Talk:Freedom House/Archive 1

message: First, I removed comments about who chaired Freedom House's board when in the first paragraph and moved it to the paragraph about the board under organization.  It seemed redundant to mention that Peter Ackerman was the chairman of the Freedom House Board three seperate times in the article.
: I should introduce myself.  My ID is SESlabaugh.  My last update to this (Freedom House) article was inadvertently made as 12.203.201.218 on "Revision as of 09:33, 6 January 2006".  I was logged on at that time as SESlabaugh under the mozilla browser tab where my edits were located, while another tab didn't reflect a login.  When I saved my changes it was attributed to the IP addy instead my ID.     Some sort of mozilla bug I suppose.  (I am aware that wikipedia, according to the media, is requiring Logon id's for edits.)  It is a shame that you have had to repeat some/many of my research and edits, as you have already shown above.  I had way too many hours invested in this article, validating my changes against their web site.  Unfortunately, Ryan Utt blithely reinstated the article to the point before my changes were made, without so much as checking the validity of a single fact or edit.
: I found the previous version (09:33, 6 January 2006) of the article highly un-neutral and very poorly structured - it still could benefit from improvements in these areas.  When I first encountered the article, I was so amazed at these flaws that my first reaction was to re-write the whole thing and throw out some of the opinions for a more NPOV, but, a) didn't want to take the time just then, and, more importantly, b) didn't want to get into the middle of what might be a war over POV with prior authors.  --SESlabaugh 10:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one of my changes also (except that Mark Porter is not on the board anymore), but thanks anyway.  :-)  --SESlabaugh 10:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: More of my changes.  :-)  --SESlabaugh 10:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought that wikipedia was supposed to have a neutral point of view, but sadly this article needs a lot of work in that area.  I realize that there is a great degree of politicalization in society these days, but to let it into  articles here instead of a blog somewhere, just isn't right.  If this article is someone's political opinion "baby", maybe it should be renamed to reflect that fact or moved to a blog.  --SESlabaugh 10:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explinations of my changes 

message: Please see my question  and reply if able. =J //Big Adamsky 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 or 2006? 

message: This article needs need some collaboration to become neutral, though collaboration at this point (see edit history) seems difficult.  BruceHallman 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is written with a POV slant matching the Freedom House 'Public Relations', which is not a neutral view.  The article should be written neutrally.  BruceHallman 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give an example.Ultramarine 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the recent edit history, regarding 'think tank' 'mostly conservative' 'Inc.', etc.. Relegating neutral descriptions to a 'critics' section conveys that the POV of Freedom House owns the article and all else, even if neutrally worded, is criticism.  BruceHallman 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the view of the critics. What evidence do you present that they are mostly conservative? Some obscure website stating this without explanation or citing very old material is not very reliable sources.Ultramarine 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided citations, which you dismiss as 'obscure' and 'view of the critics'.  I provided a recent citation which you now ignore.  You also ignore the 'Inc.' and the 'think tank'.  I would rather collaborate about this than argue about this.  Are you willing to collaborate? BruceHallman 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What source are you talking about?Ultramarine 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have forgotten, I gave sources as footnotes to my edits which you deleted, see the page history. BruceHallman 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you mean this , which I moved to the criticism section. Now that website does not seem a very reliable source, allowing anyone to submit homemade articles. Do you have anything better? Ultramarine 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites that list or describe Freedom House as a 'think tank'.  BruceHallman 19:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same search gives 19,000 hits for that "Greenpeace" and "think thank". Is Greenpeace a think thank? Anyhow, give specific sources.Ultramarine 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US State Department calls Freedom House a 'think tank'.  BruceHallman 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Ultramarine 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One source is the US State Department as I wrote 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I  cannot find it, thus unverifiable. Please give direct link.Ultramarine 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is to a State Department list of "related websites."  The page says, "Below are listed, in alphabetical order, links to a number of think tanks and research institutions whose work on all aspects of foreign policy, we at Policy Planning have found particularly useful."  Inclusion on that list does not necessarly mean that the  State Department thinks Freedom House is a think tank; they could be including them because they are a "research institution". http://www.state.gov/s/p/tt/ Elizaz 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute 

