I'm only three paragraphs i-- 83.131.138.135 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)nto the article, yet I've already read three separate times that Freedom House is largely American based. How many times do we have to reiterate this? It's redundant, and possibly pov - I feel like somebody is trying to imply that Freedom House is a shill for American interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.80.49 ( talk • contribs)
Something I think that can be added, according to http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=2 : "Our diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom". You can take this as a starting point to make your own idea of Freedom House.
The Criticisms section is not. It refutes and gives the Freedom House the last word for every critique. I do not have the knowledge to fix this, so I will just complain.
Anon user -- you are not using facts and you have no clue whatsoever how ludicrous your POV edits are. "Turkey is also given more credit as a democracy than it deserves." Who the *hell* are you to judge how much credit it deserves? That's not a fact, that's just your own opinion.
When using the phrase "some believe" you have to be prepared to cite specific references, otherwise it's just a weasel expression to push your own POV. And you have to separate facts from opinions, which you have been unable to do.
And "western European" is clearly used by Freedom House with its political sense, not its geographical. Aka the countries of the once-western bloc. Aris Katsaris 14:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ok im a new user and did not read the guide. anyway if i want to point out that this organization is biased how do i say it? or you can say it for me. i think it is ridiculus that they give US full points despite the obvious recent problems. and i just compared turkey with other countries, and they have given turkey a lot more credit considering their military intervenes with election as well as turkey not even recognizing the existance of a kurdish people (20%) of population in turkey. clearly this is a biased organizaion. i dont need sources to prove it, logic is enough.
And yeah "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world" is indeed POV, which is why we are quoting what the source is, namely Freedomhouse itself. We are *saying* that's their own description for themselves. If you want, we can detail comments that other organizations or celebrities have for Freedomhouse also, again describing who's the one who held these opinions. But not your personal objections. Aris Katsaris 16:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the abuses in US happened in a handful of districts i agree. but considering US electoral system that handful of problems changed the entire outcome of the elections. therefore using their own methodology.
POLITICAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES CHECKLIST Political Rights Checklist A. Electoral Process 1. Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections? 2. Are the legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? 3. Are there fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling, and honest tabulation of ballots?
you cannot say that the election is fair. if people are being barred from voting or their ballots are being disproportionatly cancelled. if election is not fair and this unfairness is actually affecting the outcome of presidency then you cannot say america is a perfect 1/1 democracy. im not suggesting putting it with n korea but its definitly NOT 1/1. and its a clear bias.
the article is looking better now ( i like the judged part and that you removed the word fully democratic) to answer your question yes US should be 2. the difference between me an u is you compare it to other countries, whereas i compare these ratings with theories of democracy (which the main pillar is unversal sufferage) once this pillar is messed with, in my book its pretty far from a perfect score. im not talking about something little here, im talking about changing the outcome of who would be the country's leader!
and its irrelevant what argentina does, they could move them up another notch as well if you dont want the US to be in the same category. the same argument goes for turkey as well, based on their behavior in comparison with theory of human rights.
as for it being in west europe it cannot be cultural reasons as you claim in the article, cannot be historical, because anatolia was always considered asia for thousands of years since alexander the great and before. only recently they are making it look like w europe. the reason can only be military and political alliance. if this is their basis then why israel is placed in the middle east?) i dont agree cyprus to be in western europe as well. tajikistan is in Asia, if FH wants to group cis countries together then it can make a separate category called cis. which brings me back to my previous argument that they are innacurate with definitions.
by the way i just checked their website now while writing this and all the regions and countires were changed?!!! turkey was in the middle east now ... wats that about?!
go to yahoo, write freedom house, then click on the "FH country rating" on the left in the blue column you will see.
by the way, if their system "has" to give US 1/1 then their system is biased. which means FH methodology is biased.
in a country that the president is not fairly chosen, voters are barred or discounted, the main pillar of democracy is broken, therefore it cannot be an ideal democracy. you cannot convince any intelligent person that it still is an ideal democracy. 2+2=4. so dont bother replying and talking about bolivia, argentina. it is up to them to rectify their methods (that produce biased results) not up to me to give them suggestion . all i know is what democracy means, and what US status quo is.
and again, im tired or repeating myself, if they want nato countries together (they must say NATO) not western europe, its misleading (biased). get it???????? same goes with former soviet union. your continiuous naggin is not going to change world geography. the word region is geographic, does not define military alliances.
but think about what you are saying for your own sake. the brainwashing by media, government and so called "think tanks" is hindering you from thinking clearly.
