Talk:Freedom House/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Freedom House Board Section Needs Updating

Freedom House has had some changes on its board. Most notably, Peter Ackerman is no longer the chairman of the board; William H. Taft IV is now the chair. In order for this article to be up-to-date, both the sidebar where it lists key people and the paragraph in the organization section where it talks about board members should be changed to reflect that. If someone could do that, it would be great (in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, I don’t edit this article.) I would recommend changing the sentence “The board is currently chaired by Peter Ackerman. Ackerman took over chairmanship of the board in September 2005 from former CIA director R. James Woolsey, Jr.” to “The board is currently chaired by William H. Taft IV. William H. Taft IV took over chairmanship of the board in January 2009 from Peter Ackerman”

In addition Steve Forbes is no longer on the board either, and shouldn’t be listed as a current board member. Freedom House has several new notable board members who should probably be included in the list of current board members, including Lawrence Lessing, Lee Cullum, Dalia Mogahed, and James H. Carter. A complete list of Freedom House’s current board can be found at http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=10. Also, there are a couple of notable former board members that we might want to include… for example, Bayard Rustin, the civil rights activist and a Freedom House board member in the early 80s. Again, assistance in making sure that the discussion of Freedom House’s board in the entry is up to date would be appreciated. Thanks!

63.138.81.98 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to state the apparent, it appears someone addressed this.--76.251.250.43 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New material

The new material is good, but it seems a bit lengthy. Could someone try to summarize it some?--76.214.104.121 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For anyone trying to track, some of the information fron Engdahl was removed as his view was being voiced a lot. I tried to just integrate the rest of the material in to relevant parts of the article. I was unclear about the source of some of Engdahl's information, so I placed a tag on it.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-organization and changes

I re-organized portions of the title and moved all criticisms into the appropriate section.

I changed the title from Controversy to Controversy and criticism. Then I moved "perception of pro-US bias" into criticism. It is a direct criticism, so I don't see why it deserves a place outside of that.

A user changed "Controversies and criticisms" section to "Reaction of FH." A laundry list of criticisms are not reactions, they are criticisms. See euphemism. Changing the title does not change the content. I added the tag per Wikipedia:Criticism. Since almost 2/3 of the article with the exception of the lead is made up of criticism, the tag is the least I can do. The article could be considered a POV-fork, though I imagine that is debatable. I would highly recommend a serious cleaning or rewrite if possible soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, changing the section heading does not change the content. Users (or user) changed it 3 times with little rationale: diff, diff, diff. To avoid edit warring, I suggest you summarize and say why you continue to change the title without explanation. If the criticism tag bothers you merge content into the article. About half of the criticism material could be removed under notability and undue weight. Please refer to [[3] for more information. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would note you said you would temporarily recuse from editing outside your original edits on April 29 and that right now it is May 2.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am. It seems you are more concerned about me editing the article than the actual edits. Why? Read the rationale above and respond. I'm looking at the history and between you are and your various IPs, the article has almost been exclusively edited (major edits) by you for the past couple of weeks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

npov

"United Nations argument" and its succeeding sections account for roughly 1/3 of the entire article. So, 1/3 of the article is nothing but criticisms. I tried tagging the article before but was told to refrain from editing per Mohamed ElBaradei mediation dispute. Can interested users please explain these questionable edits? See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for reference. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky and Zimbabwe Rhodesia

"U.S. Government Role" contains statements attributed to Chomsky that dubiously attempt to discredit Freedom House by saying 'in 1979 Freedom House monitored the election of Ian Smith in Rhodesia and found them "fair"'. I call this dubious, because Ian Smith may have been elected (just as he was for years under Mugabe), but it was the first black majority government [4]. I'm not offering an opinion about whether the election should be called "fair" or not, but I object to the allusion of this resulting in the "election of Ian Smith" with the obvious inference that Smith was elected leader by what could only be a white-only constituency. Besides, I checked out [5] where Chomsky actually writes "Rhodesian elections staged by Ian Smith in I979". It's still a bit dubious, sweeping under the rug the fact that this lead to the first black-majority rule government -- staged or not. I propose that we use Chomsky's actual quote i.e in 1979 Freedom House "sent election monitors to the Rhodesian elections staged by Ian Smith in I979 and found them "fair," whereas the I980 elections won by Mugabe under British supervision it found dubious". Maybe adding a link to "Zimbabwe Rhodesia general election, 1979" is warranted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.101 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: 'Freedom on the Net' report

• Suggest adding revisions to the main text to reflect the fact that Freedom House is active in the issue area of Internet Freedom.

• Suggest revision to the main text to include the details on the new annual report of the state of Internet Freedom.

--Catfish2008 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes to improve accuracy

• Suggest revisions to the entry so as to include the fact that Freedom House receives funding not just from the US government, but other democratic governments as well

--Catfish2008 (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

disproportionate criticism

Material starting from "Perception of pro-US bias" section to "Praise" is all criticism/controversy. I can't say the "controversy" section is warranted considering the criticism is fairly consistent and not "controversial." There are some examples of undue weight comparatively speaking to "praise." Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, the "Praise" section was considerably larger before, mostly filled with praise from Freedom House itself, which was obviously removed. Regardless, there is no need for the sections to be of equal size, if there is more criticism out there than praise for FH, that will inevitably be reflected in the article. Pexise (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am no way suggesting we inflate the praise section so it is comparable with the criticism. However, the criticism section is bloated. The "perception of US-bias" needs to go in the criticism section. And there is nothing particularly controversial. Cuba accusing the organization of harboring a pro-American bias isn't exactly Earth-shattering. I bet we could reduce much of the criticisms, and merge similar claims into one section. I.e, "Cuba/Pakistan/Mars considers FH as a vehicle to promote US foreign policy goals..." In terms of praise, I've done a little research and it seems many countries outside of the anti-American sphere (Russia, ME, Eastern Europe, Latin America) have some nicer things to say. Can we couch that into the praise section? Though to be honest, I really don't like the praise/criticism. As far as I know, it is not preferred according to wikipedia policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a deeply flawed and biased partisan attack masquerading as an encyclopedia article. This is the Wikipedia at its worst. Lifeofthemind (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So improve it. Or at least give specific and constructive criticism. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight was given to the amount of funding provided to Freedom House by the US government as it was listed 5 times. Removed extra references, and updated other funding sources. --Boilered (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"...and it seems many countries outside of the anti-American sphere (Russia, ME, Eastern Europe, Latin America) have some nicer things to say. Is "anti-American sphere" kind of like the "axis of evil"? By "ME" I assume you mean "Middle East", but officially, I'd say Syria and maybe Libya are the only governments there that are still anti-U.S.; Russia is debatable, but Eastern Europe? And who in Latin America, besides Cuba & Venezuela? Wikifan12345, I think you have some explaining (& justifying) to do. Shanoman (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Any criticism section that is made up primarily of quotes from Pol Pol-lovers Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky deserves immediate deletion. -- (Previous unsigned comment by User:74.141.154.10)

Criticism?