message: Why is it "Freedom House is a advo..." and not an? Skinnyweed 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Would anyone be willing to make maps using the historical country ratings, which can be found on Freedom House's website, for comparison to their assessment of today's situation?. Tanarive 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison map 

message: Is there a rational explanation as to how Ukraine is a "free" country while Russia is "not free"? The logic on the part of Freedom House as well as the government it unconditionally supports in Washington DC have this perception simply because Yushchenko is their puppet while Putin conducts an independent foreign policy. There is very little credibility as this "Freedom House" organization posesses transparent biases.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.36.136 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 August 2006  (UTC)
:Detailed descriptions of all nations, but not from the most recent 2006 report, can be found online here: .Ultramarine 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Oy, vey...here we go fighting the Cold War again. So you are saying that Putin was right to close down ngos that were critical of him because they were foreign funded; Isn't the who "Dissent is a tool of the Western imperialist-capitalist and/or Zionist" an old ploy a certain former Russian regime?'--70.112.236.174 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are looking at Freedom of the Press, not Freedom in the World.Ultramarine 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility 

message: "Similarly, claims that Freedom House favours American definitions of political rights and civil liberties, allegedly because it is partly funded by U.S. government agencies, ignore the fact that Freedom House claims that it derives its research methodology directly from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not from any American document, and has been using the same measurement standards for decades."
If I understand this sentence correctly, the writer is strongly implying that claims about Freedom House made by one group of people should not be taken seriously because other claims made by Freedom House about the soundness of their own methods are to be taken seriously.  This presupposes that Freedom House's own methods are fair and accurate, which is precisely what their critics dispute.  (Just because they claim that their methodology derives from the UDHR, which is what's asserted here, doesn't mean that they really do derive from it.)  It's not up to the writer of this article to to decide how fair and accurate Freedom House is (or isn't), merely to report accurately what they say they do, and also the fact that non-trivial criticisms have been made of their methods.   Lexo 11:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second your view, this has to be changed. Such wording is POV and misleading. --Eintragung ins Nichts 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that section and added the only thing sourced to the report section. That is, the claim how they use the Universal Declaration.Ultramarine 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/Incoherence 

message: Quote from the article: "Since 1978, Freedom House has produced a yearly report, Freedom in the World,..." - but on their own website (  http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=249 ) Freedom House they say that 'Freedom in the World' had been produced since 1973.
What is true?
:The later should be used since it is sourced.Ultramarine 09:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when has 'Freedom in the World'  been published, since 1978 or since 1973? 