Where is Brazil? (Rating PF2, CL2, Free) Stabuh
The article does not address the most important issue of all, that is — what procedure and criteria are they using to get those numbers.
If the procedure is published, it should be in the article in details, and document how exactly did they reach all the suspicious results. Is the procedure biased itself or has it been not fully followed in a few cases ?
If it's not, then we should plainly say that they give whatever scores the wish, and the numbers should not be considered to represent anything more than the staff's impressions. Taw 02:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Cute, they've published something on their methodology http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/methodology.htm
Unfortunately it only tell part of the story. A lot of criteria, especially in the "civil liberties", are open to many interpretations:
Taw 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
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 changed the description of how Freedom House describes its board to reflect how Freedom House describes its board on its website. As that description is attributed to Freedom House, it should reflect what Freedom House says.
Removed two cases of "citation needed"... one in the history of Freedom House (the list provided there is a fairly standard list of Freedom House's past achievements, cited in several places, and formarly listed on Freedom House's webpage. It doesn't appear to be there anymore, but I assume that isn't because they changed their mind about what happened. As the paragraph begins with "Freedom House says of itself" it would give the appearance that the whole paragraph is taken from Freedom House sources.) and the other in the "Other Activities" section (The fact that Freedom House does things other than write reports is clear from their webpage, and implied in other sections of the article. I verified that the claim was correct on their website.)
Thanks! -ElizaZ
Please see my question posted here and reply if able. =J // Big Adamsky 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I replied--Eviliza
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)
Why is it "Freedom House is a advo..." and not an? Skinnyweed 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Leading with an extended quote of Freedom House describing themselves gives undue weight to their self sytled POV. A more encyclopedic approach would be to give more weight to describe Freedom House for what they are, not for what they say they are. BruceHallman 13:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is significant to point the 'democracy' Wiki-link to the specific type of democracy that Freedom House advocates. There are other types of democracy that Freedom House does not advocate, and this article is improved if that fact is not obscure. For instance, Freedom House does not advocate for Bioregional democracy, Direct democracy, Demarchy, New Democracy, Soviet democracy or Workplace democracy. BruceHallman 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I also think it significant to identify that Freedom House is advocating for a specific ideology. This matters, for reasons including our duty to cleanse Wikipedia of systemic bias. Note, for instance that roughly one half of the population of the World does practice the ideology that Freedom House advocates. BruceHallman 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My population estimate comes from a rough estimate of the population of the red areas on their map, most all of Asia and more than half of Africa. BruceHallman 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The word 'ideology', or some such, is needed to balance the heavy bias of the word 'nonpartisan'. BruceHallman 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points regarding points of view and recent changes to this article:
1. In response to BruceHallman's point about giving weight to what Freedom House is vs. what they say they are-- this leads to an interesting point about the nature of truth. What Freedom House "is" is to a large degree a matter of opinion. Freedom House sees itself one way. Other parties sees it another way. Neither is necessarly true or false. Nor does there seem to be a general consisance on what Freedom House is. Different sources present radically different views. Freedom House definately has an interest in protraying itself a certian light, but other sources views are influenced by their own biases and points of view as well. It seems like the best way to describe what Freedom House "is" is to provide both what they say that they are in addition to well-sourced views who have a different view on what Freedom House *is*. For the record, of the links I've seen posted in the past couple of days to support critisim or different views of Freedom House, only one seems to be a well-sourced article as opposed to including Freedom House in a large list of groups without discussion of why Freedom House is included, or clear opinion peices. As the nature of Freedom House seems to be hotly debated, it looks like the only fair way to do it is to say that there are several points of view, and provide readers with the ability to easily compare primary sources if they so desire.
2. Regarding the sources of Freedom House's funding, which has been changed back and forth several times: On it's webpage, Freedom House includes copies of the annual reports (
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/23.pdf) which includes a financial statement that lists how much money they get from several broad catagories (government grants, private contributions, etc.) While this isn't a detailed list of what money they are getting for what purpose from where, it is enough to refute the statement that Freedom House does not disclose the source of its funding. I've also deleted the discussion of the 1990 report on where their funding comes from, because frankly a report looking at data that is almost 20 years old is more likely to confuse matters than make them clearer.