Is really The Exiles ridiculous criticism all there is? Is The Exile a serious source? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many who would say The eXile is a reliable source, but quality-wise it is nothing more than a group blog. I don't think anything in Wikipedia should be using The eXile as a source unless backed up with another, independent and solid source. --Sander Säde 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's hope somebody can find some real criticism. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did this actually amoung to a discussion? What about Freedom House support of the Vietnam war during its early years? What about its lack of condemn of the situation at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? ellol (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody argued against it, so no it was not really a discussion. You also do not argue against it. What does the Vietnam War or Guantanamo Nay have to do with whether The eXile is a reliable source or not? And the fact is that Freedomhouse *has* critisized Guantanamo bay, which shows how unreliable The eXile is. I have a hard time seeing how support for the Vietnam War in 1965 can be seen as actual criticism, let alone be relevant 45 years later. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Please, provide a link that proves, that Freedom House has criticized Guantanamo. 2) I think, that the attitude of Freedom House towards the Vietnam War still matters today, because Freedom House would likely act similarly in similar situations. ellol (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Freedomhouse has mentioned Guantanamo every yearly report since 2003. [6], [7], etc up to [8].

2) To claim that Freedomhouse has to act the same in similar situations today as they did 45 years ago is very strange. After 45 years there can't be one single person left. On what do you base that they have to act the same? That makes no sense. Also, it's not clear exactly what the criticism is. What, in fact, did Freedomhouse do wrong, when they argued for that also those who supported the US position at that point should say so? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom House -- support of Vietnam war

Vietnam backers urged to 'shout', by Ralph Blumenthal, November 29, 1965 [9]

Freedom House statement signed by 104 notables -- Right of Critics Upheld

Those who oppose American policy in Vietnam have a right to speak, but those who support it have an obligation to shout, according to a statement circulated by the Freedom House.

The statement, put out about two weeks ago, has been signed, so far, by 104 national figures, among them Richard M. Nixon, Dean Acheson, Lucius D. Clay, James B. Conant, Douglas Dillon and Rex Stout.

It was prepared by five leaders of private educational and service agencies and distributed by Freedom House, a non-partisan educational center here.

"This is no longer merely a question for domestic debate over national policy," the statement said. "Across the world, friend and foe are watching intently to gauge the strength of our national purpose".

Commitment defined.

"The consensus, which is clear to all experienced observers, must not be obscured by a small segment of our population. They have a right to be heard, but they impose on the rest of us the obligation to make unmistakably clear the nation's firm commitment."

The commitment, the statement goes on, is to help the South Vietnamese resist subversion and terror "plotted, directed and supplied from the North;" to demonstrate that the aggressors cannot win; and to seek the end of the war by honorable agreement.

"Only when the essential unity that exists on these points is hammered home will the aggressors consider withdrawal," the statement asserts.

To express this unity, it appeals for action by the majority "that will ring as loudly in Peking as in Peoria, that will be understood in Hanoi as in Houston."

The aggressors, said George Field, executive director of Freedom House in a telephone interview, must not be confused by the protests here of those opposed to American policy in Vietnam. He re-emphasized that those who signed the statement had no quarrel with the protesters.

"Instead," he said, "we are placing the onus on those who remain silent and fail to make clear the American consensus."

However, in an additional comment yesterday, Mr. Field said:

"In the main we would characterize Saturday's marchers in Washington as the same sort of people as those who cheered loudest when Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich and brought home his peace act with the Nazis."

Two hours later he amended the comment to compare the marchers instead "to those decent people of England who cheered loudest..."

In terms of constructive action, the statement urges Americans to do the following:

• Speak up in local discussions on Vietnam.
• Express their views in person or in writing to their Congressmen.
• Draw up and circulate a short resolution addressed to President Johnson expressing support for "whatever national resources are required".
• Contribute to voluntary agencies serving the poor and the injured in South Vietnam.

The statement was drawn up after a private conference three weeks ago attended by Mr. Field of Freedom House: Frank R. Barnett, president of the National Strategy Information Center; Leo Cherne, executive director of the Research Institute of America, Frank N. Trager, a professor at New York University; and William van-den Heuvel, president of the International Rescue Committee.

It was sent to 300 national figures, including writers, union leaders, university professors, corporation presidents and former Government officials.

The 104 signatures, Mr. Field said, constituted the first response and was "beyond what we expected."

Among others who signed were Michael V. DiSalle, former Governor of Ohio; John Dos Passos, author; Roscoe Drummond, syndicated columnist; Dr. Harry D. Gideonse of Brooklyn College; Sidney Hook, professor of philosophy at New York University; Max Lerner, professor of politics at Brandels University; Whitelaw Reid, former editor and publisher; Samuel I. Rosenman, president of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York; and Whitney North Seymour, past president of the American Bar Association.

Wow Freedom House supported the Vietnam War. Perhaps you could explain for us why their support for the war in Vietnam matters. -- (Previous unsigned comment by User:74.141.154.10)

Notes

ellol (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

outdated source for criticisms? please help

The chart listing "2010 Freedom Rankings" used to say this:

Some of these estimates are disputed.

But the source is a book written in 1992, referring evidently to rankings only up through 1984. There may well be people who dispute the current rankings, but you simply can't reasonably use such an outdated source in this fashion.

For the moment I've kept the paragraph at the bottom of "Freedom of the World" that quotes Bollen, partly because it's the only criticism currently in the section and partly because it refers to the methodology, which (possibly at least) is still the same. I'm going to leave it for now, as I'm hoping someone will come along and replace it with something more contemporary, but eventually I may just take out as well. If you have other sources, please help. Thanks. Benwing (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Monthly Review: Not a reliable source

The Monthly Review is a marginal totalitarian Marxist magazine. It is not an academic journal subject to peer review. I quote from WP:RS (emboldening pertinent words):

• "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view . A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, Monthly Review is showing the views of the non-Communist Marxist community. WP:RS doesn't mean you can't include any journal that's controversial. Do you believe that we shouldn't use The Nation or Mother Jones? Or Fox News? Nbauman (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Monthly Review is not a reliable source, as defined in Wikipedia. There was also the problem of the description of the writer and the article, which have many problems.

