Talk:Freedom House/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Propaganda

Obviously most the things that come out of this organization is propagnda, considering the Goverment is flipping the bills.

-G

wikipedia is not a soapbox

-mr. x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.120.114 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article contains biased information which is presented as objective argument

Defending Freedom House's 'elasticity' by pointing out that it criticised Pinochet, Saudi Arabia and Apartheid is laughable - would it have even one ounce of credibility left if it had not criticised these regimes?

Boliviainfoforum 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people in the United States were not critical of Pinochet when he was President of Chile. I don't see the objectisism as biased. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

urm, well, considering the organization is supposed to promote and support 'Freedom' and human rights, it would be ridiculous not to criticise him, he was a dictator who presided over mass torture and killings. Of course there are still people who think Pinochet was ultimately beneficial, but this would probably be based on economic grounds, not on his commitment to political freedom and human rights. (Pexise)

Also, what about apartheid and Saudi Arabia? (Pexise)

Deletion of relevant and properly sourced information by biased person.

I would like to pay attention to consistent censoring activities of user Ultramarine, who constantly deletes any criticism of Freedom House from these pages. He calls sources published in March this, 2007, year as outdated. Mister Krubbs 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You include material that state that the dead Jeane Kirkpatrick is on the board of trustees, quote from a tax form from 1997 (outdated and primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia), and generally include information from outdated reports.Ultramarine 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have included citation, that "even at that time" meaning the reference not to current time. Therefore nothing here is contradictory. Perhaps you should read first. Second, what do you conceive under "outdated" sources? How are you going to label article dated March 2007 as outdated source? Moreover, information in the sources relates to the past events, therefore we could use "any" information that is pertinent to these "past events". Please, explain why you don't like personally this information. It comes from reliable sources. Why you attempt to censor out this information? A lot of information in this article is clearly written with POV bias using the words like "its major allies", "strongly criticized" and etc.

You are criticising activities decades ago, so it is outdated. Again, tax forms is a primary source, not allowed.Ultramarine 10:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, tell me if this article refers only to the last 5 days of Freedom House activities, or it refers to Freedom House? Second, could you give me internet link to specific Wikipedia rule that primary sources are not allowed?

Oh, I have looked at this Talmud of Wikipedia Policies and found that one internet link, with which you should familiarize yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source.

ACriticisms of activites decadesa ago should at least be clearly marekd as such. Regarding primary sources, see Wikipedia:No original research.Ultramarine 10:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have read the first sentences of your link, just to understand that "original research" relates to material which is not supported by any source. Then, there is a section which explains what "sources" stand for and lists sources types as "primary, secondary and tertiary". Your given link only supports my opinion that all the materials in question should be kept in the article". Criticisms of past activities are well marked as there is a clear indication that in the "1980-ies" Freedom House lobbied against a resolution. Perhaps, you should care more about POV praises of Freedom House scattered in the article which do not clarify the time for which they refer?

Again, primary sources are not allowed as per W:NOR. Why did you delete much of the sourced praise without explanation? Ultramarine 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat again, I have found no prohibitions of using documents there in Wikipedia. Moreover, I see that people use texts of Molotov Ribbentrop treaty text right here in Wikipedia. So you claim these guys violate Wikipedia policies?

Go ask them. W:NOR prohibits primary sources.Ultramarine 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I asked you first to produce a link confirming your opinion, you haven't produced such, now you ask me to do your job?

Link given, W:NOR. I do not want to dispute the treaty text, you do.Ultramarine 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I have read it, I could tell this policy requires us to cite sources which may be primary, secondary or tertiary.

Misleading headers

Please, do not mislead and dis-attribute links. The material in criticism belongs to Diana Barahona and wasn't written by Monthly Review as you try to show. Your misleading headings amount to weasel words, designed in order to discredit the argument itself. Could we write then the Freedom House is being run by warmongers like Wolfowitz and Rumsfield then? Ultramarine, please be more objective to the article. There is a criticism of Freedom House and it should be published.

It an article in the magazine. If it was self-published it should be deleted. Why did you delete much of the sourced praise? Ultramarine 11:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither Rumsfield or Wolfowitz is on the board.[1]Ultramarine 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of them are now former members of Freedom House.Please consider these links http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1346 and http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1390. So nothing is wrong here.

Not "being run" as you stated. Why did you delete much of the sourced praise? Ultramarine 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not a praise, but an opinion on unknown academician. Could you substantiate it is notable PRAISE?

Could you substantiate that Diana Barahon is notable journalist, especially since she states material not in the source she gives? Ultramarine 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we publish the mass media in which the source was published in the reference, don't we? Which specific "sourced" praise was deleted by me?

Writing in National Review Online, , a research professor at the George Washington University’s Elliott School, states that

Freedom House has unwaveringly raised the standard of freedom in evaluating fascist countries, Communist regimes, and plain old, dictatorial thugocracies. Its annual rankings are read and used in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as by the U.S. State Department. Policy and aid decisions are influenced by Freedom House’s report. Those fighting for freedom in countries lacking it are encouraged or discouraged by what Freedom House’s report covers. And sometimes — most importantly — their governments are moved to greater effort."

Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007 as not paying enough attention to slavery in its reports. Democracies such as Germany and India, but mostly repressive regimes, needed to be held to account for their lack of enforcement of laws against human trafficking and the bondage of some foreign workers, he wrote.Ultramarine 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that this could be described as a praise. It is rather an opinion of some academician. Who is he? Do we know in which science branch does he specialize?

More credible than Diana Barahon. If excluding him, the same applies to her.Ultramarine 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you substantiate your claims. Please give a source which tells that John R. Miller is more credible than Diana Barahon?

Please give a source that Diana Barahon is more credible than John R. Miller.Ultramarine 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean now. I have told you if you want to make your point please produce to us a source telling that Miller is more credible than Barahona.

It is you who are arguing that the academic Miller should be exclude but the journalist Barahona included, so it is up to you to produce a source showing her to be more credible.Ultramarine 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially since the material she claims is nowhere in her source.Ultramarine 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I said that his words are not a praise, but point of view. You may create a separate sections for opinions on Freedom House. Could you take a look at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/barahona030107.html? All the information is contained here, I don't understand what bothers you.

She states material not in the source she gives. See source 7, has no relation to the material she writes in the article.Ultramarine 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no links to source 7 in Criticism section. Please pay your attention that I have corrected previously wrong link to 7th source.

Source 7 in her article.Ultramarine 11:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have told you that you don't even care to read the articles. Here is the relevant passage: "U.S. Role

After the Soviet invasion in 1979, the U.S. focused its efforts on supporting the mujahedin with a massive, $3-billion covert aid program channeled mostly through Pakistani military intelligence".

Please, first read, and don't make noise.

There is nothing there regarding her claims about Afghanistan Information Center, neoconservative at time, Trilateral Commission, and so on.Ultramarine 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You may create a separate article, if you like. But as for now, why are you so passionate over such a minor detail as criticism? Are you an employee of Amnesty International? I have cited sources. Are you going to fight the sources?

She seems to invent much of her material. Why are you including her and not the academic Miller?Ultramarine 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, using the same approach, I could tell that everything in this article is invented. So please, relax. You could create a separate section entitled "opinions" and publish you revered academician there.

No, I have shown that she invents material not in her sources. So you agree to including Miller? Ultramarine 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please support your claim that Barahona "made false accusation" with sources. I have agreed on creation of a separate section entitled "Opinions on Freedom House" in which you could publish Miller.Mister Krubbs 11:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have shown that source 5 and 7 in her article has no relation to the material she writes. (The only ones I bothered to check, since you cite her claims regarding this.) So we can include Miller in the praise section? Ultramarine 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not a source in Wikipedia, right?

Wikipedia allows checking of sources. Please answer me regarding Miller.Ultramarine 11:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows publishing sources. Wikipedia doesn't regulates checking of sources. Journalists have the right not to disclose their sources, right?

Wikipedia does not allow unreliable sources. Journalists can, as all people, voice their opinion, but if unsourced or misusing sources, then it is not a reliable source. Please answer me regarding Miller.Ultramarine 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have answered to you about Miller. What else do you need? Miller voiced an opinion, which is not a praise automatically.

How is this not a praise? Again, why are insisting on including material from persons who invents their claims? Ultramarine 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well now the only false claim here is yours. You haven't proved anything here on sources. You have linked to NOR which allows publishing primary sources claiming it doesn't, you have inserted a hell number of false statements in the article and you have inserted original research statements in the article. And you have the courage to state that some source is inventing his claims? You need to get a life, man.

