Talk:Free World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cold War (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Rutebega, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Untitled[edit]

The capital letters in (F)ree (W)orld are there intentionally to avoid confusion of this special term with what an average man would think of when hearing the words ``free world.


This page is politically loaded, not NPOV. There are plenty of people who do not accept the term "Free World", except as part of American political and journalistic rhetoric. Hotlorp 11:50 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)



This is in contrast with so-called Iron Curtain countries and other dictatorships which impose internal travel restrictions or restrict overseas and emigration.

This description is highly inaccurate. In most European communist countries (I'm speaking mostly about Poland except during martial state, but many others were similar) there weren't any significant internal travel restrictions. There were some restrictions on international travel - it was more difficult to get a passport than it is today - but it wasn't like someone who wanted to emigrate couldn't do that. Taw 20:30, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I've made a little change to make the article more NPOV. Leminh91 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge request[edit]

I think the article Free World (World War II) is totally redundant and doesn't deserve its own article. It should simply be merged into this article, with all its contents transferred here.--Hibernian (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. I see no reason to maintain that small page of closely related content separately. Cnilep (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done. --Stfg (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Leader of the Free World[edit]

The page Leader of the Free World was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was to redirect the page to Free World.

During deletion discussion, several editors suggested merging content from that page to this one, though some other editors objected. Content from Leader of the Free World may be accessed from its page history and added to Free World as appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I merged much of the content to this page. Cnilep (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The article Free country (politics) seems to be yet another mostly redundant page whose non-redundant bits can easily be fit inside here. Choor monster (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Consider this a weak objection: Free World is, to a great extent, a case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. In other words, the topic of the article is the rhetoric, particularly during the Cold War, of Western liberal countries that labeled themselves "The Free World". Free country (politics) seems to be about the political position ("a political and ideological concept", as the lead puts it) rather than the rhetoric surrounding that political position. Of course, as a political position there is a very real risk that the article will be either POV or insufficiently worldwide. In that case, it might be best to merge just the non-offending bits of Free country (politics) into Free World. Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I understand "Free country" and "Free World" to be two ways of saying the same thing, and both are from US Cold War propaganda. Is there really this objectively used term out there, "free country", that has morphed into "Free World" propaganda? Meanwhile, there certainly were tremendous differences between us and them, and I'm personally thankful my ancestors got out from under the tsar, but the part of the "us vs them" story told in a jingoistic way deserves just one article. I don't see Free country (politics) as being part of the non-jingoistic story.
I write this knowing I could be wrong, but I would want to see evidence. Choor monster (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Since no one other than User:Choor monster and me seem to have an opinion on this issue, I would suggest going ahead with a merger of "the non-offending bits" – that is, any parts of Free country (politics) that satisfy WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I have a hard time seeing what qualifies as non-offending. Everything is supposed to satisfy WP:NPOV, here and in the other article. That does not mean we do not have articles on propaganda. We simply do not take sides, and we report on what all the sources say.
I repeat my question. Is there really this objectively used term out there, "free country", that has morphed into "Free World" propaganda? If so, then the division you suggest is a good one. If not, it makes no sense. When our major reference is an organization, and not political science journals, I suspect it's the latter. Choor monster (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how specific you want the answer to that question to be. Since the article is only three paragraphs long, I'll give my personal opinion on each one (which is tantamount to doing the merge myself, but never mind). First, since none of the paragraphs cite any sources, that might disqualify all of them per WP:V. On the assumption that the material should be kept and tagged as needing citation, what is neutral and what is biased? (1) The first paragraph defines "free" as featuring democracy, trade unions, and independent press. Since some countries that lack one or more of these features object to that definition, I would say that without a specific attribution, that definition is biased. (2) The second paragraph specifically describes the position of the Allies during World War II. That needs a source (I think there are already some relevant ones cited on Free World), but as it is specific and doesn't make claims to universality, I would call it acceptably neutral. (3) The third paragraph is attributed to Freedom House. A more specific attribution – a specific publication, say – should be added, but since it is a description of Freedom House's conclusion, rather than the conclusion of some Wikipedian, again I would say that it is acceptably neutral. Since the truth value of "Person says, 'FOO'" is independent of the truth value of "FOO", I think that claims properly attributed to third-party sources face a lower bar for acceptability. Opinions may vary, but that is my position. Cnilep (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the three paragraphs:
  1. It isn't a question of whether the definition is biased or badly sourced, it's a question of whether this deserves a separate article.
  2. It is neutral, but I didn't see why it needs a separate article. You helped merge this here before, right?
  3. I'm happy with Freedom House being overtly quoted.
My question boils down to why can't all this be in with the other article? An article can mix the neutral story with the biased takes, and I simply don't see what the gain is if the itty bitty neutral part is kept in one article while the POV-pushers are sourced and quoted in a different article. Choor monster (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The point is not which article should get the biased content. Non-neutral or non-verifiable content doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. Besides, the usual upshot of a merge is that only one article remains; the other title becomes a redirect. I have merged from 'Free country (politics)' to 'Free World' those portions that (1) are not overly biased, (2) are potentially verifiable (though none cite sources at this time), and (3) are not already described in the article. It amounts to four sentences plus two external links. The rest is article history. Cnilep (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Biased content is allowed, so long as it is relevant and clearly sourced. We quote Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein when informative to do so, not because they said something neutral. Same with Cold War jingoism. Anyway, thanks! Choor monster (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant map?[edit]

I'm just wondering whether the current map used on the page (Freedom House's Freedom Index) should be replaced by one that is more relevant. The page (with the exception of one small paragraph) refers to the "Free World" as the Western/NATO Bloc, so the map is essentially irrelevant. I think it should be replaced by something more relevant, perhaps with a map of the NATO and Warsaw Pact Blocs Jacob Cutts (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)