Nobody is attempting to censor left-wing criticism: Chomsky and Herman are widely quoted in the text, here, for several paragraphs, and it's not clear that they are reliable either, but at least they are several orders of magnitude more reliable than a minor article in MR.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if Monthly Review were not a reliable source of facts, it would still be acceptable to use them as a source for a legitimate point of view. They've had many articles by thoughtful authors -- including Albert Einstein. So I don't see how WP:RS prohibits its use. I'd like you to explain why not. 108.21.13.105 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the above policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The above policy states that

Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

Therefore, WP:RS explicitly allows its use.

I would like you to explain why Monthly Review isn't a reliable source to show the views of the group it represents.

I would also point out that you have violated the WP:3R rule in your reverts. --Nbauman (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You have miscounted or you misunderstand the 3RR policy. The fourth reversion violates the policy (whose naming is confusing).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not write that WP:RS prohibits the use of Monthly Review. As an unreliable source, its articles may be presented as representing the view of (totalitarian) Marxists.

This is the text I removed:

"Diana Barahona, an independent journalist who has published for the Washington-based non-profit organization the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and the US Newspaper Guild journal, has criticized the group's perceived ties to state power and conservative institutions.

Most of your text puffs up the credentials of D. Barahona. The relevant phrase duplicates charges made elsewhere, e.g. by Chomsky and Hermann. I am skeptical about whether an MR would have criticized "perceived ties" or criticized alleged ties (no quotes). In general, it is not clear that that text adds anything to our article, even were the source to be reliable.

Since MR is not a reliable source, you can try to introduce a text (hopefully more informative) by stating that it represents the (totalitarian) Marxist community, per the WP:RS source policy for unrefereed special-interest journals. I would favor an objective introduction like "Monthly Review, the Marxist journal edited by Paul M. Sweezy and KGB agent Harry Magdoff, which successively praised the Stalinist Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea ...". Others may have wished an introduction like "The Marxist journal Monthly Review", which fails to describe its politics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. WP:RS says

Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

I read that to say that Monthly Review should be considered reliable to show the views of the group it represents. Do you disagree with that interpretation of WP:RS? --Nbauman (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your (Nbauman's) interpretation and I'd be comfortable with using the phrase "The Marxist journal ..." to qualify the source. I think the statement of qualification that Keifer suggested in his response is way over the top and well beyond what is required and what I would consider neutral. Jeff Ogden (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Barahona quote was pretty tepid porridge imho. Cannot you find something better in her article, that adds something beyond what has been reported by Herman/Chomsky? (There is no need to reinsert the credentials of this journalist, of course.)

Indeed "Marxist journal" would be fine: I suggested it.

What group does "MR" represent? (A particularly dull form of Marxism, with the Siberian chill of Stalinism, deader than e.g. New Left Review or Marxism Today, for example ...? ) How do you find a NPOV statement to describe its writers? Good luck!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: Criticisms of 'Freedom in the World' report

The section on the 'Freedom in the World' report currently reads like it has been taken straight from Freedom House's own description of its methodology. I propose a new section critiquing the methodology - which is also the subject of criticism below (Freedom House's standards are somewhat 'elastic').

The section currently contains many references to various 'expert' sources, without qualifying whether these 'experts' are politically biased or neutral.

The main criticism of the methodology is that it has no objectively measurable criteria and therefore cannot be proved or disputed. In this sense the definitions are not 'scientific' and are open to political manipulation. Pexise 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. You have to quote sources. Numerous scientists use these rankings. If you are arguing that they are not scientific, you have to quote a source saying so.Ultramarine 09:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK will do, I'll find some sources - thanks for the advice. Pexise 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

LoL, easy, just quote FH's own data: The US gets perfect 1,1 scores for political and civil rights for every year since 1973. Yet, during many/all of these years it had the draft, a ban on the communist party, even a silly law against flag burning, and last but not least - blatent disregard for the Geneva convention. These are all obviously curtailments of political and civil rights, and yet it gives non perfect scores to other countries like the UK, Belgium and (West) Germany for some years. Clearly the organisation has not a shred of objectivity - its written all over their own publications. 1812ahill (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your point in general, there is no objective, numerical way to measure political rights and liberties, like inflation or budget expenditure, there will always be some subjectivity.Ultramarine 09:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute that statement. Pexise 09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How would you measure it objectively?Ultramarine 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A quantifiable measure could be used such as the number of cases brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for, for example, limits to press freedom, harassment of Human Rights defenders and the number of precautionary and provisional measures granted. This would then be quantifiable and verifiable by an objective source, not specific to one organisation. Pexise 10:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you measure limits to press freedom or harassment of Human Rights defenders objectively?Ultramarine 10:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to debate this point with me, please read what I have written. You can COUNT the number of cases brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (or the relevant regional mechanism). This is one objective quantitative method that could be used. Pexise 10:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure you can count just about everything but this does not mean you're actually measuring it. You can count how many branches tree has, but this is not equivalent to measuring its height. Similarly, different courts have different procedures, etc, so comparing e.g. US and Canada (let alone US and North Korea) on this number is not just dubious -- it's almost impossible. The number of court cases is a perfect measure of the number of court cases, but little more. Lebatsnok (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Measuring court cases is dubious, presumably richer nations have more educated people and lawyers who can take a case this far, while dictatorships like Cuba can make such attempts very difficult.Ultramarine 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a weak argument. This is not determined by how rich a country is - cases are normally brought to the court by civil society organisations. A measure of levels of civil society activity and restrictions on NGOs could also be used - once again using objective, quantifiable measures. Pexise 10:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, an important. How do you report or gather information from a dictatorship? How do you measure "levels of civil society activity and restrictions on NGOs" objectively? Ultramarine 10:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do your own research into these issues - I don't have time to explain all of these points to you. Levels of civil society activity would evidently be EXTREMELY LIMITED or NON-EXISTENT in a dictatorship - if it is impossible to measure these things then obviously you are not dealing with an open transparent state. You can analyse systems of regulation and laws governing NGOs, count the number and size of NGOs active in the country etc etc. This list goes on and on, I don't have time to explain it all to you. The point is that these are all quantitative, objective measures - Freedom House does not use these type of measures, instead basing its findings on 'scores' given by 'experts'. This leaves it open to bias, and it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific. I don't have time to debate this with you any further, please do your own research/reading into these issues. Pexise 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The laws says nothing about how they are implemented in practice. The Soviet Union had a very nice constitution and even elections but was still a dictatorshp. Neither is the number of NGOs a reliable indicator. A dictatorship can easily claim to have numerous NGO's. Again regarding the court, how do you gather information from a dictatorship in order to resolve a case? How do you deal with the secret police who will punish your relatives if bring something to the court? There is no reliable objective measurement regarding such abstract things as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to participate in the political process, the presence of free media, academic freedom, freedom of religion, freedom for trade unions, independent judiciary, little corruption, respect for the rule of law, freedom of travel, and so on. Especially not when taken together into a final rankings.