Read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. I have shown that the person you cites have invented this material which is not in her sources. Again, why are you insisting on including this? Regarding Miller, do you oppose it in the praise secdtion?Ultramarine 12:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, Barahona can't read a press release, which knocks her credibility down a bit. In the first sentence of her article, she claims that Freedom House has offices over 120 countries around the world. Besides that seeming silly on its face, her source for it is a press release that clearly states that Freedom House has a *staff* of 120. The fact that she makes such a blatent mistake in her first sentece makes it harde to trust her other research, I think.63.138.81.98 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Question to Ultramarine

Ultramarine, please tell us if you are an employee of Freedom House?

No, are you user:Vlad fedorov?Ultramarine 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have included his justified texts, which you have deleted without any valid explanations. But this doesn't makes me him. Ok?

So would you agree to a checkuser request? Ultramarine 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree to checking your IP first?

Regarding what?Ultramarine 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That you are not interested person. From Freedom House, or Paul Wolfowitz office...

I am not. Anyway, I am considering a request for checkuser anyway if this continues. If you are Vlad Fedorov, this will probably lead to your ban being extended.Ultramarine 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you haven't answered to the question why a man, Ultramarine, who is so pro-democracy is fond of deleting rightful criticisms from the articles?

You mean the person who invents her material as per the section above? Ultramarine 12:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

She wrote her article based on her sources.

Her sources has no relation to what she writes.Ultramarine 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine claims that Barahona invented her sources

Ultramarine please state here you claims.

See source 5 and 7 in her article [2]. No relation to what she writes, citing these sources. That is the criticisms you quote. (I have only bothered to check these two of her sources.)Ultramarine 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to take a break. Let's continue tomorrow after having studied the sources thoroughly. By the way she is not required to source all of her statement, isn't she? Or general prosecutor required her to disclose all her sources like in Libby case?

Fine with me, I will just add a disputed template meanwhile to the section. State here if you diagree. I have also checked your third quote from the report. She cites a 1997 tax form but then makes claims regarding the future with no sources. Is she psychic? If she does not cite her sources or makes false claims regarding the sources, she is not a reliable source. Ultramarine 12:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Barahona

Could you please explain in the article who the hell Barahona is or create an article about her. Now it looks really silly. According to redlinked Diana Barahona, ... Colchicum 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes on text of article

It seems that the key point of contention around the Freedom House article focuses biases in the article centered around a real difference about how Freedom House is viewed in the world. If I may make a couple of suggestions:

1. In the organization section, perhaps we want to make a division between current board members and past board members. A complete list of current board members can be found at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=10 Former board members such as Huntington, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Kirkpatrick can be listed seperate as "Past board members have included..." This might reduce some of the controversy surrounding the date of information.

2. Perhaps make the "Regime Change" section some sort of subheadline of activities instead of a section of it own? The header seems overly inflamitory for the nature of the paragraphs... it implies that Freedom House is out overthrowing countries, while the text doesn't really support that.

3. I feel that the main text of the article pretty accurately presents a pretty baseline view of Freedom House and it's activities. Readers can decide for themselves if the fact that Wolfowitz used to be on the board makes Freedom House a neo-con organization. The area that seems to be causing the most contention is the critisims section. In my opinion, the critizism section suffers from the problem too heavily quoting sources which may or may not be properly sourcing their statements, or may be out of date, which leads to lengthy debate like the one yesterday regarding the validity of Barahona's article. To resolve this, I suggest that instead of extensively quoting particular critics, the section be revised to say something to the effect of "Critics of Freedom House claim that the organization's ratings are influanced by their financial ties to the US Government, that they are neocons, etc." (summarizing the major critizism) and then follow it by point users to the specific articles (such as Barahona's, the VoltiareNet peice, and Justin Raimondo) allowing readers to evaluate these sources themselves to determine if it is properly sourced, out of date, etc.

Factual corrections (I don't edit this article, so...)

1. Freedom House no longer has an office in Poland or Bosnia (Organization section).

2. Freedom in the World did not begin publication as a book until 1978, though they were publishing findings in a bi-monthly journal since 1972 (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=298&year=2006 History section) 63.138.81.98 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to link to or quote what is a completely unreliable source, as per W:RS. If some other more reliable critical sources were cited, then they should of course be included. But we could certainly regardless mention the general criticisms, like funding.Ultramarine 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will fix the facts above.Ultramarine 18:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent reverts

See long earlier discussion above about the Barahona. Unless some good arguments is given, I will shortly remove this unreliable source.Ultramarine 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Monthly Review is a reputable publication, so its a reliable source that we can use for attribution. Note that it says 'according to...."--even its its own section---so it doesn't matter if you disagree with her research and what she claims, it only matters that the source supports the claims and we report what the source says, using language that properly attributes the claims to her and the source.Giovanni33 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Her sources does not match at all the claims she makes using these sources. Often the statements seem to be completely invented.Ultramarine 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Considered "neoconservative" even at that time, the group's trustees and associates were affiliated with the State Department, the National Security Council (Jeane Kirkpatrick), the CIA (through front groups), the U.S. Information Agency, the Trilateral Commission (Zbigniew Brzezinski), the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Committee on the Present Danger, Accuracy in Media, the American Enterprise Institute, Crisis, The New Republic and PRODEMCA, a group that raised funds and lobbied for the Contras. During the 1980s, Freedom House also formed the Afghanistan Information Center, one of several NED-funded groups supporting the mujahedin. This was to complement the government's US $3,000 million covert funding program for the anti-Soviet groups.[3]

"According to Freedom House's IRS Form 990, prior to 1997 its government funding was in the form of "government fees and contracts," presumably for work performed on behalf of the State Department. After that year, however, the funding was qualified as "grants." But with neoconservatives such as Kenneth Adelman, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Malcolm Forbes Jr. on the board of trustees, there was no danger the organization would change its ideological course.[4]

It championed NATO abroad but supported liberal causes at home, condemning the Ku Klux Klan and McCarthyism and sharing its New York headquarters, the Wendell Willkie Memorial Building, with the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Metropolitan Council of B'nai B'rith. Field retired as executive director in 1967 but served as secretary to the board of trustees until 1970. In the 1970s and 80s, Freedom House lobbied at UNESCO against the New World Information and Communications Order, an attempt by Third World countries to create media systems that weren't dominated by First World corporations and governments. During the 1980s, the organization began to receive a majority of its grant income from the newly created NED (founded by Congress in 1983), and contracts for Latin America far surpassed those for Eastern Europe[5]

