Talk:Charity Navigator

Repeated removal of portion of methodology section
A while back, I noticed that a portion of the methodology section providing some balance on Charity Navigator's methodology had been deleted without explanation, so I revised that segment to make it more neutral and replaced it. Since then, an anonymous user has twice removed this portion without comment. I firmly believe that this section belongs in this article to provide an informed view of Charity Navigator's methods. If there's a reason for the repeated removal, I'd like to hear it articulated. Ashdog137 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the section you're talking about did indeed become part of the article. Thanks! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

last word
I assume the word in the last sentence of the article should be 'against' not 'again'. L.M. 3/22/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.247.112 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Self-promotion for donations
I think it's a bit sad that there are some very prominent donation buttons on their front page, which are all to donate to charity navigator itself. One of them says: "By donating to us you are helping us to inform our millions of users of the best charities of all kinds. Therefore, supporting us leverages your dollars to do the most good!" Sounds fishy. JustJohan (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me, Wikipedia does the same thing once a year. It takes resource inputs to keep things going, without that they're going to exhaust their available resources and eventually won't be able to maintain their operations. It's not shady, it's normal. Indefensible (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Investigation of Charity Navigator
I am aware of some groups investigating Charity Navigator for deviating from GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principles), rewarding groups that accept government funding, punishing groups that operate according to free market principles, and discourage giving to conservative organizations. While it appears that definitive results from these investigations are still pending, I do think it would be worthwhile to include a section about the fact that Charity Navigator's evaluation practices have been called into question. Cghake (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for relaying this unattributed rumor. Please see WP:Reliable sources and No original research. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)