Talk:Freedom House

message: It says "Freedom House is a U.S.-based[4] 501(c)(3) U.S. government-funded[5] non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy ...." If government funded, it is a government organisation which will follow government policy line. I do not think that a government funded organisation can be described as an NGO. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:CCE0:242:2718:14DC (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. This is a government-funded foreign policy actor mascarading as a non-governmental organization. Nobody would call a Chinese "NGO" a non-governmental organization if it were majority funded by the Chinese government.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2491:3F00:139D:AEBA:1D01:FF69 (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: If Neutrality has a literacy -if it is true-, he/she can see Table 2 in :Shelley Boulianne’s correspondent meta-analysis page 33. But he/she said it is obscure  unfairly. Freedom House is found as often as 13 times in that meta-analysis. It is merely a matter that one just read collated data recorded as it is. By way of a parentheses it may be mentioned that * in the table is opposite sign of recorded value.
Unlike what Neutrality said, They are not original research at all but just precedent research and all of them are Published Reliable sources as meta-analyses. So all of them follows Wikipedia:No original research including Synthesis of published material.
And If what he/she insisted is true, It's better to delete Sarah Sunn Bush-The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Ratings?
Because it is not even[below] MA thesis. That charge is obviously Incomplete comparison, because what Empirical research suggested is all more than MA thesis, as for evidence-level, Empirical research used meta-analyses which are highest admissibility of evidences in academia and Empirical research suggested a sound reason.
Although I respect The three-revert rule, I cannot help remedying the state of vandalism, owing to Snooganssnoogan’s repetitive abuse in this article.
All of these are false charge, but if they advert adding Category:Pseudoscience as unsourced claims, I’ll accept that part only. But because other than it all Neutrality impose on Empirical research is false charge, I’ll rather keep academic integrity as in multidisciplinary consensus.
Last but not least, I want to remind good evidence of the reason why meta-analyses may fit well with the spirit of the consensus of Wikipedia community by appending the link of Nature journal article.
 :Meta-analysis and multidisciplinary consensus statement: exome sequencing is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. Genetics in Medicine (2019) written by Siddharth Srivastava (MD), Jamie A. Love-Nichols (MS, MPH), Kira A. Dies (ScM), David H. Ledbetter (PhD), Christa L. Martin (PhD), Wendy K. Chung (MD, PhD), Helen V. Firth (DM, FRCP), Thomas Frazier (PhD), Robin L. Hansen (MD), Lisa Prock (MD, MPH), Han Brunner (MD), Ny Hoang (MS), Stephen W. Scherer (PhD), Mustafa Sahin (MD, PhD), David T. Miller (MD, PhD) and the NDD Exome Scoping Review Work Group
::As much as the Boulianne article was a very interesting read, all it was saying was that there seemed no correlation between Freedom House ratings of various freedoms and the connection between social media and political engagement. Certainly, this is an interesting article and likely WP:DUE somewhere. But probably not here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immaterial 3rd false charge vandalism by [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]  

message: The entire Recognition section is WP:PUFFERY plain and simple and would not normally survive in an article on an average organisation or business. Any reason to keep it here? — kashmīrī TALK 19:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puffery 

message: Doug Weller talk 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condemns conduct akin to that of “Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan [which] use military forces and tactics to silence the voices of legitimate dissent”: 

message: The quotes in the "Overemphasis on formal aspects of democracy" section do not appear anywhere in the actual cited study. The study you actually want is cited here: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2014.0054 204.77.151.204 (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrectly cited source 

message: In contrast, here is what Chomsky and Herman have to say about Freedom House:
 DMH223344 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reads like a brochure for freedom house