message: Freedom House, which rated Russia "not free" in its latest world survey, is strangely silent when it comes to the growing loss of liberty in the U.S., and it's no mystery as to why. These guys are on the U.S. government payroll: they get subsidies from the U.S. Treasury in order to promote "democracy" worldwide. "Democracy," in this context, means the installation of a compliant American sock-puppet, one who, like Georgian strongman Mikheil Saakashvili, knows what side his bread is buttered on. Never mind his atrocious "human rights" record: let's pretend, for the moment, that he isn't jailing his political opponents and intimidating the rest into silence. He is supported by the "pro-democracy" movement because weakening Russia, at all costs, is the primary goal of those who are handing out the cash.
Russia has come a long way since the implosion of the Soviet Empire. Despite reversals – and copious foreign interference – it is making its way toward a market economy and the rule of law, albeit in fits and starts. Those who criticize Putin for supposedly reintroducing authoritarian rule can marshal not a single iota of evidence: opposition political parties exist and conduct vigorous public campaigns. No newspapers or media outlets have been closed down for giving voice to dissident anti-government views. They have changed owners, yes – but isn't that an essential characteristic of the market economy we are always urging on them? Russia has more political parties than the U.S., and the ballot-access laws are much more accommodating to dissident (or "third") parties. Yet Putin is supported by 70 percent of the voters: the "dissidents" are, for the most part, a handful of noisy, self-promoting professional malcontents, each of them competing for handouts from Uncle Sam. 
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9879  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.252.207 (talk • contribs) .
Most international civil rights groups outside Freedom House have been heavily critical of Russia's slide in civil rights which is much, much more drastic than developments in the United States.  The United States has problems but the degree of the problems is much different than the degree of problems in many other parts of the world.  Problems in the US are covered by Freedom House as well as is demonstrated in the Freedom House essay section on the website which contains these words:
"Although the United States and the majority of countries in Western Europe registered the highest possible ratings on the freedom index--a 1 for both political rights and civil liberties--Freedom in the World 2006 noted several looming problems in a number of these established democracies. In addition to human rights concerns raised by counter-terrorism measures taken since 9/11, the survey pointed to the widespread use of sophisticated forms of gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional district lines in the United States as a weakness in that country's electoral process that has reduced competitiveness in congressional and state legislative elections. At the same time, the survey findings revealed that several European countries are facing challenges to their democratic institutions from a failure to effectively integrate non-European immigrants socially or economically, a problem whose most vivid reflection was the rioting that afflicted France during the past year. In addition to France, the survey pointed to Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and Denmark as among a group of countries that face the challenge of integrating large immigrant populations of differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds."
Jztinfinity 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility Undermined 

message: Frank Calzón left Freedom House almost 10 years ago; I'm not sure how the fact that he was described as an "anti-Castro activist" two years ago is relevent criticism of Freedom House. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.138.81.98 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Calzón 

message: I recently reverted a set of edits because it seems to me that the purpose of these edits was to push an anti-Freedom House POV; furthermore, the only source, , seems to be a rather POV website. Heimstern Läufer 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently reverted edits 

message: Who says that Malaysia has no electoral democracy? The prime minister and other ministers are voted by the people and for the people there. Does it make it any different to Electoral Democracies? So, I disagree with the map shown above. There's Dewan Rakyat (People's Hall = Lower House) and Dewan Negara (National Hall = House of Lords) and this is clearly seen in a democratic nation like the United Kingdom. Indeed Malaysia and United Kingdom both have a Constitutional Monarchy system. So, what makes Malaysia not a nation with electoral democracy? --Fantastic4boy 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly see Politics of Malaysia. --Fantastic4boy 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the description of Malaysia for the year 2005 here:  Ultramarine 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that "Malaysia's political rights rating improved from 5 to 4 due to the holding of reasonably free parliamentary elections" and that it. Yes I'm well aware of the rating from 5 to 4 but it did mention about "free parliamentaty elections." Just because it's a partly free nation, does it make it any less democratic? Politics is a complicated issue - just because of one man, Anwar Ibrahim, who created such a scene in Malaysia that the nation is not considered having electoral democracy.  At least he wasn't exiled or anything worse happened to him like getting shot/killed for rebelling against the government like what many of the non-democractic nations like Cuba and Myanmar might do. In fact, the new Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was allowed to be voted by his people - do I need to prove that too? --Fantastic4boy 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that you Ultramarine that you got the source from Freedom House that determine's Malaysia being the status of non-electoral democracy, and I respect that, but I myself disagree with the information the website is giving for this - since that it's contradicting with the current Malaysian politics (esp. that the Anwar case is over now). --Fantastic4boy 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Freedom House's methodology, to count as an electoral democracy, a country must have "1) A competitive, multiparty political system;  2) Universal adult suffrage for all citizens (with exceptions for restrictions that states may legitimately place on citizens as sanctions for criminal offenses); 3) Regularly contested elections conducted in conditions of ballot secrecy, reasonable ballot security, and in the absence of massive voter fraud, and that yield results that are representative of the public will 4) Significant public access of major political parties to the electorate through the media and through generally open political campaigning."  If a country doesn't have all those things, then they don't count it.  According to the Malaysia report, "Opposition parties face serious obstacles, such as unequal access to the media and restrictions on campaigning and on freedom of assembly that leave them unable to compete on equal terms with the BN."  I would assume that is the justification for why it is not classified as an electoral democracy. 63.138.81.98 23:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaysia has no electoral democracy? 