<<The Soviet Union had a very nice constitution and even elections but was still a dictatorshp.>>

But, don't you see that therein lies the problem itself. You have just enumerated an objective bulwark of a free society--a constitution and free and fair elections --but, despite that you STILL confidently a flippantly issue the proclaimation that "it was still a dictatorship". On what basis do you make that assertion? Can you list ONE criterion that makes you come to that conclusion? It is when you do that, and when those same criteria can be applied in the same way to other countries, that "Freedom House" would start gaining the respect of any serious person. Until then, it is no different from the Rendon Group or any cheap public relations firm.

<<Again regarding the court, how do you gather information from a dictatorship in order to resolve a case? How do you deal with the secret police who will punish your relatives if bring something to the court?>>

This is BULLSHIT, and you KNOW it. Asylum law here in the US is based MOSTLY on ORAL testimony of survivors. These refugees come from Cuba, from Zimbabwe, from Russia, from Cambodia, from Israel. They testify on the conditions there. Surely, you are not implying that we don't know anything about Uganda under Idi Amin BECAUSE it was a "closed" society, and you are NOT arguing that nobody knew anything about Afghanistan under the Taliban or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. ALL anybody ever wants is for "Freedom House" to put its cards on the table. Rather that DECLARE a country a "dictatorship", they should lay out the criteria, make a case either or, and let the organizing bodies make up their minds. Anything else is NONESENSE. Ultramarine 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"You have just enumerated an objective bulwark of a free society--a constitution and free and fair elections" Uh, nowhere in his quote concerning "elections" in the Soviet Union are the words "free and fair" used. You have added them yourself. The Soviet Union had elections, but they were never free and fair, unless you consider one-party elections with the winning candidate receiving 99% of the vote as free. Sorry, but anyone who is trying to use the Soviet Union's labelling as unfree as evidence of Freedom House bias either is completely clueless or doesn't know what the word unfree means. -- (Previous unsigned comment by User:74.141.154.10)

The point is that it is not possible to objectively measure all the things FH attempts to measure for all the world's nations. This will necessarily be a partially subjective judgemet. It can be verified it the sense that they provide long descriptions of the nations they rank, so one can judge for onself if their ranking is fair.Ultramarine 11:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that this cannot be used worldwide and does not measure political rights.Ultramarine 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please have the courtesy to read what I have written: 'Inter-American Court of Human Rights *(or the relevant regional mechanism)*'. There are other ways to measure political rights - I have given you some examples of objective, verifiable measures as requested, please do your own research if you would like to identify measures for political freedom. I suggest that you could start by reading 'Democratization' by Laurence Whitehead. Pexise 10:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not. The question is how you would replace the FH rankings with an objective measure, not only replacing them with a limited measure only looking at a few things in a few nations.Ultramarine 10:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You can check their judgement, they give long descriptions of each nation and their reasons for giving these rankings in their report.Ultramarine 09:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at these and they are basically subjective reports. They also contain factual inaccuracies. Pexise 09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For example? Ultramarine 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Detailed descriptions of all nations can be found online in Freedom in the World 2006. Note that this is one year earlier than the most recent descriptions which are not available online.Ultramarine 09:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The methodology is flawed; there should be a section for it. I would propose introducing data from Dr. Paul Treanor’s article ‘Why Democracy is Wrong’ in regards to the section on Freedom House. He states that Freedom House’s methodology is flawed because it works on the fallacy of circular reasoning; they believe that democracy equals freedom, therefore democracies are free. That’s flawed reasoning because they don’t attempt to justify if democracy is free or not, they simply assume it is. A good friend of mine, a political student in an absolute monarchy, was appalled at Freedom House’s methodology. In rating his country, they would score them very low because they don’t have elections. Yet completely ignore the fact that none of the people wanted elections, that the people fully supported the monarch, and that their government system works well and with less corruption than in democracies. Freedom House would also refuse to give good scores to benevolent monarchies that use their own checks and balances (such as meritocratic decision making and corruption review boards) simply because they are not elected! Freedom House is completely flawed in their review system if this is the case. Freedom House rates countries by how democratic they are, NOT how free they are. A benevolent monarchy would score less than a corrupt democracy. That is simply not a true rating of freedom. So yes, I fully support a new section criticizing the data and methodology of Freedom House. 94.197.127.163 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Systematic evaluation references

This section could benefit from going to entirely footnoted references per the Manual of Style, rather than parenthetical MLA references; I'm reluctant to tackle it myself as I know this section is in flux. Thanks to all the editors working to improve this article. Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

To me, putting in the amount of funding that the Freedom House receives from the US government is original research unless other sources are discussing this amount as well. If we want to include their funding reports, let's include the full reports, not the select statistic from them that supports a particular POV. But I have to say that even then I'm suspicious. If not a single published source discussing Freedom House has ever discussed this statistic, what's the justification for us finding it and including it ourselves? Let's just find a critic of FH--Chomsky or the like--who quotes these stats, and work from there. Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the cited numbers, I'm actually skeptical that the original research is even being done correctly; the sheet here appears to report $3 mill income from investments and $2.2 from the USG. How does 2.2 of 5.2=90%? I'm removing the maybe-fact from the article for now; let's see if we can find some reliable sources on this instead of doing the work ourselves. Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Hi everybody. I have a feeling that the last paragraph of the current lead is a POV statement. Here I quote: In the popular press and in politics, discussions of Freedom House and its reports have been largely anecdotal.[citation needed] Systematic evaluations of Freedom House's Freedom in the World report have found that its rankings are highly and positively correlated with the rankings of its critics, with correlations ranging from 80 percent to 86 percent. Thus, while Freedom House's studies and alternative studies each have some biases, but they are generally in agreement, according to studies published in peer-reviewed refereed journals.

I have some serious concerns, and I have indicated with and

tags the corresponding parts.

Overall, this bulk of information looks very much like a POV-pushing. Even if we decide to leave it in the article, it definitely outweighs anything else in the lead, making it sort of a touching eulogy on FH:) Something needs to be done. BR, FeelSunny (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that that should probably be pulled for now as well. Let me see what I can rewrite there. Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know how to rewrite it to take away the POV. If it summarizes some other information from the article, we'd probably be able to reword it somehow. I'll contact Kiefer.Wolfowitz who is the author, I believe.FeelSunny (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys should speak softly and avoid tagging the lede since you obviously haven't read the article.

