Talk:Freedom House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Funding sentence[edit]

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

... and I've been reverted again without discussion. Again, please see the above. I don't have strong feelings about the structure of the lead generally, but frankly, it's probably undue weight to include this fact in the lead at all, given our initial difficulty in finding a source for the fact. It's definitely giving this fact undue emphasis to give it a standalone paragraph. Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Since it's been a few days without response, I've tried another version that I hope will be an acceptable compromise. If not, just let me know -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Khazar2. Right now the last paragraph of the lead reads: 1) reliable, but some critics accused of bias, etc. 2) mostly US government funded, etc. 3) but other evaluations show critics were wrong.
I have a feeling there is a discrepancy in this order of presenting facts. I think that (1) and (3) are directly connected (criticized, but critics are wrong, ok), but including (2) in between them is rather strange.
Funding is a matter of enough standalone importance, and while some critics may claim being US-funded equals to being biased, other may not say anything like that. I see no reason why we impose these additional connotations on readers by connecting funding to criticism in the lead. I believe such changes of structure amount to OR, really.
One more thing (also amounting to OR) is that with existing structure we make (3) look like it is connected to (2), and somehow refutes it.
Here's how I would like to bring the NPOV structure back: 1) Some criticize (maybe ad in brackets - on the grounds of funding and other things, like political connection, etc., as in sources), 2) Some say critics are wrong (maybe - indicate reasons). In the next paragraph (or in the previous one) - 3) Funding by US govt. Because these are really two different things, no need to mix it all. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the only source we have discussing funding is a critic, who brings the funding up specifically in the context of criticism. There's nothing OR about that. I'll tweak the order, though, and see if it helps with your concerns.
More importantly, since we only have one source so far who thinks the funding is worth mentioning, giving this fact a standalone paragraph in the lead still seems to me wildly undue weight. I have to admit that I'm skeptical of your determination to make this stand alone, especially after your discussion-free reversion of all attempts to find a mutually agreeable version. This has been going on for weeks now, despite notes to this page, your talk page, and in edit summaries. Non-coincidentally, this is the same topic that I was first called to the article to look at, when you were having a dispute with another user about some information you wanted to put in about funding.
If this sentence cannot be logically integrated with any other information in the lead, and we only have one source to support it, I suggest we simply cut it from the lead. There's no reason to give one remark in one article this kind of emphasis. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Khazar, funding is an important issue for any organization, what makes you think we should cut it from the lead altogether? FeelSunny (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said: the lack of discussion in secondary sources. To be clear, though, my first preference is to simply integrate it with other information in the lead, like any other sentence. Is the new structure acceptable? -- 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I personally like it more than the previous one, but I can't say if we should put the two in one paragraph, even in this form. Let's say, I'm ok with it. Thanks!FeelSunny (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Map caption?[edit]

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

Freedom House
Hello, you recently reverted my changes at Freedom House page. Please explain me, where is any astrerix marking that these countries are electoral democracies? This image is wrong, all refs indicate they are considered as "free", including reference directly under the image: Thank you for your answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The asterisks are next to many of the countries in the Independent Countries table on pages 1 to 5 in the "FIW 2013 charts and graphs for Web.pdf" booklet (the URL you gave above). The note at the end of the table (page 5) says: "* indicates a country’s status as an electoral democracy." To double check, look at the classification for Mexico (a partly free, electoral democracy) and then check the two maps that are shown in the article. In the first, Mexico is shown as yellow (partly free), and in the other, as blue (an electoral democracy). If your interpenetration was correct, then Mexico would not be shown as blue in the second map since that would indicate that Mexico was "free" rather than "partly free". Mexico is one of several such examples. You can also look at the description associated with the second map on Wikipedia Commons, see Commons:File:Electoral democracies.png. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry i have overlooked it. But i still do not understand why is Russia not shown as electoral democracy? I could understand partly-free or not-free maybe because of some censorship, but i think that it is undoubtedly semi-presidential multi-party representative democracy. This table is wrong, do not you think? Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at Freedom in the World#Country rankings.
For better or worse, it doesn't matter what you or I think. All that matters here is what Freedom House thinks and publishes. Check the 2013 FITW profile for Russia which says:
"Russia is not an electoral democracy. The 2012 presidential election was skewed in favor of prime minister and former president Vladimir Putin, who benefited from preferential media treatment, numerous abuses of incumbency, and procedural irregularities during the vote count, among other advantages. The deeply flawed 2011 Duma elections were marked by a “convergence of the state and the governing party, limited political competition and a lack of fairness,” according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but many voters used them to express a protest against the status quo."
And the 2014 FITW report that came out a few days ago still doesn't have an asterisk next to Russia (page 21). Russia is classified as "not free" and I don't see any "not free" countries that are flagged as an "electoral democracy".
--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but because of doubts with presidential election it is not an representative democracy? This is little silly, russians could say the same: Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Russia isn't designated an "electoral democracy" by Freedom House. They didn't say anything one way or another about being a "representative democracy". But as I said, if you don't agree, you need to talk to Freedom House and not to me. This article is about Freedom House and so our job is to summarize what Freedom House is and does. Our discussion here started about a caption on a map and I think that is settled. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


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

freedom house is a russophobic joke[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that no longer works.

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

Controversy over Israeli press status should be added to the article[edit]

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