These are the three paragraphs now quoted in the article and the notes she gives. One can click in the notes to go to the original source. As can be seen, most of what she writes is not mentioned in her sources.Ultramarine 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the author is allowed original research--she doesn't have to cite all her claims. You can write her and ask what her sources are for the claims, and that might be interesting to add those sources in here, but as long as she makes these claims in a published reputable source, as she does, we can use it, and cite what she says here.Giovanni33 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then at the least this should be mentioned. Also, authors in reliable journals are certainly not allowed original research.Ultramarine 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can mention that as it add bias. Including the link and the publication should suffice to give the reader information about the source. Reliable journals regularly use original research, esp. ones that are investigational.Giovanni33 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV certainly require mentioning this, do you want Wikipedia to spread invented material? No reliable journal invents its stories. That is a contradiciton. In normal journals or newspapers this will probably lead to the journalist or writer being fired and the journal or the newspaper publishing an apology.Ultramarine 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But you have not established that any of the claims were invented, or that any of the claims are not valid, deserving a retraction, apology, etc. If you write the author and she admits she just made the whole thing up, then you would have a point. Saying, that she doesnt show her sources, and that you dispute her claims, is not enough, for warrent introducing bias against this authors claims. However, if you have a published source that does take issue with her work, then you can site that. This is how NPOV works.Giovanni33 04:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have shown that the material she writes can not be found in her sources.Ultramarine 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And, I've explained to you why that doesn't matter per WP policies. I've looked at the article and to me it seems well cited, and sourced. But that is moot, since its a publication and she is making the claims--supported enough or not according to you---its valid for inclusion here. I also don't see a basis for both disputed tags. Where is the argument that what is being cited in the article does not reflect what the source/article actually says? If you can not show that, then that tag you placed should be removed.Giovanni33 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See my examples above. Wikipedia should use reliable sources.Ultramarine 05:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did look, but saw nothing that answers the question or supports your tag. Monthly Review is a reliable publication. Lastly, why do you insist on adding "socialist" Monthly Review? Should we go around and label "Capitalist" all publications which are so? The publication is linked so there is no need to throw labels on it, which I think has more of a prejudical effect in adding bias than for whatever valid purpose you are inserting it. Care to explain how your adding that makes its presentation more neutral?Giovanni33 06:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have shown that the material she writes can not be found in her sources. Three are lost of clearly incorrect things like including a dead person in the current board, Jeane Kirkpatrick. Lots of Wikipedia pages certainly uses attributions like right-wing, conservative, etc.Ultramarine 06:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing the point. Your argument above is that she invents her claims, that her claims are not supported by what she cites, etc. That is not relevant, and completely separate from the tag you placed, which states that the the text does not match to what the source says (her article). Please show where in the article's text in WP does it not match what the article in MR says? Unless you can show that, there is not basis for the tag. Calling publications "right wing" likewise introduces bias. Saying that its done on other articles is not a valid argument to do it here. WP is not consistent and two wrongs don't make a right, or else its a violation of WP:POINT.Giovanni33 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it create a bias to have an attribution? Again, her text is clearly incorrect, she states that a dead person is currently on the board.Ultramarine 06:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Atribution is given by the title of the publication and its with a wiki link. Bias is added by adding an ideological label to it. Again, her text being incorrect or not is not the point. Your tag says that the WP article does not accurately cite what the text says. Unless you address this point, then I will remove your tag as invalid. This is at least the 3rd time I've raised this point, and yet each time you have failed to address it, instead bringing up a red herring.Giovanni33 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what policy is violated by stating "marxist", "repulican", "conservative", or similar terms? You can find these term used in this way in every newspaper. I will remove one of the tags.Ultramarine 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Its general NPOV principals. We never want to purposefully intoduce any bias, and then when we do, we want to make sure its outweighted by some complelling, positive reason. Adding ideological labels has this negative effect as it tends to add a possible prejudical effect, so that is why I oppose it--esp. when the we have an article that the publication is linked to. I wont edit war over this but I'd like to seek a 3rd person opinion about this question.Giovanni33 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My next comment is moved to the left for readability.Ultramarine 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to change policy to stop Wikipedia from using such informative attributes. But I do not really understand your argument. Are all newspapers biased when they use terms such as "republican" or "socialist"? Ultramarine 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that the quality of research in the Barahona article is not very good... she makes a pretty obvious mistake in the first sentence, and seems to be drawing conclusions that aren't always supported by her sources. For example, she claims that Freedom House was supporting opposition groups in Venezuela, but her source for that, Freedom House's spokesperson, doesn't say that Freedom House is supporting opposition groups; she says that they are supporting human rights defenders, which are different things.

My problem with including it is different from Ultramarine's, however. I'm less concerned about the bias and sourcing of the article, and wonder more about if this particular article deserves three paragraphs worth of space. I feel that the same goal of presenting her criticism can be accomplished without basically rehashing her article. That Freedom House has had prominate neo-cons on their board is well established; so is the fact that they receive a notable portion of their funding from the US government (it is clearly stated in their annual report). As that seems to be the main point about the paragraphs from the Barahona article, why can't you just say that Freedom House gets money from the government and has conservatives on its board, and this concerns some people, using Barahona as a source for that statement? That removes some of the question about the quality of the Barahona article, without removing the substance of the criticism.

63.138.81.98 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I think it can be trimmed down, to make her points more sucinctly, as long as we don't white wash her concerns and claims.Giovanni33 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a more accurate source and the origin of the funding is already mnetioned. Maybe we could add "has had prominent conservatives on its board." Agree that the MR article, even if it was reliable, has undue weight in the article.Ultramarine 21:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear user 63.138.81.98: Why don't you make explicit you work for Freedom House? Anyone can know this anyway by using the WikiScanner tool (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/). Don't pretend to be an unbiased editor, because you are not. The Barahona article is very relevant to this page, and your arguments against it are feeble. Please be honest, its part of what Wikipedia is about. Schizophonix 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See full comment below. I am not saying that the Barahona article isn't relevant; just that it isn't very good and the substance of her argument can be presented without re-printing her article on wikipedia. 63.138.81.98 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's the comment? And what do you say about the accusations that you are a Freedom House employee? Should you really be contributing to this section? Please respect Wikipedia, its purpose and ethos, and don't use it as a propaganda tool. Pexise 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I hadn't finished writing it yet... I should have done that one first and this one second. 63.138.81.98 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of Primary source

The section Organization has an excessively large quote from Freedom House itself. This constitutes a Primary Source and I would therefore question whether it belongs in the article - if a reader wants to read what Freedom House says about itself, they can visit Freedom House's website or consult their literature. See WP:NOR and WP:PSTS: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about." "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." Pexise 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The sourced material is not a primary source. "Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations;" NPOV requires the inclusion of all views, FH's view regarding itself is certainly one.Ultramarine 18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about." Pexise 18:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

See again the examples of what primary sources are. FH is not close the to the nations they evaluate. They use primary or secondary sources for their reports, they are thus a secondary or tertiary source.Ultramarine 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, this quote is too POV, it is basically FH's propoganda trying to convince that they are independent etc. If you are going to include it, it needs an alternative POV aswell. Otherwise it should be deleted to maintain NPOV. Pexise 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source with another POV, then please add this. If you cannot find this, then that is not an excuse for deletion. NPOV is not an equal space policy. For example, the Flat Earth theory is not given equal space.Ultramarine 16:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine: I think you got a bit confused here. By no means are the reports of FH a secondary source. "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about." In an article about FH, FH's own publications constitute primary sources. If the article was about "countries of the world" then the FH's reports would be secondary sources. I hope this is clear. So, basing an article about FH solely upon the articles published by FH is clearly contrary to the Wikipedias NPOV guideline. This is not to say that primary sources should be deleted, but that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source". Which means that primary sources should be treated as testimonies and not as facts, and their extension should be limited. Remember that this article should be about FH, not by FH. So I would agree with Pexise that this section is not up to the Wikipedia standards and it needs correction. Schizophonix 10:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed the color in the map

I have changed the color for "non-free" countries in the map from red to blue for two reasons:

1) It is blue, not red, on the original Freedom House map on their website.

2) Red is reminiscent of political maps and the color of communist countries, which is not relevant and partially misleading here.

I was not able to change the original file (since my account is not old enough) Freedom_House_world_map_2007.png, so I called it Freedom_House_world_map_2007_blue.png . If some of more reputable users here agrees with this change, please change the original image and revert the link on the page to it. The legends on other pages might need changing after that. No dae 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there are several of graphs and tables in other articles using the same color, it will be confusing to change them only on the map.Ultramarine 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue is an awful color to describe unfree countries, because classic colouring schemes have always put blue/green as “good”, yellow/orange as “concerning” and red as “bad”. In the case of Freedom Hpuse ratings, I think reddish tones are better suited for “non-free” countries.

NPOV

Not sure why the label is up.. but if people are complaining about a lack of criticisms I have compiled a list. Many of these do not seem notable enough to include. Others may seem 'highly speculative', but this is why we attribute the author, explain their background, and make sure that the criticism is notable. The point to keep in mind is that if notable and reliable/verifiable criticism exists, Wikipedia aims to outline it. A reader should be able to garner a critical view of the organization which they are reading about (this doesn't have to attack the credibility of the organization, just document a certain level of it).

The main crux of these arguments seems to be that Freedom House is a right-leaning organization which is willing to push democracy through alleged controversial means. Further, Freedom House recieves grants from organizations within the government which have the also push democracy through alleged controversial means.