Per WP:MOS and WP:Lede, the leade does not contain citations, usually. If you want the citations, read the article, specifically the discussion of papers by the NC Sociologist, Mainwaring, and Przeworski, and repeat whatever citation is given there.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, Khazar, not so fast, PLEASE! You've inserted so many edits lately KW and me would need weeks to get through them. Please consider discussing changes to the lead here instead of being too bold - you know the lead is controversial. Thanks! FeelSunny (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a little known fact that The Flash (or was it Quicksilver?) was inspired by the astounded reports from the typing teacher of Khazar. ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Sorry, FeelSunny, I didn't see your note up here yesterday--this thread got a little garbled because of the subsections below. But much of this article did require immediate action: claims without citations, dead links, out-of-date statements, claims that had been split between paragraphs and no longer made sense, statements that repeated between sections, and apparently inaccurate original research about Freedom House funding. I'll be glad to discuss any of these changes, of course, but I think you'll find a lot of this to be pretty clear-cut. Hopefully my edit summaries and my further notes here will indicate the changes well enough; anything you object to I'm glad to talk about. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Systematic evaluations

See also: Freedom House § Criticism

There is some debate over the neutrality of Freedom House and the methodology used for the Freedom In the World report, which has been written by Raymond D. Gastil and his colleagues. The neutrality and biases of human-rights indices have been discussed in several publications by Kenneth A. Bollen. Bollen wrote that, "no criticisms ... have demonstrated a systematic bias in all the ratings. Most of the evidence consists of anecdotal evidence of relatively few cases. Whether there is a systematic or sporadic slant in Gastil's ratings is an open question" (Bollen, 1986, p. 586). The freedom index of Freedom in the World has a very strong and positive (at least an 80%) correlation with three other democracy-indices studied in (Mainwaring et alia, 2001, p. 53).

Ideological bias or neutrality

In his 1986 study, Bollen discussed reviews of measurements of human rights, including the index reported in Freedom in the World (Bollen, 1986, p. 585). Criticisms of Freedom in the World during the 1980s were discussed by Gastil (1990), who stated that "generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings", a conclusion disputed by Giannone. The definition of Freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to Adam Przeworski, who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. "citizens" vote; in the U.S., "the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison", wrote Przeworski (2003, p. 277).

Done quoting

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the lack of citations is not the issue. But I'm also concerned with presenting the idea of a single article as fact for a broad claim on a controversial topic. Just as moments ago I rewrote the funding criticism section to note that this was the view of an individual political scientist, it seems fair to note that the "anecdotal evidence only" criticism of FH critics is also the view of an one scholar only. If you don't mind giving me an hour or so, let me work my way through the article as a whole; there's a lot of out-of-date and questionable additions here on both sides of the issue. That section clearly needs some work in any case due to its MLA citations, noted above. Once I've gotten my hands dirty in that, I can try tackling the lead again and see if I can come up with something we're all happy with to sum up what sources have survived the purge. Sound fair? Khazar2 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking?

What do you think the methodology of picking Israel, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc. out and yelling "bias" is called? Bollen's report and his reputation is better than the other sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be a problem to say "Jxxx Bollen has argued that...", right? Then the reader can give that the exact weight it requires. My personal approach for controversial articles is that if only one person has argued a point, the best way to state that is that "Person X wrote that..." If we find more articles making that case, obviously that changes. Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Left-leaning---nearly redundant redundant ;)--- Latin-Americanist Mainwaring found the 0.80-0.86 correlations, which are rather high even for macrosociology, I assure you. It is not just Bollen's opinion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a bold whack at this article as a whole, and as promised, worked my way back up to the lead paragraph in question. What would you two say to a highly simplified version:

"Critics of Freedom House have stated that its reports are biased, and that the organization has interfered in other countries to promote U.S. interests. Systematic evaluations of Freedom House's Freedom in the World report, however, have found that its rankings are highly and positively correlated with other freedom indices."

No need to list the types of critics, I think--interested parties can click on that section. And no need therefore to put an elaborate defense of the org. I also deleted Ron paul from the lead, because I'm not sure it's quite a fair summary, at least as we have him described now; he says that FH is giving money to support one candidate in Ukraine, but not that this is against US interests (unless I misread). I had to make a few changes to the scholarship section I'm not thrilled about, but I'll open a new section for that below. Khazar2 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Mostly good. What is wrong is "critics" charging that FH interfeers in other countries to promote USA interests. On the contrary, what Chomsky and others would charge is that FH is ideologically biased, and its evaluations and news releases harmonize with USA elites in business and foreign policy. Not "USA interests"---that is a charge of Cuba, North Korea, China, recent Russia, 1910 Sweden through a wormhole in the space-time continuum, etc. ;) Is there any chance that Ron Paul had Freedom House confused with the NED or NDI, for example, or was misquoted?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, agree. I've rephrased simply as "U.S. government interests". That definitely captures the foreign govt. criticism, and mostly captures Chomsky, as he usually argues that US govt is synonymous with big business anyway. Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The criticism once again seems overweighted, now taking up half the lede. Consider 1) there's already a full section for criticism, 2) what criticisms are there are mostly either decades old or ambiguous, and 3) looking at other pages for orgs similar to Freedom House (Transparency Int'l, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Int'l, Open Society Institute, Human Rights First, Foreign Policy Initiative, etc.), none of them include criticism in the lede (and rarely in the body, for that matter). Would anyone else favor making things easier and cutting the criticism from the lede? As a newcomer, I respect the deliberation that has gone into this, so I wanted to hear opinions. Thanks! Pureonsense (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section is disproportionate. I would be surprised if Wikipedia (e.g. Swedish Wikipedia) would cite the foreign ministry of Cuba, China, North Korea, or Russia for articles about freedom of the press or democracy. Comments of a U.S. congressman like Ron Paul are not reliable sources, and should be removed. I would remove Chomsky & Herman as non-reliable sources, and the Italian author's article as non-high quality.... I added Przeworski, even though it was one of his worst articles, as a WP:RS/"reliable source" from a usually very high-quality academic, because I couldn't find anything better in criticism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing the Paul comments per WP:PRIMARY; unless we can demonstrate they were picked up by media, they're probably not needed. I do think the UN NGO committee summary (that heard testimony from Cuba, etc.) has valuable information in showing how different nations have responded to this group; I imagine most readers will give Sudan's criticism about the weight that it deserves.