63.138.81.98
21:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that almost 2/3rds of their funding comes from government sources is very significant information for readers, and it should be included in the article. BruceHallman 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Misleadingly named Freedom House is an organization tasked with promotion of US interests and is widely known as a CIA front. The organization that is funded entirely by government (directly and through tax deductible "donations"), in this case the government of nation with poor human rights record on its own, with little respect for individual freedoms, with more citizens behind bars than in Communist China, which has not been a democracy for most of its history (not until 1960s) and which is engaged in wars of aggression abroad and occupation of other countries, such an organization, by definition, cannot possibly compile an impartial rating of how free or unfree are other societies are. Freedom House is a policy tool, not an objective international forum or organization capable of producing such sort of evaluations or ratings. It is ridiculous to include Freedom House (and link thereto) and its phony rating in the Wikipedia on par with (respected) UN Human Development index or other such measurable indexes. The article should either removed or modified to reflect the fact that Freedom House is not an independent international organization but a foreign policy tool producing bogus ratings of metaphysical substance. User:212.129.107.21
I temporarily removed the "American principles and interests" line that has been going back and forth lately. Perhaps the proponents could indicate what is specifically American about these here in the Talk page first, as opposed to the common values of Western liberal democracies. I'm not rejecting the concept, especially since it is an American based and funded group, but as a Canadian I always hate to see "American" used when a more general word is just as appropriate! - David Oberst 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, if they are willing to equate freedom and "supporting U.S. positions" explicitly like that, the phrase is fully justified. - David Oberst 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that Bruce's quote was from a Heritage Foundation analysis, not Freedom House itself using the voting patterns as part of the freedom levels measurement. I take back my support for the wording :). - David Oberst 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine refused before to answer my question of: Why should how they describe themselves be considered a relevant criteria? Will you answer that question now? Our goal is a neutral description, and the subjects of articles cannot be presumed to neutrally describe themselves. BruceHallman 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If the intent of the phrase "generally associated with United States principles and interests" is something like "generally associated with the mainstream conceptions of freedom and democracy in the west", then "United States" is too specific. If it is "generally associated with the United States as distinct from...", then a lot more justification would have to be provided, and I doubt it would make the grade for intro paragraphs in any case. Bruce seems to have his causality backwards - the Heritage paper is looking at foreign support of the US and noting the correlation between that and their FH rankings - it is not analyzing Freedom House and finding its policies designed to correspond to US interests specifically. They may of course be, but this isn't a useful cite to argue that. If Heritage had noted a link between the level of Big Mac consumption and alignment with US interests, it wouldn't make the case that McDonalds was promoting recipes "generally associated with United States principles and interests. - David Oberst 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I used "west" deliberately as a cliche, larger term than American, not as proposed wording or some sort of "western" bias. Even if you convince folks here that a qualifier is necessary, it would still be necessary to justify why "United States" as opposed to something more inclusive. Also, the use of "liberal democracy" in the sentence already begins to provide context as to what they are "promoting". - David Oberst 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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 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. [14]"
we are going to take freedom house's word for it? what's the evidence for this 'fact'? because Freedom House says so? i'm changing that to 'claims to'... of course it makes the sentance ridiculous. ignoring the fact that the subject claims the criticisms are not true. if anyone wishes to research in depth just how closely the freedom house fits with the UDHR in application. it's be a good topic for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.182.108 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
for the longest time freedom house was funded by the us information agency wich was a propaganda organisation that got absorbed into the state department. it's stated objective was to promote U.S. foriegn policy abroad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.182.108 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Browsing through the dubious claims made by Freedom House, one can observe that it has a pro-Yeltsin bias which is unsurprising because Yeltsin yielded to western interests while this is much less so the case with Putin. This superficial overview even contains historical inaccuracies. For instance, it is lied that Yeltsin put down an attempted coup by hard-liners when in fact it was he who unleashed a coup. He violated the constitution and was legally removed from office. With support from the military he invaded the capital and slaughtered hundreds of patriotic Russians. This also seems to piss and moan about Putin's restriction of the activities of NGOs who in actuality are spies who act on behalf of foreign governments rendering them puppets. This is the case with other countries as it is illegal to not report foreign funding. Needless to say, foreign funding severely undermines the input of the People who these NGOs clearly do not represent or take into account. I would like an explanation as to why in the Russian legislature today there are over a dozen political parties including those figures of a very different political spectrum of Putin such as Zyuganov and Zhirinovskii. While Putin is implicated to have engaged in electoral fraud following his presidential victory, there is nothing whatsoever mentioned about the blatantly unscrupulous methods used by Yeltsin to steal the 1995 presidential election which included the complete negligence of information about Zyuganov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.7.200 ( talk • contribs) .