Compiled list of sources:

Positions of officials

• Dec. 20, 2001: Future FH Chair pushing Iraq-Sept. 11 connection, arguing for overthrow of Saddam
• 2003: Chair of Freedom House, former CIA director, railing against "'fascist' Middle East governments and totalitarian Islamists"
• June 8, 2006: FH Vice-Chair before Senate: Give FH money to support non-violent overthrows

Western criticisms

• Washington Post labels "a conservative-leaning human rights organization based in New York"
• Rep. Ron Paul complains of Freedom House meddling in Ukranian elections
• Media Critic Noam Chomsky: Freedom House study premise is "mass media not only should support any national venture abroad, but should do so with enthusiasm, such enterprises being by definition noble"
• Financial Times: Freedom House vice chair: 'US should be a radical democratising agent and close co-operation with US embassies in the field was good'

Other criticisms

• UN hears complaints about Freedom House
• Time for the US "democratizers" to shut down their operations in Venezuela
• Poorly translated Russian article giving a time line of FH complaints

Related organisations

• FH's Center for Religious Freedom moved to what Wikipedia calls the "right-leaning" Hudson Institute.
  • Nina Shea Bio: Nina Shea, who helped found FH's Center for Religious Freedom, has written dozens of articles published in Weekly Standard, National Review Online
• National Endowment for Democracy:
  • National Security Archive: "Bush Administration's successful campaign, through the National Endowment for Democracy, to defeat the Sandinista party in Nicaragua's February 1990 elections."
  • National Security Archive: Working with National Endowment for Democracy-funded associations such as the American Friends of Afghanistan, the U.S. distributed books, trained teachers (selected "Based on the recommendation of local Mujahiddun [those who wage jihad commanders,") and taught video documentation techniques.]
  • National Security Archive: "A New York immigration lawyer has raised questions about U.S. organizations' funding for groups in opposition to Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez. Documents she requested through FOIA show that several Venezuelan groups associated with the government's opposition have received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a federally funded private organization. The endowment provides grants to nongovernmental organizations that strengthen democratic institutions"

• USAID
  • The Family Jewels documents confirm that the CIA furnished "instructors to a USAID-sponsored Technical Investigation Course (Counter-Terror) at... [still classified as of 2007]" (Family jewels, page 218). The documents revealed the existence of a concerted USAID-OPS course concerning training of foreign police officers (about 700 a year) in handling of explosives, etc. (Family jewels, pages 600-603)

--68.21.94.56 01:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

These should definitely be added to the article in order to address the NPOV problems. Pexise 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My main goal was to assess the tag and the source of the criticism. The next thing to do would be to identify which of the sources to work in the article. The majority of the Western criticism section and some of the Other criticism section look alright. The related organisation material would only be useful when attributing Freedom House's funding while the position of official's section is just documenting controversial positions taken by former FH officials (though, criticism was probably generated by these comments, we have to document criticism, not add our own).

So, I think I see what to do, but I don't exactly see how to do it. Other articles generally have a criticism section for this information while it tends to be spread out all the way through this article. I'm not exactly sure where this material would belong in the article. It could be inserted in 'criticism and praise' but it really just doesn't flow wherever I look at. --68.21.94.56 14:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Western criticism and other criticism can certainly follow at the end of the criticism and praise section, or be integrated into the section. The criticism of the methodolgy section earlier in the article refers specifically to the Freedom in the World report, not to the organization itself. Pexise 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not seen anyone willing to write this part, I took the initiative and read most of the articles proposed, and added 3 or 4 paragraphs in the "Criticism and Praise" section. I tried to be as balanced as possible and provide counterarguments to most criticism. Also I document everything I have written, I did not include original reasearch. Which is to say I did not include my opinions. I think the article looks much better now, the first time I read it seemed totally uncritical, merely a reproduction of Freedom House's self-description. No wonder considering that part of the article was written by FH's employees. Feel free to add to the praise and criticism section, but please do not take anything off without a good cause... Schizophonix 10:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work - much improved - it's vital to deal with these criticisms in the article. Pexise 12:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest the addition of material from the book 'Murder in Samarkand', by Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan? Page 248 of the paperback version references a lunch with the head of Freedom House in Tashkent, Jennifer Windsor: "She said... there would be a change in Freedom House's operations in Uzbekistan. She explained that a number of influential members of the board of Freedom House approached these issues [human rights] from a vantage point on the right of the Republican Party, and they had expressed concern that Freedom House was failing to keep in sight the need to promote freedom in the widest sense, by giving full support to US and coalition forces in the War on Terror. I asked what this meant in practice. Jennifer said that it meant they would be stopping 'advocacy': that is to say that they would no longer be making public statements on human rights in Uzbekistan or publicising individual cases of abuse." Palecitrus 12:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - excellent quote from a very solid source - please add it to the criticism section. Pexise 19:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

!! Freedom House employees infiltrated in this talk page...

Use WikiScanner (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/) and put "Freedom House" in the first box... Interestingly it will lead you back to this talk page, plus a handful more... All contributions made anonymously from IP address 63.138.81.98 are written by Freedom House employees... And the common point all these contributions have is that they try to convince us that Freedom House is an independent, unbiased, humanitarian, non-governmental organisation that works for the progress of humanity, while the truth is that it is a 95% US government-funded organisation that has been used as an instrument of propaganda since at least World War two and the subsequent Cold War. Enough said. Schizophonix 10:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that I have "infiltrated" this talk page. I purposefully did not mask my IP by registering a username, and posted from work instead of from home so that it would be clear to anyone who cared to check that I was posting from Freedom House. You will also note that I have not made a change to the main article in almost a year and half, since I first discovered that it was against Wikipedia policy for employees, etc. to edit articles. I have explicately stated that I do not edit this article, leaving it to other editors to determine if my comments are worthwhile, and have informed other Freedom House employees of Wikipedia's policy to help ensure that we do not violate this policy through lack of knowledge. I continue to comment on and monitor the Wikipedia page because, as a Freedom House employee, I have access to and knowledge of information that can be helpful, as well as greater awareness of factual changes (such as new office locations or changes that to the membership of the board of trustees) which I can communicate to the editors to ensure that the article reflects the most up-to-date information.

I recognize that Wikipedia strives to be an non-bias source, and that, as a Freedom House employee, I am inherintly bias. As an individual, I have thoughts on the content of this article just like any other individual would. As a Freedom House employee, I would prefer that articles such as the Barahona piece are not mentioned, because I disagree with their conclusions (I find hers in particular to be poorly researched, factually inaccurate, and misleading). However, I recognize that they are valid Wikipedia sources and present alternate points of view, and you will notice that I did not advocate that it be completely removed. I have put great thought into presenting my information and perspective in the most non-bias way possible, and have left it to other editors to determine if my points are worth encorporating into the article. I have not disputed their decisions, and feel that my behavior has been appropriate. 63.138.81.98 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly confirmed all of my suspicions about the way Freedom House operates. Pexise 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what your suspicions were? One of the reasons I really value reading these Wikipedia discussions is because I really do think it is worthwhile to see what other people think of us.

I will note that Wikipedia's Business FAQ and conflict of interest guidelines state that people with conflict of interest are encouraged to use the talk page to discuss changes, which is what we have done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCOIC 63.138.81.98 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a start: my personal area of expertise is Latin America and so I am very aware of the effects that US intervention and interference has had on the region - I am also very aware of the role that US propaganda has had in these interventions. I have seen the recent FITW report and find the scores to be completely arbitrary. In fact, they seem to follow much more closely 'Freedom' in terms of which countries have signed Free Trade Agreements with the US than any reasonable interpretation of political freedom or human rights (there are obviously one or two exceptions which would have been impossible to avoid). That the organisation professes to be concerned with Human Rights and political freedom - extremely important areas of work - while it is actually a covert promoter of US economic interests I find to be morally repugnant. What is more, I have read some of the country reports which make up the FITW report and have found outright lies and complete inaccuracies contained therein. I could go on. Pexise 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While obviously I disagree with your conclusions about the accuracy and motivations of our reports, I recognize that our reports can be controversial. If there are specific inaccuracies you know of, please do send them to info@freedomhouse.org. I am not in charge of editing our publications, but I will see that they get forwarded on and reviewed. Thanks for your observations; the Wikipedia talk page is probably not the place to discuss this further. 63.138.81.98 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House's employees, now, after you have been revealed, you are saying you are following Wikipedia policy to discuss the article. Yes, Wikipedia policy says that. But also the policy says to avoid to edit articles related to you. At least one time, you have done that, deleting an entire paragraph (18:39, 24 May 2006 63.138.81.98) criticizing your organization without any prior discussion. I'm bringing that up to show all neutral editors here, who wants improve the article, to be aware of such things.--ClaudioMB 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering, why an employee from Freedom House keep discussing this article for months or years without saying about his/her conflict of interest? There is no problem an employee from any institution try to improve an article about his/her institution. As long he/she does not edit the article, or disrupt other editors work, should be welcome. But, it will be better if we know who you are. Regards. --ClaudioMB 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First, as I noted in my original message, I was not originally aware of this policy, and when I found out, I ceased making changes on the main article page. The particular change I made that you mentioned had been discussed on the talk page, and I explained why it was removed (it was inaccurate... it said that Freedom House did not disclose its funding source; Freedom House's funding sources are outlined in the annual report which is available on the website.) I will note that change was made over a year ago, before I was aware of the policy.