The Chomsky/Herman I'd like to see stay. It's a detailed critique from two highly notable academics, and every claim that comes from it is clearly sourced to the two of them, not presented as "fact"; I thus don't see this as violating our reliable source policy, but we can doublecheck this with WP:RS/N if a third opinion is wanted. KW, can you clarify your standard of "non-high quality" for the Giannonea article? If that's not a peer-reviewed publication, I'm fine with cutting it; if other authors have directly criticized Giannonea, I'm fine with including their rebuttals. But I'm wary of the suggestion that we should independently evaluate the methodologies of these articles if that's what meant. Just my two cents. Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for the quick feedback on the criticism section. What about the lead section, specifically? Would you all be open to removing the criticism, or perhaps replacing it with other general info about the organization, as the other similar pages do? Pureonsense (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be not to cut, but to expand. Having one and a half sentences mentioning criticisms of Freedom House doesn't strike me as excessive, and it would be even less so if we included another few sentences describing their work on Freedom in the World and Freedom in the Press, etc. That way the lead section proportionately summarizes each of the article's major points. Khazar2 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any similar pages that follow such a template so I can see what you're aiming for? Look at Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Int'l, and Transparency Int'l, which I feel are reasonable proxies. The lead section is restricted to 1) What the organization is and what it focuses on, 2) History of founding and any signature events, and optionally, 3) Perceptions of it by the public, scholars/researchers, decision-makers, etc. Following the model, I agree Freedom House's lead should include the reports (as the second sentence, I think). There isn't sufficient cause to include criticism, though, because that suggests that it is an unusually controversial organization, which isn't the case. Pureonsense (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pureonsense!

Your good-faith questions are somewhat naive, in my opinion.

Your complaints could also be made about a lot of articles, some of which I'll name below.

Communists have been hostile to the USA since the Russian Revolution. In the 1960s and 1970s, various New Lefts were hostile to the US government policy (particularly in the third world) which they blamed on structural flaws in USA society, so they were hostile to the USA generically; those people have been running sociology departments for decades. Consequently, articles on any topic related to the US government, particularly on topics about anti-Communist leftists and liberals, suffer from decades of abuse from Communists and new leftists (and their indoctrinated students).

WP's NPOV and RS policy means that anti-Communist liberals and social-democrats will suffer abuse, because of the biases in reliable sources.

Look at the articles about George Meany or AIFLD if you want further examples. Such articles have been cleaned up, subject to howls of protest at times. (See the complaint at Wikipedia Review about AIFLD)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what any of that has to do with the lead section in question, or my suggestions for it. Pureonsense (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thus, what other articles do has (almost) no value in deciding the content of this article---unless there has been (e.g. WikiProject-based) discussion setting a standard, which has been followed in the other articles and violated here. You might try one of the WikiProjects.

Insofar as criticism is based on reliable source (e.g., Mainwaring, Przeworski), it will probably stay in this article unless critical discussion has undue-weight, according to talk page consensus. The lede should summarize the article, which currently contains criticism by leftist academics (some reliable, some perhaps not), Ron Paul, and countries like China, Cuba, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I certainly vote that criticism is given undue weight in the lead, for reasons already stated: it is severely outdated (Chomsky) and ambiguous (Paul, Przeworski).

According to the style manual, the lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." I argue that, while there are controversies that are covered in the article, they are not 'prominent' because they are neither current nor influential by any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pureonsense (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't conducted my own research for if better resources exist, but the majority of the secondary sources we have in the article now appear to discuss issues of bias. I don't think it's undue weight to refer to this in the lead section, especially as we point out that these studies have had favorable or contradictory results. The "outdated" isn't necessarily an issue, as our article covers the entire history of Freedom House, not simply this year's organization. If you'd like to add a few date specifics about the studies throughout the article, that seems reasonable to me, however. Khazar2 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A look at the history of the article shows that I tried to improve a long criticism section, by substituting reliable sources for weak and perhaps reliable sources. Khazar2 and our Sunny editor have made many many improvements since. So we have tried to improve the article so that it is NPOV.

Please expand the history section. It would be useful to explain to the readers (who missed Good Night and Good Luck) who Edward R. Morrow was, for example, or explain the issues of isolationism that led to its founding.

A discussion of its activities would be helpful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following as paragraphs 3 and 4 of the lead:

The organization’s annual Freedom in the World report, assessing each country’s degree of political freedoms and civil liberties, is frequently cited by political scientists, journalists, and policy-makers. Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Net, which monitor censorship, intimidation and violence against journalists, and public access to information are among its other signature reports.

While widely regarded as a reliable source, in the past some critics have accused Freedom House’s reports of bias or of promoting U.S. government interests abroad. However, systematic evaluations have found them to align closely with freedom indices from other sources.

I think this is more balanced. It preserves the reference to critics, but in a less wordy, more general way that is appropriate for the intro, and gives added weight to its signature reports, for which it is best known. Pureonsense (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is excellent. If there is no objection within a few days, please implement it. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This revision is okay with me, too. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky

Why does anybody consider Chomsky to be a reliable source? His political publications are not in peer-reviewed refereed journals, and don't appear in university or academic presses.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't consider him a reliable source in the sense that I would pull a quotation from his work and add it in without attributing it in-text. But Chomsky is an internationally-famous spokesperson on these issues, and to me that makes his critiques worth noting in a "Chomsky, on the other hand, argues..." sort of way. Khazar2 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But why not have Oliver Stone or the President of Iran or Tony Benn or Pat Buchanan? ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If any of those have made a major attack on Freedom House, I would definitely suggest including it here. =) Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. He and Herman did raise consciousness about Indonesia, also, so I wouldn't dismiss either as a social critic or reporter.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I do agree we should cut the amount of Chomsky in here down significantly (and have tentatively done so). No need to give him twice the space of Ron Paul, for example. Khazar2 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Statistics section

I did an aggressive rewrite of the statistics section, which had the appearance of being cut directly from a graduate student paper--for example, citing an author 'Susskind" who seemed to appear nowhere else in the section. There was also a reference to a Giannone--is the same person as Diego Giannonea, above? Since he apparently raised a charge of systematic bias, it would nice if we could find his article and include a quotation; the citation given was only for the Gastil piece.

Most importantly, though, this needs to be checked for accuracy, as I have no understanding of statistics and was primarily trying to translate this into more straightforward prose (removing passive voice, putting the discussions of Bollen and others all in the same paragraph, etc.). Thanks! Hope this was more helpful than unhelpful. Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The G-paper should be pulled from all articles. It just isn't serious. (Gramscian and Wallersteenian perspective. etc.) I put in Przeworski and Mainwaring to have serious left-leaning academics, and Przeworski has an interesting discussion of Gramsci, so please don't charge me with ideological biases! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Well, Giannone does at least give us some funding critique from a peer-reviewed journal, but I'm fine with not reintroducing him beyond that. Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that his discussion may be inaccurate. FH stated that it applied for grants in competitive opportunities (open to qualified NGOs) and did not accept directly earmarked funding from the US government. Unfortunately, this statement was removed (because of abroken link?). This should be a simple matter to check.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I could no longer find that statement on FH's website unfortunately. It would be useful to include a response from them if possible. Maybe Wayback machine? Khazar2 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

I copy-edited the lede, which had the emphasis backwards and omitted the comparison of the pro-ML bias of an alternative.