message: Vlad fedorov, why are you adding material from "terrorfileonline"? It makes many claims but lists no sources? Ultramarine 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are direct source I could cite them. We don't need the sources to be supported with other secondary sources. By the way, information which you introduce into the article is unsourced. Is it your personal original research? If no, then please list here the sources from which you have taken this information which you introduce into the article.Vlad fedorov 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia must use Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A website that does not list sources is not reliable; anyone can write something on the web.Ultramarine 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In your latest edits I added sources for thing that you requested, like that they have criticzed Chile under Pinochet, but you simply deleted this. Why? Ultramarine 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine,  perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Reliable sources with more attention. Could you give me a citation from there supporting your claims? Also this Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that unsourced statements could be deleted from Wikipedia. Considering that your contributionas are not supported by whatever sources and are your personal original research, I suggest you to think twice.Vlad fedorov 09:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I added sources that you requested, like for Chile, or the earlier history, but you simply reverted this without explanation. Why? Ultramarine 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored you link personally. What about your sourcing of your statements in the introductory paragraph?Vlad fedorov 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What statement? Ultramarine 09:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I had also added a link to show that FH states that they supported the Civil Rights movement and so on, but you reverted also this without explanation.Ultramarine 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ultramarine, you may restore all your links. I have reverted the text, because you have illegaly removed my text. You are free to add anything you could support with citations here. But you cannot delete sourced statements without clear facts of violations of Wikipedia policies as you did. Deletion of sourced material is a form vandalism.Vlad fedorov 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Now lets discuss Terrorfileonline and Rightweb. They makes lots of statements but have no sources. Therefore, at the very least, you should write the "The Website Terrorfileonline claims" for every statement they make. Now the impression is that these things are undisputed facts.Ultramarine 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is that's why I have provided references to 'The Website Terrorfileonline' at each passage taken from their webpage.Vlad fedorov 09:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still need, at the very least, to point out that it is a website claiming this without any further evidence.Ultramarine 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then you should also to point out that all unsourced sentences in this article are contributed by anonymous users. Would you be so kind as to support with sources and references all these statements in the article?Vlad fedorov 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorfileonline 

