being very loosely defined or with varying definitions in distinct fields of a topic or regions of the world. In these cases our task is to come up with a terminology that most correctly describes the content, avoids ambiguity and redundancy, and allows for a consistent categorization scheme. The term NGOs may be widely used in India and some other countries, but that alone doesn't necessarily make for a usable terminology to categorize organizations worldwide.
- Now you're saying, the same case would hold for NPOs. To a certain extent that's true, with government agencies being not-for-profit (in the literal sense), too. But then again, we're talking about a rather limited number of government agencies that would always be categorized as such. On the other hand, there are way more private, for-profit organizations (companies) to distinguish from.
There are some more reasons why the definition of NPOs works better with our categorization scheme than the varying definition(s) of NGOs do: While the definition of NPOs doesn't carry an assumption about their size, influence, or scope, their efforts at lobbying, or the issue they're working on, NGOs are regularly associated with these hardly quantifiable features. Furthermore, as NPOs are tax-exempt in many if not most countries of the world, there's a clearly defined legal status for us to discriminate between different types of organizations. This German-language economics dictionary entry clearly states that science prefers the term NPO to NGO, as NGO is an even more blurry concept. There may be more, including English-language sources stating the same.
So while IMHO we had every reason to finally do away with our effectively broken NGOs categorization scheme, this doesn't preclude us from keeping our slightly less broken NPOs categorization scheme.
- On a larger, transnational basis, there is a case for categorizing Category:International non-governmental organizations, as in these cases definition is rather clear and usable, see for example this comprehensive book chapter on INGOs. I would therefore propose directing our efforts at these organizations. --PanchoS (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone from that field professionally, I would say: a) yes, it's complicated; b) "NPO" is not an acronym we use much if at all, unless that has become popular overnight and I didn't notice; and c) we all treat "NGO" as equivalent to "nonprofit", absent evidence that the organization is actually one of those with unusually close ties to government. No one in the North American nonprofit sector is unaware of "NGO" and what it stands for, and its usual equivalency with "nonprofit". It's a bit like "truck" and "lorry"; in US English "truck" can be used more broadly (e.g. to include pickups), but there's not actual problem treating truck and lorry as equivalent terms on WP as long as we define them in context. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As the meanings of the terms are so similar, I would not favour re-populating the NGO categories, but endorse the merge, and keep the category pages for NGOs in each country as redirects to NPO in each country. Redirecting would be better than deletion because these category names are liable to be re-added on articles. I have no objection whatever to former contents of the NGO categories being moved into NPO where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Y I'd fully support Fayenatic london's proposal to redirect to the NPO categories.
While refining categorization on a per-case basis, if appropriately backed by sources, is always welcome, I still think it was sensible not to merge them all in. Too many organization articles are lacking proper sources that would back their legal, non-profit status. I'm sure in many or most cases it will be easy to prove the status of notable organizations, but instead of assuming, we have to prove it for every single organization. --PanchoS (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PanchoS, Fayenatic london, and SMcCandlish: Yes would support this alternative. Here are all the options presented in my order of preference.
- SMcCandlish suggested renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations to Category:Nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations. I think this is the most accurate and least confusing option. All nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations could be merged into that category.
- Fayenatic london and PabloS suggested moving all items formerly in category:NGO to category:nonprofit organization. I think this also is a workable option. I expect that some people in India would call it racist or prejudiced for discounting their legal process, but if "nonprofit" is imagined as an adjective and not a legal status it is correct. I think that using this category would leave an unresolved problem that will come up again in the future but it meets the present need and the quality of data that we have.
- We might restore the NGO categories. The biggest problem with this is that there is perpetual confusion that "NGO" is a commonly used term with a specific meaning. Restoring the category would not communicate the issue clearly even though it is correct.
- I least prefer the status quo of removing all NGOs from their category while keeping nonprofit organizations in theirs. This is inaccurate and a cultural bias.
- Procedural stuff -PanchoS I agree that there was no procedural error in the deletion close. I am requesting view under the "new information" rationale. As you guessed, I did not become aware of this discussion until the category was removed from articles I was watching, so the deletion was a draw for me to enter the discussion. Thparkth Discusses below whether there is actually new information here, but perhaps if we can merge the items either into the nonprofit category or a new "nonprofit and NGO" category, then we can omit discussion of procedure.