Regarding statistics, one has to be careful. Mainwaring et alia do hypothesis testing with dependent data, using a hypothesis of independence, so they are not reliable. Bollen is serious. Przeworski is usually careful and uses sophisticated statistics, at the level of a journeyman econometrician; maybe his book on development and democracy has something?

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mainwaring et al. nonetheless had their results published in a peer-reviewed journal; unless you know something about this journal I don't, surely this makes them a reliable source. That said, I'm fine with your alternation to the lead section. Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mainwaring is a smart guy, who was touted as a talent to watch right out of grad school, by people I respect. However, the statistical hypothesis test was nonsense. I quoted their correlation coefficient purely as a descriptive statistic, which was reported in a reliable source, as you say.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

New material with potential POV issues

I've just reverted a large addition of material from an IP editor that appears to me largely unsourced and non-neutral in tone. Problematic phrases include:

• "is the oldest democracy promotion and human rights organization in the United States." (no source)
• Deletion of "While widely regarded as a reliable source, some critics have accused Freedom House’s reports of bias or of promoting U.S. government interests abroad." (This is well-documented in the article and should not be deleted from the lead)
• Deletion of "Diego Giannonea, an Italian political science professor, wrote that the preponderance of governmental funding was "unusual, especially when one considers that the organizations involved in the assessment and monitoring of human rights, democracy and freedom in the world refuse on principle—as a guarantee of their independence and credibility—government funding". (deletion of sourced criticism)
• Splitting of the reference at "These reports are often used by" (This is just weird to cut out half of the sentence and half the reftag)
• "Freedom House is one of the leading groups working on the ground to promote democracy and human rights around the world" (Clearly promotional and sourced only to FH)
• "but failed to produce adequate evidence" (Unsourced, POV)

I could go on, but basically the bottom line is that these edits need some reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. Glad to discuss further if I've acted too hastily, though. -- 22:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Freedom House

Freedom House press release inclusion--third opinion?

I tried pulling this insertion of puffery,[10] but got reverted (the editor in question might take a glance at WP:BRD). It's a quote from a Freedom House press release about a Freedom House event in which a US Congressman praises their work. I'm not sure that I see the relevance except to make the praise section appear longer--could some praise from a secondary source be found instead, or at least from a more notable figure (like the Clinton quotation)? The editor compares it to the John Miller quotation, but the difference for me is that one of these has been judged relevant by a secondary source, whereas this material is simply published by Freedom House as self-promotion.

A third opinion would be appreciated--thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove.FeelSunny (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Funding sentence

Hey FeelSunny, I'm fine with not including this with the first paragraph if you feel like it doesn't fit with that paragraph about FH's home country, mission, background, etc. But putting the sentence on its own adds undue emphasis to it and is odd stylistically. How about including it in the last lead paragraph, mentioning that it's something a critic of Freedom House pointed out? Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

... and I've been reverted again without discussion. Again, please see the above. I don't have strong feelings about the structure of the lead generally, but frankly, it's probably undue weight to include this fact in the lead at all, given our initial difficulty in finding a source for the fact. It's definitely giving this fact undue emphasis to give it a standalone paragraph. Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it's been a few days without response, I've tried another version that I hope will be an acceptable compromise. If not, just let me know -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2. Right now the last paragraph of the lead reads: 1) reliable, but some critics accused of bias, etc. 2) mostly US government funded, etc. 3) but other evaluations show critics were wrong.

I have a feeling there is a discrepancy in this order of presenting facts. I think that (1) and (3) are directly connected (criticized, but critics are wrong, ok), but including (2) in between them is rather strange.

Funding is a matter of enough standalone importance, and while some critics may claim being US-funded equals to being biased, other may not say anything like that. I see no reason why we impose these additional connotations on readers by connecting funding to criticism in the lead. I believe such changes of structure amount to OR, really.

One more thing (also amounting to OR) is that with existing structure we make (3) look like it is connected to (2), and somehow refutes it.

Here's how I would like to bring the NPOV structure back: 1) Some criticize (maybe ad in brackets - on the grounds of funding and other things, like political connection, etc., as in sources), 2) Some say critics are wrong (maybe - indicate reasons). In the next paragraph (or in the previous one) - 3) Funding by US govt. Because these are really two different things, no need to mix it all. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the only source we have discussing funding is a critic, who brings the funding up specifically in the context of criticism. There's nothing OR about that. I'll tweak the order, though, and see if it helps with your concerns.

More importantly, since we only have one source so far who thinks the funding is worth mentioning, giving this fact a standalone paragraph in the lead still seems to me wildly undue weight. I have to admit that I'm skeptical of your determination to make this stand alone, especially after your discussion-free reversion of all attempts to find a mutually agreeable version. This has been going on for weeks now, despite notes to this page, your talk page, and in edit summaries. Non-coincidentally, this is the same topic that I was first called to the article to look at, when you were having a dispute with another user about some information you wanted to put in about funding.

If this sentence cannot be logically integrated with any other information in the lead, and we only have one source to support it, I suggest we simply cut it from the lead. There's no reason to give one remark in one article this kind of emphasis. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Khazar, funding is an important issue for any organization, what makes you think we should cut it from the lead altogether? FeelSunny (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said: the lack of discussion in secondary sources. To be clear, though, my first preference is to simply integrate it with other information in the lead, like any other sentence. Is the new structure acceptable? -- 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I personally like it more than the previous one, but I can't say if we should put the two in one paragraph, even in this form. Let's say, I'm ok with it. Thanks!FeelSunny (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Map caption?

The following discussion started on my talk page. I am copying it here so more people will see it. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Freedom House

Hello, you recently reverted my changes at Freedom House page. Please explain me, where is any astrerix marking that these countries are electoral democracies? This image is wrong, all refs indicate they are considered as "free", including reference directly under the image: http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW%202013%20Charts%20and%20Graphs%20for%20Web.pdf. Thank you for your answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The asterisks are next to many of the countries in the Independent Countries table on pages 1 to 5 in the "FIW 2013 charts and graphs for Web.pdf" booklet (the URL you gave above). The note at the end of the table (page 5) says: "* indicates a country’s status as an electoral democracy." To double check, look at the classification for Mexico (a partly free, electoral democracy) and then check the two maps that are shown in the article. In the first, Mexico is shown as yellow (partly free), and in the other, as blue (an electoral democracy). If your interpenetration was correct, then Mexico would not be shown as blue in the second map since that would indicate that Mexico was "free" rather than "partly free". Mexico is one of several such examples. You can also look at the description associated with the second map on Wikipedia Commons, see Commons:File:Electoral democracies.png. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry i have overlooked it. But i still do not understand why is Russia not shown as electoral democracy? I could understand partly-free or not-free maybe because of some censorship, but i think that it is undoubtedly semi-presidential multi-party representative democracy. This table is wrong, do not you think? Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Freedom in the World#Country rankings.