message: I made some copyedits and other changes - while you are fighting it out over the article content please try and avoid wiping these out by wholesale reversions to earlier drafts. There are some more things that need rewriting (phrases like "trained under U.S. ideology" is a giggler, and you topple governments, not Revolutions), but I suspect the criticism sections will be so unstable I haven't bothered. - David Oberst 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: I have found more interesting material about FH involvement in US policy and CIA activities there http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/140.html. We can't though copy/paste this, but summarizing may seem to be ok.Vlad fedorov 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly looks like personal websites and Cuba based news organisations. The last, the Time article, is hardly critical so I am not sure you want to cite it.Ultramarine 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources that Freedom House denounced McCarthyism are also self-published in a sense that it is Freedom House allegation. Of course all criminals claim in the prison that they are innocent. Should we be so naive as to expect confessions from FH that it has financed coup d'etats, mujahedins (talibs) and bloody revolutions?Vlad fedorov 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedom House is quite proud to admit its role in the overthrow of various dictatorships. The spread of democracy is one of its stated goals. Personal websites not reliable sources, but for example a Cuban news organisation could be cited, of course mentioning the Cuban origin.Ultramarine 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then it actually is proud of waging aggression and its violations of international law. Financing terrorists like mujahedin in Afghanistan is a crime currently in the US.Vlad fedorov 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What international law regarding organizations is you refering to? Something in Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Ultramarine 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. As you are not lawyer, I would tell you... There are universal principles of Public International Law. They are unwritten and are declared often in Declarations and Treaties. They are referred to as Jus Cogens. Make a search on these Latin words. These Principles cannot be departed or changed. Here is the most commonly taught list:
(a) The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
(b) The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,
(c) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,
(d) The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,
(e) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
(f) The principle of sovereign equality of States,
(g) The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the UN Charter. See here in more detail .Vlad fedorov 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (a) FH is not a state. (b) Every state interferes in other states by for example spying.Ultramarine 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not a state. And Hitler wasn't a state, and SS wasn't a state. However they were hanged or sentenced for violations of the unwritten principles of international law at Nurenburg Trial. The thing is - nobody cares if FH is a state. If it crosses the boundaries of the international law (Jus Cogens), then it is outlaw. Moreover, I highly doubt definition of FH as an NGO. It is financed by the government and run by the government officials. Perhaps, it is charachteristic for the US to name war - an operation 'Enduring Freedom' and to name governmental bodies like FH - NGO.Vlad fedorov 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SS personal was charged with various specific crimes, not crossing a state border.Ultramarine 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Oswentsim concentration camp in Poland  where millions were exterminated was actually in Germany???? Vlad fedorov 05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were concentration camps both outside and inside Germany. Regardless, the SS were not charged with crossing a state border, but with other crimes.Ultramarine 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to gather earlier discussions in one place: In Athens only a minority of the males could vote, excluding slaves and metics. Again, regarding the Bush first election it was never a show election and Bush came close to losing. In the second he had a majority. Even if the Iraq War was a war of aggression (dubious), this has nothing to do with if the US was a democracy then. The Nurenburg trials was for specific crimes, not some general principle of interference. Again see . Democracy, as defined by for example FH, causes faster economic growth and many other benefits. Almost all rich countries are democracies, except a few nations gaining wealth by natural resources. But see the Resource curse.Ultramarine 08:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Resource curse definitely applies to colonial America and conqistadors, so Resource curse is not a universal law, but just a repeating pattern dependent on some necessary conditions. There are no universal social laws, if you would read any texbook on Sociology, this statement would appear on its first 10-20 pages. Vlad fedorov 10:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material on Cuban activities by FH 

message: Not Free? I'd like to see a source. The source given shows 'Partly Free' (but is also the 2006 report). Please show the source of the 2007 report that reflects this (biased) categorization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.26.248.202 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . For the whole report, you have to buy it, or wait a year until it becomes free and available online.Ultramarine 17:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the most free country according to Freedom House is Guantanamo Bay. People there are just unaware. :-) Vlad fedorov 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They critcze the Bush policies regarding for example this: Ultramarine 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand 

message: Why the hell are Russia, Algeria, Congo(Kinsasha), and Chad rated as not free? I read their reports and frankly, they seem to deserve a 5-5 "partly free" rating at the least QZX
::I have already pointed that according to Freedom House map Guantanamo Bay is "free". Vlad fedorov 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, they critcze the Bush policies regarding for example this: Ultramarine 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Why does a rather obscure internet mag get a section all to itself, to offer more or less an abstract of its rather peculiar  article? It's as long as the rest of the "criticism" section put together. This manages to shortchange both FH (by criticizing it for having "neoconservatives" like Carter's national security adviser, a prominent critic of what he calls the "colonialist" occupation of Iraq, on its board) and its critics (by putting such an extreme view in such prominence; imagine if e.g. the Communist Party USA got this kind of prominence in an "opposition to  Reagan's tax cuts" article section).205.212.74.252 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is because this is a source which voices point of view which many people in the world share, it should be in the Freedom House article. The separate section for it was made by Ultramarine, I think because he wanted to neutralize its criticism by using "and you are lynching negros" approach. When someone learns that criticism comes from socialist magazine, it should, as Uktramarine thought, affect its realiability. Vlad fedorov 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the points raised by the first user. Also, very old material. Many errors, like that the dead Jeane Kirkpatrick is a board member.Ultramarine 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monthly Review" 

message: Please be aware a Freedom House employee is participating in this talk page. User 63.138.81.98 is in fact a Feedom House employee, see discussion below for details. Pexise 12:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be aware