Perhaps it would have been better if I had disclosed my affiliation with Freedom House up front. I was not attempting to hide that I was working for Freedom House (which would have been very easy to do, simply by posting from home or by registering a user name.) I did not make it explicit because, given the strength of feeling that many people have about Freedom House on both sides, I wanted to ensure that the debate was about the accuracy of the article and not the merits of Freedom House's policies. 63.138.81.98 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am happy there has been a response and debate over the issue. First of all, I should say that editors who edit a single-issue from a single point of view for a great length of time are bound to raise suspicion. I mean you either have an extreme POV and too much time in your hands, or you are an "interested editor" who is paid to do this. That is what made me look up WikiScanner (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/) in the first place. Of course, as you mentioned, it could be easy to just register or edit from home. Second, I recognise you have not edited the text in a long time, but keep in mind that according to Wikipedia conventions you are not a qualified editor. Third, and most important, I insist you were infiltrated in that page, because you never revealed your status as a FH employee and you were writing about FH in the third person ("they") instead of the first ("we"). This is called astroturfing and it seems to me as an attempt at deceiving the rest of the editors. Fourth, in no way am I arguing that you should not participate in the discussion. Your contributions to the talk page are more than welcome. All I ask (all Wikipedia asks) is transparency and honesty. I have a feeling that this article has been written from a single POV, and only recently have there been changes towards a NPOV stance. And I think there are still issues to be resolved. Schizophonix 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To the first three points, I will say that it was never my intent to be misleading. If it came across as such, I apologize. However, I reject the description that has been placed at the top of the talk page saying that I "infiltrated the page" and consistently pushed a pro-FH point of view. All the definitions of "infiltrate" imply moving in on an enemy with hostile intent. My intent was never hostile, and Wikipedia is an open forum. As far as pro-Freedom House point of view, if you actually read my comments, I have consistently advocated for a fair inclusion of multiple points of view and acknowledged that Freedom House itself is not a non-bias source. I don't feel that my contributions to the talk page bear out this description.

To your fourth point, I would welcome a return of the discussion to the quality of the article. As I described in a post about a year ago, I think the biggest problem with the POV is that the nature of Freedom House's mission, activities, and conclusions is something that produces disagreement. Obviously, Freedom House has one POV, and users like Pexise have a differing POV. It is difficult to describe what the organization does without one side or the other claiming that the article is unfair. I think that we should attempt to divide things that are undisputed facts (founding date, office locations, board members, funding sources, etc.) from Freedom House's description of itself and from other people's opinion and interpretation of its actions. It seems like the primary problem (and I assume what you mean by the single POV comment) is that the top half of the page draws heavily from Freedom House's description of itself.

Here is what I would split out as opinion descriptions vs. fact descriptions:

1. Mission Statement/Introduction- I reviewed about half a dozen other wiki articles on think tanks, human rights organizations, and non-profits. It seems that the standard introduction paragraph is "Organization is a this-type, that-type organization that defines it mission as "Quote from the mission statement", followed by founding date and location. It seems like instead of reprinting the mission statement in its own section, we can put it into the introduction.

2. History- After the first sentence, I feel like the history section quotes extensively from the Freedom House website. I'm not sure how best to correct that, however, if someone wants to look over this: http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/FH/#hist it might help. I'm not sure if that would be counted as original research, however.

3. Organization- The first three paragraphs seem fine. Someone else can decide if the fourth is necessary. What may also be useful here is to do a brief description of activities (the first paragraph of the other activities section, and the 6th paragraph of the reports section, with a mention of Freedom in the World added.) That seems like it would sum up the more clearly fact based material.

4. Other activities- I feel like most of this section is fine. I'm not sure why the regime change paragraph is there, though. It seems kind of random.

5. Criticism/Praise- With the exception of moving some of the Freedom House self-description that is currently elsewhere in the article down here instead, it seems like this section does a pretty good job of summarizing major pro and anti-freedom house arguments, and has already been edited pretty extensively.

Thanks! 63.138.81.98 16:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House not founded by US government

Freedom House was not founded by the US government. Recent edits to the article state in two places that it was. Saying that it was founded by the US government implies direct action on the part of the US government, either in funding or in promoting the creation of Freedom House, which did not occur... Freedom House did not receive sustative government funding for the first few decades of its existance, and while it was founded by individuals who were sometimes connected to the government (like Eleanor Roosevelt), it was not founded on an official action of the US government. If no source is presented, this should be reverted. Thanks! 63.138.81.98 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Warning" at the top of the page

I believe that the warning on the top of the page regarding my participation on this talk page is inappropriate. The details of my affiliation with Freedom House has been discussed in detail on the talk page itself, and users who are concerned with that can read that discussion. I have made a good faith effort to follow the Suggestiong for COI compliance [[6]], and have explained my actions on this page. You will note that the recommended method for other editors to deal with COI does not include posting a message at the top of the talk page. I feel that in particular the language of this warning is inflammatory; the use of the word "infiltrated" implies bad faith on my part where none has been shown, and I do not believe that my comments bear out the statement that I have pushed a pro-FH point of view. I respectfully request that it be removed. Thank you. 63.138.81.98 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right - I've changed the language, but the comment should stay - the fact that you are a FH employee is very important and new editors could miss the discussion about this. Also, the fact that you were not honest about this in the first place and an editor needed to identify you using an esoteric piece of software makes this notice necessary. Pexise 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making the language more neutral. 63.138.81.98 16:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Engdahl Assertion

In the criticism section, there is a line that is attributed to Engdahl's website that says that Freedom House was created during the Reagan Administration. This is a misinterpretation of the text, I believe. He is actually saying that NED was created during the Reagan administration. The subject of the sentence that is being quoted is the NED, not Freedom House. He says in the paragraph before that "Freedom House is an organization with a fine-sounding name and a long history since it was created in the late 1940’s to back the creation of NATO." So clearly, he is not asserting that Freedom House was created during the Reagan Administration. Whoever added this appears to be misinterpreting the source; the paragraph should be removed or at least changed to reflect what he actually says about Freedom House. Can someone please do that, as I don't edit the page? Thanks! 63.138.81.98 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just fixed it.. --134.68.77.116 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Board Members

In the "Organization" section, there is a list of "notable board members". However, in this list, past board members and current board members are all mixed up together. From the list on the page, Steve Forbes, Azar Nafisi, Farooq Kathwari, P. J. O'Rourke, Mark Palmer, and Kenneth Adelman are current board members, while Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Zbigniew Brzezinski are past board members. While the sentence does read "included" indicating a past tense, I think that this is confusing, and doesn't present a clear picture of who is on the Freedom House board. Perhaps it could be rephrased to say, "Other notable board members include Steve Forbes, Azar Nafisi, Farooq Kathwari, P. J. O'Rourke, Mark Palmer, and Kenneth Adelman. Past board members have included Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Zbigniew Brzezinski." Or something like that. I think that would make the article clearer and more accurate. If there is agreement, can someone please make that change, as I can't edit the page itself? Thanks! 63.138.81.98 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I did what you suggested and alphabetised it as well. --68.253.50.187 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! 63.138.81.98 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Murray Criticism

For the record, the New York Times Review of Books has published a letter from Freedom House refuting the claims made by Murray in his book and reprinted in the New York Times Review of Books. The letter can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/books/review/Letters-t.html. I would say that either the fact that Freedom House rejects Murray's claims (using the letter as the source) should be included with the criticism, or the criticism should be removed. Thank you. 63.138.81.98 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As Freedom House rejecting the claim doesn't disprove or invalidate them, the criticism should stay; however, providing responses from involved parties also makes sense.. --68.72.44.153 (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While Freedom House maintains that Murray's claims are inaccurate, I understand that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard to remove the paragraph entirely. Thanks for including the response. 63.138.81.98 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User 63.138.81.98 is a Freedom House employee: Please don't try and censor this page, Wikipedia is a space for free speech, just because FH doesn't agree with Murray's comments doesn't mean they should be censored. I have also reinstated the warning at the top of this page about your participation, as cases such as this are clear evidence of interference. Pexise (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Pexise, I'm not a big fan of Freedom House (I posted the Murray claim on Uzbekestan), but User 63.138.81.98 does seem to be following the WP rules -- he's only posting in the talk page, and has acknowledged his affiliation (eventually).

