Talk:Charity Intelligence Canada

Charity Intelligence Page Appears Biased
I understand that Wikipedia is supposed to present an impartial tone. The article on Charity Intelligence is full of bias. The tone of the page is now very similar to these attack pages:

https://www.friendsofwe.org/charity-intelligence

https://www.friendsofwe.org/politicians-and-pundits/kate-bahen

https://www.whatwelost.com/chapters/kate-bahen

The introductory section has a very negative slant. "unconventional methodologies" has no source. In fact, Macleans states that: “Charity Intelligence’s researchers look at audited financial statements, not tax returns, and present the numbers in a way that makes comparisons possible. Their figures are the most complete and accurate information about charity finances in the country.” (https://macleans.ca/society/canadas-best-charities-2020-overview/)

And Charity Intelligence is the go-to source for information from media. (https://www.moneysense.ca/spend/best-charities-for-charitable-impact-in-canada/) https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/watch-want-to-donate-to-a-charity-heres-what-to-know

It also states that it is "drawn from Bahen's stock market background". This may have been true in 2007 but it is no longer true: https://www.charityintelligence.ca/for-charities/rating-methodology

There is no point in the second paragraph for an intro section. It simply introduces some of the slander to come below.

In the About section, it states that "Charity Intelligence follows and rates fundraisers". This is simply not true and the source does not say anything related to that. Charity Intelligence rates charities, not fundraisers. On the bias, it is mentioned a number of times that Kate Bahen was an equity analyst, and once in full quotes. Yes, in the early 2000's Ms Bahen was an equity analyst. Now Charity Intelligence's methodology (above) is drawn from multiple people with extensive charity experience.

The paragraph starting "In an interview with the Globe and Mail.." is rambling, repetitive, and not very informative for viewers to understand what Charity Intelligence is all about: rating charities on their effectiveness and efficiency for donors.

Charities do not “promote partnerships with for-profit organizations”. This has no source as it does not happen.

Loss of charitable status section is 12-year old information. Maybe warrants a small mention at the end of the page.

The In the media section starts with a random negative article from 8 years ago. Missing many other important, recent, media mentions:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-getting-the-most-bang-for-your-charitable-buck-isnt-easy/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-catholic-church-canadian-assets-investigation/ https://www.thestar.com/sponsored-sections/giving-tuesday/being-informed-before-you-give/article_b7db235a-894d-11ee-b610-ebe91a582cf0.html https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/charity-intelligence-finance-committee-1.5676582 The Methodology section does not describe the methodology at all. it simply states quotes from 13 years ago. All of the quotes are negative and from more than a decade ago. This is what visitors need to know about Charity Intelligence's methodology:

https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charities-rating-methodology

In the Questioning by Parliament section, only WE Charity and its supporters care about this. Charity Intelligence has been in front of parliament a number of times. As well, again, only negative statements are made. Many MPs stated that Charity Intelligence’s work was exemplary and very helpful.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/FINA/meeting-49/evidence

Kate Bahen did not say that WE Charity was on the brink of insolvency – she merely stated the truth that WE Charity’s financial statements noted a breach of bank covenants 2 years in a row.

But again, this is a specific, biased, view of one event. Why does this warrant a section rather than a balanced statement that Charity Intelligence was questioned as part of the WE Charity scandal? Ties to Conservative Party section: Charity Intelligence has no ties to any party. While Graeme Hepburn donated to the Conservative Party, Kate Bahen has donated to both the National Conservatives and NDP. https://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/EN/CCS/ContributionReport?returnStatus=1&reportOption=5&queryId=d4c15a2dcc824776aeae1b76b28906d6&sortDirection=asc&sortOrder=0%2C1%2C2&totalRecordFound=3&current200Page=1&total200Pages=1&reportExists=True&displaySorting=True Greg Thomson’s wife, Sarah Thomson, ran for the Liberal party in Ontario (https://www.cp24.com/sarah-thomson-to-run-for-ont-liberals-1.616605) Greg Thomson did not say that charities are “best served by hiring the best fundraisers to lead their organizations”. This is changing the wording of the cited article to put a negative slant on it.

Given this level of bias, is there a way to revert to a prior version of the page (say April 9, 2023) and add content, including the above, to make it a balanced representation for viewers? Fromfarthernorth (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Someone should have responded to you earlier. It looks like you've been making the same sweeping edits for two months now and being reverted. The reasons are that you're removing loads of well-referenced material and that companies aren't supposed to be editing their own articles. Maybe no one informed you of these rules, so no big deal. Talk pages are fine.


 * Re "This is what visitors need to know about Charity Intelligence's methodology"


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and based upon third party sources. If everyone got to decide what articles about them said, Wikipedia would look very different, and no one would trust it.


 * I took a look at "rates funders". It's a direct quote from the source. But it contradicts others I checked and I agree it doesn't make much sense, so I'll remove it.Essence of nightshade (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)