Talk:Freedom House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disproportionate criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Freedomhouse has mentioned Guantanamo every yearly report since 2003. [1], [2], etc up to [3].

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

Freedom House -- support of Vietnam war

Vietnam backers urged to 'shout', by Ralph Blumenthal, November 29, 1965 [4]

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

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

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

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

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

Commitment defined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

outdated source for criticisms? please help

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

Some of these estimates are disputed.

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

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

Monthly Review: Not a reliable source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above policy states that

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

Therefore, WP:RS explicitly allows its use.

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

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

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

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

This is the text I removed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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