Ever thought it might be because Ukraine has reasonably fair elections, while Russia's are show elections since Putin came to power? — Nightst a llion (?) 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with the map. Italy is a PARTLY FREE country. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16&year=2005&country=6760 But it's shown as green in this map.
Bosnia, Macedonia and Albania are party free, unlike Serbia? WTF? Whats so comparatively wrong with them? And Macedonia and Albania are candidates to NATO, expected to enter in 2008, and are candidates for the EU, having the usual drill of jumping through hoops to satisfy both criterias? How could they be partly free????????? I see one of the negative points for Bosnia and Herzegovina is the fact that there is a High Representative of the UN (also the Special Representative of the EU) with significant powers in the politics. But thats crazy, how can they conclude apriori that this is an impediment to democracy in this country; at least, apparently the EU and the UN dont think so... The only common denominator is that they all have large islamic populations, but thats blatant discrimination-- 83.131.138.135 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The country and territory ratings were proposed by the writers of each related report. The ratings were reviewed on a comparative basis in a series of six regional meetings--Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Middle East and North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe--involving the writers and academic advisors with expertise in each region. The ratings were compared to the previous year's findings, and any major proposed numerical shifts or category changes were subjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews were followed by cross-regional assessments in which efforts were made to ensure comparability and consistency in the findings. Some of the key country reports were also reviewed by the academic advisors.
The survey's methodology is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee on methodological issues. Over the years, the committee has made a number of modest methodological changes to adapt to evolving ideas about political rights and civil liberties"
"The process of creating the report, Puddington says, begins by assigning countries to area experts who sift through reports from human-rights groups and local and international media as well as governments themselves. Then the experts rank countries from one ("quite free") to seven ("very repressed")."
"The report questioned how compatible Bosnia's membership in that body is given the High Representative's near dictatorial Bonn powers to dismiss elected officials from office and freeze their assets, without any requirement to show the basis on which such decisions are made.""In June, the current international High Representative, Sir Paddy Ashdown, removed 59 Bosnian Serb officials from their posts in government and state-owned enterprises,"
"Serious investigative journalism remains a dangerous activity for Bosnian journalists."
"While the various governments in Bosnia-Herzegovina do not restrict academic freedom, ethnic favoritism in appointments to academic positions, and the politicization of such appointments, remain a continuing problem."
"Corruption in the judiciary, police forces, and civil service forms a considerable obstacle to establishing the rule of law in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
"The judiciary is still considered to be unduly influenced by nationalist political parties and executive branches of government. Judges who show some independence are reported to have come under various forms of intimidation." Ultramarine 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, some of the causes of criticism Ive found in this investigation are clear-cut enough to varrant a mention in the article. Id like to find some source of criticism, its easier to frame it without violating the no original research policy if I do. I still hope others possible conversants finding merit in this criticisms might show interest and hopefully have an idea of where to find such sources. -- Aryah 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To reanswer a prevous question:
Regarding Bosnia, it is not a sovereigtn democracy and not even state because those elected does not control the territorium. A state should have monopoly on the legitimate violence in its territiorium. It is that same situtaion in Hong Kong: there are elections, but the most important executive is selected by China which also has military troopis in the city, and has the final word on decisions, not those elected. Thus not a democracy. Regarding how to make a map, you can simply download one of the blank maps in Wikipedia and then color the nations with a paint program that has a "bucket" funciton. Ultramarine 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"While elections for Presidents are relatively open and competitive (although heavily scrutinized and influenced by the international community), all appointments to the executive branch must be made in consultation with the international community's Office of the High Representative (OHR). Real power resides in the OHR who can, and does, remove elected leaders and impose decrees. De facto executive power resides in the fragmented constituent "entity" administrations (Bosniac-Croat Federation and Serb Republic) and in informal structures linked with ethnic-militias. The Bosniac-Croat Federation should also be considered fragmented as cooperation between Bosniac and Croat leaders remains tenuous, at best. The judiciary in both "entities" is subject to intimidation and influence by local leaders." and "Together, these international institutions provide the ultimate executive authority that governs the Bosnian state, therefore, an "interruption" code (-66) is assigned." [12] Ultramarine 08:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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?
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)
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).