- PanchoS - I am not sure this needs to be discussed further, but I fail to understand why you say NGOs and NPOs are only partially or loosely equivalent. For example, in India these sorts of groups would be called NGOs, and in the United States these sorts of organizations would be NPOs:
- schools, social clubs, activist organizations, political organizations, certain hospitals, religious centers like churches or temples
- In both cases, the nonprofit/nongovernmental status is granted through government registration, and in both cases, the motivation is usually to get benefits of incorporation without the requirement to pay taxes for income. I am not recognizing why you feel that "NGO" status is loose but "nonprofit status" is better defined. There is no legal nonprofit status for organizations in India, and there is no way to register as an NGO in the United States. These are equivalent legal designations in different cultures or legal systems.
- I am not aware of any rules which say NGOs have to have certain "size, influence, or scope, their efforts at lobbying". I am not sure why you raise tax-emempt status of NPOs- the same concept applies to NGOs, and many countries only offer this to NGOs and have no scheme for offering tax exempt status to NPOs. I cannot check the German language entry, but even if it says the term "NPO is preferred in international discussion", I am not sure that means Wikipedia should have a manual of style rule which forces that description on organizations which are legally NGOs but not NPOs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I explained why NGOs and NPOs in general are exactly this: loosely equivalent terms. You'll find tons of relevant literature associating NGOs with size, influence, scope, or lobbying efforts. Of course, wherever in a particular discourse NGO has become fully synonymous with non-profits, no differences will be made. Now that the case of India has been raised, even in regard to India I'm seriously unsure if your claim that Indian law would only recognize NGOs as such, can be upheld. According to Non-profit laws of India, the sector consists of "trusts", "societies" and "Section 8 companies", and according to the 1961 Income Tax Act, the law seems to award tax-exempt status to these kinds of not-for-profit organizations. --PanchoS (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not suggest moving all former NGO contents to NPO; I said "where appropriate". – Fayenatic London 14:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I would personally have !voted against merging, but I don't see any basis to overturn the clear consensus of the discussion. Although Blueraspberry has suggested that the participants in the discussion demonstrated a serious misunderstanding of the term "NGO" (which could potentially be a valid basis for overturning the outcome), I actually note that there was some in-depth discussion of the term and its history and usage in the nomination. I disagree with some of the points made, but I don't think it can reasonably be claimed that the terminology wasn't discussed and analyzed in a competent manner. The differences between the two viewpoints are differences of opinion, not differences of fact. Given that all of the participants in the discussion argued from the same viewpoint, it's hard to see what other outcome could have been expected (other than perhaps "relist" given the relatively low participation, but that may be a futile exercise at CfD). There is no reason to consider the outcome of the discussion unsafe. Thparkth (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirm - it was a good outcome with the information presented. I am seeking another compromise above. Thanks for checking process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The closure was in line with the discussion. There is no reason to overturn it just because people did not go into deep enough discussions on the issues to satisfy the concerns. People addressed the isues at hand and clearly felt this was not the way we should be categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This reminds me of this discussion where we overturned a CFD on the basis that a poorly-attended discussion reached a conclusion that simply didn't make sense for the encyclopaedia. Here we have another case in point. For example, there are about 600 non-governmental organisations here in Britain, and to my certain knowledge a further 500 in Ireland, the majority of which will be notable. CfD's decision needs to be reversed not because of any procedural error but simply because it's produced an outcome which is too silly to stand.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 600? What criteria are you thinking of? Any charity can call itself a NGO. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If the BBC say it's a quango, I presume it's a non-governmental organisation. E.g. here.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes a quango is a ngo, similarly a goat is an animal with 4 legs, but not all ngos are quangos and similarly not all animals with 4 legs are goats. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is true. I should of course have said that there are at least 600 notable NGOs in Britain; thanks for the correction.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but note that the quango type of NGO is categorised in Category:Government bodies. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-governmental organisations are categorised as government bodies? That's... another less than brilliant decision that we need to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is prima facie evidence that something is screwie with the categorisation structure here. Exactly what to do is not for DRV to decide. The CfD discussion was not extensive, and discussion should continue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant to DRV: "Quango" is a derisory term for an organization which claims to be independent of government, but actually functions as part of government (typically being directly funded by government and exercising governing power). It isn't completely crazy to list them as "government bodies" - they are only "quasi-" independent. An example would be Ofcom which regulates broadcasting and telecommunications in the UK. It does basically the same job as the FCC in the USA - it is an organ of state. No one would be surprise to see Ofcom listed in a category of "government bodies". Thparkth (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as procedurally correct. However, I would suggest that those experienced in categorisation should make efforts not use CFD nomination as a platform for polemical debate. On the off-chance this will sometimes lead to a consensus that gives an unsatisfactory outcome. Thincat (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