I'm glad someone posted the response to Murray in the NYTBR letter. I would have posted it myself if I got around to it. Two sides of the story are better than one.

I look at Freedom House's funding sources, and their board of directors, and like Chomsky I wonder whether they're just a front for the U.S. conservative establishment. If anyone has good evidence to support that suspicion, put it in. But I'm willing to look at the facts, and give the devil his due. I do recall times when Freedom House was more critical of Israel than the White House. Nbauman (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I am in agreement with you about most of this. What concerned me was 63.138.81.98's suggestion that Murray's criticism should be removed, simply because FH has refuted the claims. That to me smacked of an attempt to censor Murray - as an FH employee 63.138.81.98 must be VERY careful about what he says on this page. Pexise (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you weakened Windsor's statement in defense of herself. She said she never made the statement Murray attributed to her. You changed it to a vague statement that Freedom House has never compromised its work. Your change is consistent with her replying, "Yes, I said it, but Freedom ouse has never compromised its work." But she went farther than that. Why did you make that change? Nbauman (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think the current wording is good. Nbauman (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of praise

The Government Information Office of Taiwan, which disseminates information internationally about the goals and accomplishments of Taiwan, has described Freedom House as "the most authoritative human rights organization in the United States" in a press release detailing their ratings on Freedom House's scales.

Please explain, there much more dubious sources cited as various criticisms.Ultramarine (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the dubious sources cited? If they are not WP:RS, they should be removed; they don't provide justification for including other non-reliable sources.

The reason I deleted the Taiwan press release is because it didn't say anything. It was just a vague assertion of opinion by a government with a vested interest in praising Freedom House because of its own high rating. How does that add anything to the entry? Nbauman (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I essentially agree with the reasoning of Nbauman. I am willing to let the press release stay in compromise, but this would then require recognizing the same standard across the article, particularly in the Criticisms section. If we use these sources, then I feel it is important to provide background information about the document and the source so the reader is then able to make a more informed judgement of the statement. I'd note I think this is being done fairly adequately, as the passage notes the source and subject of the document, and informs the reader that it is a press release. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to include a meaningless statement in the press release as a compromise. I could go to the Congressional Record or someplace and find 100 statements like this which simply assert praise or criticism. You could fill the article with meaningless statements. To the extent that you add meaningless statements like this, it makes the article more difficult to read. In Wikipedia terms, the problem is WP:WEIGHT. You're giving undue weight to a routine meaningless diplomatic statement. Nbauman (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with this sentiment more, I would just like a consistent standard for the article the most. I'd like to compromise, but I also don't want the article to become a quote farm. The sentiment is fine, but you should at least be willing to hear the other person out. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Much dubious criticisms is included, so no reason to delete any of the sourced praise. In addition to the Taiwan quote, this applies to for example those of famous scholars.Ultramarine (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If we include the Russia quote, the we should include the Taiwanese. Both are "vague assertion of opinion by a government with a vested interest".Ultramarine (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the quotes you recently added because of some of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Quote, namely:

When editing an article, a contributor should use quotations when:

• using a unique phrase or term from someone’s speech or writing. (e.g. "Orwell grew up in a 'lower-upper-middle class' household.
• dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.' called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice."

Neither of these conditions seem to be met. The quotes also are about the Freedom in the World report which FH releases, not the organization itself. If included, the quotes may be more relevant for a Wikiquote article about the Freedom in the World Report. --69.212.243.182 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a double standard, the same arguments can be applied to much of the criticisms material. Should it be deleted? Ultramarine (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the double standard: [7]. Unless an explanation is given, all the sourced deleted material will be restored. Respect NPOV and remember that WP is not a soapbox for one side.Ultramarine (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An explanation was already given. Responses to criticism by the organization are not relevant to the 'criticism' section. The particular section exists explicitly to present opposing points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer the usage of double standard, see above. I will restore all deleted material unless explained.Ultramarine (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not double standards. The criticism section exists for the sole purpose of presenting an opposing point of view. A response to a critical statement does not belong in the criticism section as it is irrelevant.

Stop avoiding the question. The double standard was in regard to your deletion of material from the praise section. I will restore all deleted material unless explained.Ultramarine (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything from the praise section. I only deleted the response to Russias criticism in the criticism section which is what you linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect: [8][9] Regarding the Russian material, it can be added to the praise or another section if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You might notice it wasn't me who made that other change by the differing IP addresses.. And no I don't think adding self-praise to an article would be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not self-praise, merely mentioned on their webpage. Quote a policy against this. Also, please sign your comments.Ultramarine (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting this back in to the article. If you would read the edit summaries carried with the posts (or other parts of this talk page), you would see the reasoning provided. For your convenience, I will list it again.

1. 1. You are misusing quotations. Wikipedia isn't a project devoted to listing all the quotes about a given project (for more information, see Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia guidelines would suggest providing the context and relevancy to any included quotes.
   2. WP:RS advises not to include self-published sources. This is not the major factor affecting the removal of the quotes; however, it would also be better to cite from reliable third-party publications (such as where the quotes were originally published).

--69.212.243.182 (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The same can be applied to criticisms section. No double standard please. 2. Not self-published sources, FH are quoting other people.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't tit for tat. The same cannot be applied to the criticisms section because the criticisms section isn't just providing a list of quotes. The criticisms section is providing the relevancy and context in line. The quotes can be included when they are formatted according to WP guidelines. --69.212.243.182 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is your objection regarding format? Which format guideline? Ultramarine (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quotations#How to use quotations essentially says to: source quotations, work them in to the body rather than making a sectional list of quotations (reserved for the Wikiquote project), and putting in context and given any necessary explanation (attribution, etc.)

[[Wikipedia:Quotations#When not to use quotations also suggests to not use quotations when they are used in other parts of the article (in this case, the list of quotes being added already exist under a different section).

It would be best in the future to skim atleast some of the major guidelines and acknowledge Wiki policy about conistently reverting the same material in within a short time frame. --68.253.45.114 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another point "Chomsky further argues that "Its most notable publication of this genre was Peter Braestrup's Big Story, which contended that the media's negative portrayal of the Tet offensive helped lose the war. The work is a travesty of scholarship, but more interesting is its premise: that the mass media not only should support any national venture abroad, but should do so with enthusiasm, such enterprises being by definition noble." What is the association between FH and this "Big Story"? Ultramarine (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is drawn by the source whether we like it or agree with it or not. The author appears to be linking FH to advocacy of US foreign policy. If you don't feel it is clear, this is precisely why a quotation was used as explained in WP:Quote. --69.212.243.182 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Chomsky, no page number is given and it is unclear if this is related to FH and not some random quote regarding something else. Will be deleted unless explained.Ultramarine (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I followed the previous Chomsky source and all of these quotes appear in the same paragraph about Chomsky. I added a footnote at the end to make this clear. --134.68.77.116 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Big story" is a book that be found on Amazon.[http://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Peter-Braestrup/dp/0891415319] But it is not published by FH. Also, page number please.Ultramarine (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V states

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

I am pretty sure the source makes the allegation that the two sources are of the same genre (not of direct authorship) anyways. Your concerns would be satisfied by describing the source of the comments and and quoting if some view the meaning of the source differently. As far as I can tell, both of these are already being done. --68.253.45.114 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On a complete side note, it is worth noting that Foreign Affairs and another book store list the book as being written by Braestrup for Freedom House. This is irrelevant to the removal of the other source, but a well thought out and carefully discussed and sourced explanation could be provided to provide context for the reader. For consistency purposes, I'd note my IP was previously 69.212.243.182.--68.253.45.114 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

I will start a new section due to mess of different issues above. "The Government Information Office of Taiwan has described Freedom House as "the most authoritative human rights organization in the United States"." Should be included if we include the Russia statement. Both are equally justified, one from a nation praised, one from a nation criticized.Ultramarine (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan press release

Our previous discussion has gotten hard to read so let's start all over again.

Ultramarine wants to include the following statement:

The Government Information Office of Taiwan has described Freedom House as "the most authoritative human rights organization in the United States".Taiwan's democratic achievements win accolades from Freedom House's 2007 report

I think it detracts from the article because it's a meaningless statement. The Taiwan government is using its Freedom House rating for political purposes in its rivalry with mainland China. Of course Taiwan praises Freedom House, because it's in Taiwan's interest to do so. Freedom House praises Taiwan, and Taiwan praises Freedom House back. They don't explain what Freedom House's ratings are, or why they're any good. It's just a formulaic, boilerplate statement. It doesn't help anyone's understanding of Freedom House. It doesn't even help supporters of Freedom House explain why Freedom House is useful or has any benefit.