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, [13], seems to be a rather POV website. Heimstern Läufer 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the sources cited in the criticism section do not qualify as notable, aside from the Washington Times. Half of them are just random websites with no notable status whatsoever, just so that people can bash FreedomHouse as being "neoconservative". I mean, would it be ok for me to make a website arguing that FH was pro-communist and then use it as a wikipedia source. Most of these citations should be removed. 144.32.196.3 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Going through the various citations in the criticism section, we have:
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)
Vlad fedorov, why are you adding material from "terrorfileonline"? It makes many claims but lists no sources? Ultramarine 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What an idiotic statement??? How about Constitution of Russian Feederation? Absolutely absurd claims. The US don't have direct elections and they have electoral democracy and Russian Federation which has direct elections of a President and Parlament is not? Who is that Liar who drawed that map? Vlad fedorov 08:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To qualify as an electoral democracy, a state must have satisfied the following criteria: 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. Ultramarine 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like also to note that some criteria here are hard to measure and therefore they create a basement for subjective and biased estimates. The words like 'significant', 'major political parties', 'reasonable', 'massive fraud' are subjective. To me Florida elections do not confrom to these criteria and therefore the US is not an electoral democracy too. However these issues are not covered by that map - and it is evident that it is just a propaganda map. Vlad fedorov 09:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just an example of freedom of speech in Russia. Journalist for five years had been writing the following in Russia: There is no negotiating, there can be no negotiating with Russia, which Aslan Maskhadov talked about so much. Russia can only be destroyed. And she MUST be destroyed, — it’s a preventive self-defence measure on the part of humankind from that fanatic diabolism which Russia carries inside since the first mass murders and executions for criticisms of power, since the conquests of Novgorod and Kazan. [1570 and 1552. — Trans.] Russians must be killed, and only killed — they lack those normal, clever, intelligent ones who you could talk with and rely on their understanding. Harsh collective responsibility must be introduced for all Russians, all loyal citizens of Russia, for the actions of the authorities they have elected — for genocide, mass murders, executions, dead body trade… […] Kill, kill, kill! To bathe all of Russia in blood, to show not the least mercy to anyone, to try to set up at least one nuclear explosion on the territory of the Russian Federation — this is what the agenda of the radical Resistance should be, Russian, Chechen, or anyone’s. http://www.veryrussian.net/2006/boris-stomakhin-the-opposition-journalist-who-wanted-me-killed.html. Vlad fedorov 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this discussion is somewhat irrelevant for article purposes - Freedom House does what it does and that gets reported on here - the article isn't the place to make primary arguments for or against their methodology or conclusions. Presumably their views on Russia have created enough notable and sourced discussion out there to be reported on as well, but that isn't quite the same thing. - David Oberst 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Validity and reliability of FH activities, reports are pertinent and relevant to FH - but it is not the job of Wikipedia to pass editorial judgement on FH's validity and reliability, any more than on the validity and reliability of, say, the Flat Earth Society. Obviously comments like "Absurd!!!" have no place in the article, while "Some of the these goals seem to contradict to the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, which is a basic principle of international law" appears as original research unless sourced to some sort of summary of notable opinion on Freedom House. I'm sure they've made Russia unhappy enough that there should be a useful paragraph to be written and sourced on the reaction, but this isn't it. Even if there was a concept of "international law" that should somehow restrain FH from saying and doing things that peeve the Russian government, it isn't for a Wikipedia article to come to that conclusion and scold them on our own hook. - David Oberst 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That actually cuz Russia have their own president not controlled by yanks
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)
From WP:RS, self published sources
Terrorfileonline is a Havana based Wiki, run by the Cuban governemnt,
and as such does not satisfy the WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. Unless a good case can be made for its inclusion, I am going to remove the section. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to provide the evidence of this? Vlad fedorov 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure
The Instituto Cubano del Libro is a division of the Cuban Ministry of Culture. 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As could be clearly seen fromt the cited passage, there is no any prohibition for citing Wiki-engine based sites. As for 'self-published' pattern (term), as you actually don't know who has written this material, how then you could claim that it is self-published? If you could tell that it is self-piblished, then you admit that the website was created by Cuban Government. If you admit that it was published by Cuban government we could cite it as Cuban government POV. Vlad fedorov 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
http://www.nowaroncuba.org/Organization/Press/US_Ops_against_Cuba.htm
Some more links http://www2.poptel.org.uk/cuba-solidarity/CubaSi-January/FreedomHouseFoundation.html
The Time. CONTROVERSY CRASHES THE PARTY http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983137-1,00.html
(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 [18]. Vlad fedorov 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
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 agree with you QZX. You may not be aware of this but you are useing my old username. To avoid confusion, please create your own (Maybe QZX with a period). QZXA2
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)
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) Pexise ( talk) 18:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm only three paragraphs i-- 83.131.138.135 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)nto the article, yet I've already read three separate times that Freedom House is largely American based. How many times do we have to reiterate this? It's redundant, and possibly pov - I feel like somebody is trying to imply that Freedom House is a shill for American interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.80.49 ( talk • contribs)
Something I think that can be added, according to http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=2 : "Our diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom". You can take this as a starting point to make your own idea of Freedom House.