For better or worse, it doesn't matter what you or I think. All that matters here is what Freedom House thinks and publishes. Check the 2013 FITW profile for Russia which says:

"Russia is not an electoral democracy. The 2012 presidential election was skewed in favor of prime minister and former president Vladimir Putin, who benefited from preferential media treatment, numerous abuses of incumbency, and procedural irregularities during the vote count, among other advantages. The deeply flawed 2011 Duma elections were marked by a “convergence of the state and the governing party, limited political competition and a lack of fairness,” according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but many voters used them to express a protest against the status quo."

And the 2014 FITW report that came out a few days ago still doesn't have an asterisk next to Russia (page 21). Russia is classified as "not free" and I don't see any "not free" countries that are flagged as an "electoral democracy".

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but because of doubts with presidential election it is not an representative democracy? This is little silly, russians could say the same: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_05/US-presidential-elections-neither-free-nor-fair-Russian-monitors/ Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia isn't designated an "electoral democracy" by Freedom House. They didn't say anything one way or another about being a "representative democracy". But as I said, if you don't agree, you need to talk to Freedom House and not to me. This article is about Freedom House and so our job is to summarize what Freedom House is and does. Our discussion here started about a caption on a map and I think that is settled. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

what

russia has demonstration,election, no internet block, you tell me it's the same as china? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.222.136.20 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

freedom house is a russophobic joke

seriously russia at the same level like saudi arabia and other sharia state? --Crossswords (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Freedom House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150114231837/http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw/FIWAllScores.xls to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw/FIWAllScores.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Freedomhouse.org no longer works.

David Pinto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.28.18 (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy over Israeli press status should be added to the article

Freedom House recently downgraded the free press status in Israel, notwithstanding vehement criticism of the current Israeli government exhibited in leftist newspapers such as Haaretz, due to the presence of a popular free newspaper (Israel Hayom) of a conservative viewpoint which FH claims gives it an unfair advantage. (Apparently, freedom of the press shouldn’t be presented for free.) As this has caused a virtual firestorm (Google the subject), this should certainly be added to the criticisms section. Does anyone disagree?

Controversy addition: In Australia (and I believe in Britain) there is a censorship practice called superinjunction. I know of a book that is under superinjunction which means it cannot be talked about, everybody must pretend it never even existed. I only know about it because I pursued a particular case and came upon some additional information that explained a few strange occurrences. The book is about a corruption network in Sydney Australia, and if I'd write any more, then this will be deleted. The authors as well as the publishers can be regarded as 100% reputable.

Free Press and Free Press is also not the same. Editorial policies can be rather bent and that is certainly so in Australia where most of the press is in the hands of an American company. It is not the government that reduces press freedom but editorial policies. They have made enormous losses and will probably close most of them because people don't spend money on newspapers any more and definitely not on those who have repeatedly disappointed. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:4170:F7C5:6684:3FB7 (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom House. 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 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/books/review/Letters-t.html?_r=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902082853/http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmVmZDg5MmM5ODBmM2YyNzM3NTMwZjBjNGQxNDhjMTE%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmVmZDg5MmM5ODBmM2YyNzM3NTMwZjBjNGQxNDhjMTE%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Freedom House. 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/20110511115023/http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=MC048&kw= to http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=MC048&kw=
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_n40_v31/ai_18009477/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511143006/http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?id=ark%3A%2F88435%2F8k71nh09d to http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?id=ark%3A%2F88435%2F8k71nh09d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511115023/http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=MC048&kw= to http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=MC048&kw=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

The current Board Chair is D. Jeffrey Hirschberg and his position is officially "Acting Chair." The current president of Freedom House is Michael J. Abramowitz. The current address of Freedom House is 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington DC 20036 Achvo (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

 Implemented  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  17:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Hungary vs. Soros

Maybe this…

Christian Keszthelyi (2017-04-04). "Gov't rejects Freedom House report as work of Soros". Budapest Business Journal.

…fits somewhere, but admittedly I found no good place for it. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Connection to Steve Stockman?

Former US Rep Steve Stockman has been in the news for a scam involving money that "ostensibly was for renovation of a so-called Freedom House to serve as a meeting and training facility in Washington, D.C." (story)

Can anyone say whether or not this is supposed to be the same Freedom House?--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Life Without Limits, Inc. in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the Freedom House here; also see Steve Stockman#Criminal_case. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Incoherent gibberish

An editor keeps edit-warring incoherent npov-violating gibberish into the article. The content should be reverted immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is totally incoherent. Neutrality^talk 15:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality’s vandalism with slightly-deflected red herring competition

Neutrality randomly deleted all the meta-analyses contribution in this article giving the reason for hard content to parse. But as you can see, style of it don’t dismiss truth value of itself. If Neutrality had been any ground to delete, he would just give evidence of the reason for deletion against meta-analyses on this talk page. But for now, there is no such thing except for name-only red herring. Nevertheless, because I seek consensus, Empirical research made already a comment on talk page as in Snooganssnoogans. But Neutrality gave no valid reason (red herring as above) for deletion of content itself. In this situation, Empirical research suggest for editor to ask for Neutrality what is the hard to parse is. Not recommending to hide below his/her belt. Empirical research already gave good reason to contribute that matter from academical principle using by meta-analyses. If he/she can refute against meta-analyses, let’s listen to what the another solution is he/she says. But If there’s no such thing, I attentively request for editor to take some action that may be deemed wise and effectual against Neutrality’s vandalism. Last but not least, I want to give good evidence of the reason why meta-analyses may fit well with the spirit of the consensus of Wikipedia community by appending the link of nature article.

Meta-analysis and multidisciplinary consensus statement: exome sequencing is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. Genetics in Medicine (2019) written by Siddharth Srivastava (MD), Jamie A. Love-Nichols (MS, MPH), Kira A. Dies (ScM), David H. Ledbetter (PhD), Christa L. Martin (PhD), Wendy K. Chung (MD, PhD), Helen V. Firth (DM, FRCP), Thomas Frazier (PhD), Robin L. Hansen (MD), Lisa Prock (MD, MPH), Han Brunner (MD), Ny Hoang (MS), Stephen W. Scherer (PhD), Mustafa Sahin (MD, PhD), David T. Miller (MD, PhD) and the NDD Exome Scoping Review Work Group

Please don't make personal attacks on other users. The material you inserted is undue weight; barely coherent, and rambling; it cites an M.A. thesis (which is not a reliable source); and it adds unsourced content (adding the category "Pseudoscience" for example). The Boulianne cite you added ("Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research") also makes no mention of Freedom House at all. Neutrality^talk 15:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)