Now, it's not enough for me to believe that it makes the article worse; I have to show that doing so also violates Wikipedia rules. In Wikipedia terms, I think it violates WP:WEIGHT:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

A press release by the Taiwan government is not significant. Including that press release in the article exaggerates the prominence of that statement. You could have a similar entry for the response of every country that received a favorable rating from Freedom House, and go on for dozens of press releases. It would look like a United National resolution. But such a catalog of official statements wouldn't add anything to the article, and would make it harder to read.

If you include a paragraph in an article, it must have a point that contributes to the article. What is the point of this paragraph? It has no point. I don't think that "X country praises Freedom House for giving it a favorable rating" is a point.

I would ask Ultramarine: "What's the point of that paragraph?"

I'm not against Freedom House. I added the Craig Murray criticism, and I also added (or contributed to adding) the Windsor rebuttal.

I think we should have the best arguments supporting Freedom House, and the best arguments criticizing Freedom House, with links for more details, so that readers can make their own decisions.

But this Taiwan press release is not one of the best arguments supporting Freedom House. If you want to make that point, you should easily be able to find something better. Nbauman (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a double standard to include a statement by nation criticzed but exclude a statement by a nation praised. The Russia statement is as valuable as the Taiwanese.Ultramarine (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a double standard. The Russian representative made the argument that Freedom House was against the creation of the International Criminal Court. That makes a point that contributes to the argument: Freedom House is hypocritical, they oppose international law. (Whether it's true or not, it raises a legitimate point and the proper response is to answer it, not delete it.)

The Taiwan government statement doesn't contribute to the argument, as far as I can see. What does it mean to say, "the most authoritative human rights organization in the United States"? That's a meaningless phrase. They're merely asserting, without evidence or argument, that Freedom House is "authoritative." What's their basis for saying Freedom House is "authoritative"? They have none.

That's why it's not a double standard to include the Russian statement but not the Taiwan statement. I will include anything in the article that offers evidence, facts or arguments favorable or unfavorable to Freedom House. I will delete anything that doesn't offer evidence, facts or arguments favorable or unfavorable. That's my single standard.

The Taiwan statement doesn't offer evidence, facts or arguments. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Nbauman (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You state: "The Russian representative made the argument that Freedom House was against the creation of the International Criminal Court." The article does not state this. Your are probably looking at the wrong statment, look in the criticism section, not the UN section. They are just saying FH is bad, just like Taiwan says FH is good. Equal but opposite statements. Double standard to exclude one.Ultramarine (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I think that Nbauman makes a vailid point the Tawian press release is not perhaps the most signifigant and well-supported bit of praise about Freedom House. However, one thing I've noted while observing the criticism and praise sections is that there seem to be a lot more sources for criticism than praise. I do not believe that this is because more individuals, organizations or governments are critical of Freedom House than favorable of it, but rather because most sources that do not have a negetive view Freedom House do not write articles saying that Freedom House is great, but rather site our findings with a statement such as, "Freedom House, a Washington-based non-profit, found that...." The fact that they believe Freedom House is a reputable organization is implied by the fact that our research is being used (which doesn't necessarily mean that it is a worthwhile Wikipedia source). Sources that have a negetive view of Freedom House are more likely to write Wikipedia-worth articles about it, because it is more interesting to write an exposay highlighting the negetive aspects or theories about an organization than to write something confirming positive aspects of an organization.

Many (but not all) of the people who edit this article (who care enough about Freedom House to select this article to edit and follow as opposed to the many other choices) have strong feelings about Freedom House one way or the other, and I think the article reflects more heavily the views of those who are skeptical of Freedom House's motives. The critisim section is longer and contains more items than the praise section, and I feel that in the other sections, many of the articles and activities that are highlighted are ones that are skeptical of Freedom House's motives or activities, as opposed to more neutral or positive (for example, articles the financial times article about funding is brought up, but a Washington Post article (which I can't find right now) covering this http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=599 is not. I think the overall quality of this article has been hurt by a constant back-and-forth by people who are pro-Freedom House and people who are anti-Freedom House attempting to support their points and remove the most egregious examples of the opposite point of view. I think it is likely that the article needs to be reviewed carefully and redone, to include a more balanced view... perhaps the Wikiproject Human Rights project will help, by bringing more attention to the article from people who are not partisians one way or the other.

That said, going back to the specific point about the Tawian article, I think that it does serve to balance out the article by providing an example of a government that accepts Freedom House's ratings at face value, and if others agree with me that there seems to be a disproportional amount of critisim in the article, it should be kept to help rectify that, even if it isn't the most compelling source. If others feel that only sources who have more indepth arguments or points should be included, even if that produces a selection bias (or disagree that there is a selection bias), then it probably should be removed.

If it is removed, than Ultramarine's complaint about a double standard could probably be resolved by changing the sentence "Russia has called Freedom House biased and has also accused the group of serving U.S. interests" to "Members of the Russian Goverment have called Freedom House biased and have also accused the group of serving U.S. interests". It makes the statement more of an introduction to the quote that follows. (As a side note, I kind of feel that the article being sited is, as a whole, more neutral on Freedom House than critical of Freedom House, so it seems kind of wierd to lift the critical quote without providing the counter-arguement presented in the article.)

76.111.114.169 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) ← (is above Freedom House employee, posting out of the office)

I believe the argument against the Taiwanese government source was that it was specifically released as a promotional press release, and that press releases fall under the questionable sources section of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The Russian quote appears in a third-party published media outlet. --68.253.39.146 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above user, the criticism section is longer than the praise section; however, the criticism section is not a dominant portion of the article. Many other human rights groups (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) have substantially larger criticism sections or even their own criticism articles. So the best way to resolve it would be to add more of the work that FH has done that is published by third party sources, to find praise published by reliable third party sources if possible, or to provide a brief FH response. Your proposed rewording seems acceptable as well. --68.253.39.146 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to the quote linked from this story from the Moscow Times. This is a reliable source, according to Wikipedia rules. It's an independent newspaper often critical of the Russian government, as it is here. More significantly to me, they got both sides of the story. They published Freedom House's criticism of Russian human rights, and they published a response from the people who were attacked, just as a Western newspaper would do -- just as the New York Times book review published a response from Freedom House when they were criticized in a book review. I strongly support that. We should include opinions from reliable sources, and we should especially include peoples' responses when they are attacked. That's my standard.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/01/17/011.html Freedom Is Downgraded From 'Bad'

"Those abuses included overwhelmingly pro-Kremlin coverage in the national media, the intimidation of opposition candidates and a prohibitively high threshold for small parties to enter the Duma, said Christopher Walker, director of studies at Freedom House." ...

But Sergei Markov, a Duma deputy from the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, called Freedom House a "Russophobic" organization.

"You can listen to everything they say, except when it comes to Russia," said Markov, a Kremlin-linked political analyst who was elected to the Duma last month. "There are many Russophobes there."....

The Taiwan government press release OTOH is not a reliable source, by Wikipedia rules. Among other things, it violates WP:SELFPUB: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as ... it is not unduly self-serving;"

This press release is unduly self-serving. Freedom House praises Taiwan's freedom, and Taiwan praises Freedom House's authority.

There's no double standard. If you could find a newspaper that gave both sides of the argument, and came out praising Freedom House, I would support putting that in. If someone attacked Freedom House, and Freedom House defended itself, I would support putting that in. If Freedom House attacked someone, and that someone defended himself, I would support putting that in.

I'm even willing to give Freedom House the benefit of the doubt, by not complaining about the "Praise" section, which isn't as blatantly self-serving as the Taiwan press release.

But I don't support self-serving press releases that violate WP:SELFPUB.

That's my single standard. Nbauman (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another issue. Why is FH's response the Russia'a criticism deleted? NPOV requires both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I would have left that in. I think the burden of proof is on 99.240.27.210 to give us a good explanation. If he can't, it should go back in. Nbauman (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

After I said that, I reviewed Talk. The reason 99.240.27.210 gave was that it was a criticism section, and that a rebuttal doesn't belong in a criticism section. I don't agree.

One of the main purposes of an encyclopedia article is to help the reader judge the merits of an organization like Freedom House. If we give the arguments for and against every issue as much as possible, the reader is in a better position to make his or her own decision. It is often helpful to have a separate criticism section, but the overriding consideration is to serve the needs of the reader. For that reason I would keep it in.

Does 99.240.27.210 disagree? If so, why? Nbauman (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already given an extremely clear explanation as to why that bulk should not be kept. Simply re-read what I wrote previously. The section is for criticism, that unneeded bulk of text is not criticism. It's not staying, and quite frankly I'm getting sick of having to constantly have to revert your obvious POV edits and re-explain everything to you 20 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your were speaking to someone else above. Could you please respond to the arguments. I agree with Nbauman's view.Ultramarine (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Any statement made by the freedom house that is in favour of or in defense of itself is clear, inarguable bias. An organization is going to defend itself no matter what, therefor it is of no value to the reader and serves as propaganda. Further, it does not belong in the criticism section, as it is not criticism. How many times am I going to have to repeat that? Can you people not read?--99.240.27.210 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FH is certainly allowed to defend itself. No policy against that. See what Nbauman wrote about above. Remember NPOV, Wikipedia should present both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then create a section regarding their counter arguments if you care so much. That chunk of text does not belong in the criticism section. Also, I suggest you go find out what NPOV means. It certainly doesn't mean there must under all circumstances be a positive to every negative and vice versa. --99.240.27.210 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Providing a brief response is fine as long as the information is from a reliable source and the information is attributed to whomever is providing it in the source. Wikipedia says to present the information in a neutral way and to let the reader decide for (him/her)self. --68.253.39.146 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus here is that we should give the Russian criticism of Freedom House, and Freedom House's response in the same section. If we put that rebuttal away from the charge he's rebutting, it won't make any sense. 99.240.27.210, you're outvoted. If you keep reverting it, we'll just revert it back, until you violate the 3R rule and you'll be suspended for a while. Nbauman (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a matter of outvoted, but I see a consensus too and don't see him citing any contradictory policies.. --68.253.39.146 (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Consensus is not the same as a vote. In practical terms, though, when somebody has the odds against him, he's going to lose an edit war, so edit warring is futile. So in practical terms, a vote can enforce consensus. Nbauman (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the biggest flaws of wikipedia is the mob rule attitude. The Earth is flat, if you don't agree you go to prison. I really don't care enough to continue an edit war, I'm only trying to prevent this article from becoming a big joke that can't be taken seriously. Oh well. I suppose that was already the case as soon as the 'praise' section was added. 99.240.27.210 (talk)

One of the biggest advantages of Wikipedia is that, if somebody writes a one-sided pangyric about a topic, you can almost always put in a "Criticism" section or its equivalent, and link to your best supporting evidence. Then, the reader will be able to get both sides of the argument and think for himself. That's why I prefer an edit that emphasizes both the criticism and rebuttals, not just the critcisms.

The details and arrangement of the presentation in Wikipedia are open to dispute, and you may disagree with them, but any reasonable person would have to agree that a reader can start with Wikipedia and get the main arguments in support and in criticism of Freedom House.

And that's a lot more than you usually get in most major newspapers. Nbauman (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Miscalculation?

I followed the link given to the statement in the introduction that F. H. receive "about 75% of its budget" from the U.S. government, As far as I understand the figures, 20,998.613$ out of a total income of 26,395,532$ was a federal grant. This seems to be 79.55...%, and I do not think anyone could claim that "about 75%" is a correct way of rounding this proportion. Hopefully, this was a mis-calculation, or based on some other figures.

I'll change 75% to 80%. However, the quoted source gives the June 2006 fiscal report; and it would be even better if someone could find the 2007 fiscal report (if this is available yet), and update both the section and the references.-JoergenB (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I found out that the 2007 annual report is not available yet. The 2006 annual report actually seems to be dated March 28, 2007; wcich means that the new report should be due in a month.-JoergenB (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2007 annual report seems not to be available on line yet. This is a delay of almost three months, compared with the 2006 annual report. JoergenB (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Connections with US politics, and other "action"

I've read a bit more of the Freedom House documents; and I think we could clarify a couple of points, which in themselves should not be controversial. Their interpretation in all probability is; but it is not our task to state this, just to report it.

• First, I've learned a new Enoglish word, used in several places by FH in describing their history and present status: "bipartisan". Seemingly, this is a normal term in the U.S.A., which has become accustomed to a stable two-party system. I also think that many main stream Americans do not clearly distinguish "bipartisan" from "neutral as regards party politics". The FH texts do not seem to make this distinction. Also, much of the quoted criticism in our article seems more to be that conservative groups or individuals allegedly have dominated FH, and thus has more questioned whether FH is truly bipartisan, not whether this is the same as independence from party politics. The bipartisan nature should be put a bit more into the foreground. E.g., in the first paragraph under the heading Organization, we write:
    It does not identify itself with either of the American Republican or the Democratic parties.
  That is not quite wrong; but it also clearly is not quite wrong to say that it identifies itself with both parties.
  For some Americans, distinguishing between "bipartisan" and "neutral w.r.t. party politics" might feel artificial, or indicate some kind of extremist position. If you wish, you could look over the three alternatives in question number 10 in the questionnaire section of the Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy (p. 9), and meditate a bit on the fact that the middle alternative is considered as halfway between full and no factual freedom for true opposition parties. (Recall that US only got 10.5 out of a total of 12 points in the section "Electoral process and pluralism"; I am fairly convinced that question 10 was one of its not-full-point questions.) I do not think that the EIU experts could be considered as politically more extreme than the FH ones.
  I offer this as an explanation why there is a value of presenting the "bipartisan" character more explicitly; as I stated above, I do not think we should discuss whether or not this is distinct from "true neutrality", just give the facts (and we absolutely should not quote the Index on democracy in this place of the FH article!)

• Second, FH sometimes is "accused" of supporting the US government international politics. To the extent the critics claim that FH just is a tool for the US government, this criticism essentially is and should stay relegated to the Criticism section. However, FH in no way hides it general support of US as the leading force for freedom in the world to-day. In fact, the official pages write:
    Freedom House’s diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the causes of human rights and democracy[10].
  Again, we should offer the information, but sustain from interpretation. (Actually, I get the impression that the statement has two applications: The FH do support the overall US policy and the idea that USA are the natural "leaders of the free world", but the statement also urges the US congress and presidental administration to live up to expectations. Whenever FH thinks they don't, they'll hear some hash words from the FH lobbyists.)
  What this makes abundantly clear, however, is that FH to a high extent regards itself as an American organisation with an international field of action, rather than as an international organisation which happens to have its headquaters in the States.

• Third, FH is "accused" of "meddling into the internal affairs of other countries". Accusations aside, we should clearly stress two things: (1) FH defines itself as activist; and (2) FH does defend and encourage US activities aimed at toppling or radically changing foreign governments.
  FH frequently iterates its three main objects: Analysis, advocacy, action. IMHO, the "action" part is far from neglible (partly, since FH has a more substantial funding than many other NGO's). It openly describes its intentions to train and support "democracy advocates" around the world. We should note this, without either praising or condemning it.
  Likewise, FH writes e.g. that the present (George W. Bush) administration tries to "destabilize" the Cuban government. It does not criticise these actions (as e.g. the Human Rights Watch does), but instead implicitly encourage it as "...efforts to usher in democratic change". The FH does not deny the "accusations" that the US government pays a substantial amount of money to "dissidents" on Cuba; on the contrary, it applauds it. (As you can see, I concentrated my detailed reading to the section about Cuba; but I think that the fundamental attitudes of FH are much the same in general. They do not consider such acts as "illegal meddling"; how much the activities in a country are directly against its government essentially would depend on how bad that government is.)

Summing up: IMHO, in the introduction and the organization sections, we should give a little more place to the FH description of its bipartisan and activist character, and of its unanimous support of U.S.A. as the world leaders in the fight for democracy, with both the right and the obligation to work actively against "bad guys" governments, such as Cuba's. This should be done without valuation; but we could refer to it, both in the criticism and the praise sections.

I'm rather interested of hearing what opinions the main editors of this article have about these suggestions. Since most of it is based directly on reading the FH home pages and reports, I'm also very interested in comments from our resident "non-editor". Especially if I inadvertently mainly would have read non-representative material, or grossly misinterpreted the intended meaning, I would be rather happy to get some references to other parts, and explanation of the misunderstood texts.-JoergenB (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fairly well put. It previously seemed hard to denote this way, but I would most certainly encourage you to do so. A few additional sources might be found above.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does seem to be fairly balanced right now, unless you are suggesting transferring the criticisms in to the main article as third-party sources and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion. The reader should be aware that there is some controversy, however.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)