The Criticisms section is not. It refutes and gives the Freedom House the last word for every critique. I do not have the knowledge to fix this, so I will just complain.
Anon user -- you are not using facts and you have no clue whatsoever how ludicrous your POV edits are. "Turkey is also given more credit as a democracy than it deserves." Who the *hell* are you to judge how much credit it deserves? That's not a fact, that's just your own opinion.
When using the phrase "some believe" you have to be prepared to cite specific references, otherwise it's just a weasel expression to push your own POV. And you have to separate facts from opinions, which you have been unable to do.
And "western European" is clearly used by Freedom House with its political sense, not its geographical. Aka the countries of the once-western bloc. Aris Katsaris 14:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ok im a new user and did not read the guide. anyway if i want to point out that this organization is biased how do i say it? or you can say it for me. i think it is ridiculus that they give US full points despite the obvious recent problems. and i just compared turkey with other countries, and they have given turkey a lot more credit considering their military intervenes with election as well as turkey not even recognizing the existance of a kurdish people (20%) of population in turkey. clearly this is a biased organizaion. i dont need sources to prove it, logic is enough.
And yeah "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world" is indeed POV, which is why we are quoting what the source is, namely Freedomhouse itself. We are *saying* that's their own description for themselves. If you want, we can detail comments that other organizations or celebrities have for Freedomhouse also, again describing who's the one who held these opinions. But not your personal objections. Aris Katsaris 16:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the abuses in US happened in a handful of districts i agree. but considering US electoral system that handful of problems changed the entire outcome of the elections. therefore using their own methodology.
POLITICAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES CHECKLIST Political Rights Checklist A. Electoral Process 1. Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections? 2. Are the legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? 3. Are there fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling, and honest tabulation of ballots?
you cannot say that the election is fair. if people are being barred from voting or their ballots are being disproportionatly cancelled. if election is not fair and this unfairness is actually affecting the outcome of presidency then you cannot say america is a perfect 1/1 democracy. im not suggesting putting it with n korea but its definitly NOT 1/1. and its a clear bias.
the article is looking better now ( i like the judged part and that you removed the word fully democratic) to answer your question yes US should be 2. the difference between me an u is you compare it to other countries, whereas i compare these ratings with theories of democracy (which the main pillar is unversal sufferage) once this pillar is messed with, in my book its pretty far from a perfect score. im not talking about something little here, im talking about changing the outcome of who would be the country's leader!
and its irrelevant what argentina does, they could move them up another notch as well if you dont want the US to be in the same category. the same argument goes for turkey as well, based on their behavior in comparison with theory of human rights.
as for it being in west europe it cannot be cultural reasons as you claim in the article, cannot be historical, because anatolia was always considered asia for thousands of years since alexander the great and before. only recently they are making it look like w europe. the reason can only be military and political alliance. if this is their basis then why israel is placed in the middle east?) i dont agree cyprus to be in western europe as well. tajikistan is in Asia, if FH wants to group cis countries together then it can make a separate category called cis. which brings me back to my previous argument that they are innacurate with definitions.
by the way i just checked their website now while writing this and all the regions and countires were changed?!!! turkey was in the middle east now ... wats that about?!
go to yahoo, write freedom house, then click on the "FH country rating" on the left in the blue column you will see.
by the way, if their system "has" to give US 1/1 then their system is biased. which means FH methodology is biased.
in a country that the president is not fairly chosen, voters are barred or discounted, the main pillar of democracy is broken, therefore it cannot be an ideal democracy. you cannot convince any intelligent person that it still is an ideal democracy. 2+2=4. so dont bother replying and talking about bolivia, argentina. it is up to them to rectify their methods (that produce biased results) not up to me to give them suggestion . all i know is what democracy means, and what US status quo is.
and again, im tired or repeating myself, if they want nato countries together (they must say NATO) not western europe, its misleading (biased). get it???????? same goes with former soviet union. your continiuous naggin is not going to change world geography. the word region is geographic, does not define military alliances.
but think about what you are saying for your own sake. the brainwashing by media, government and so called "think tanks" is hindering you from thinking clearly.
Where is Brazil? (Rating PF2, CL2, Free) Stabuh
The article does not address the most important issue of all, that is — what procedure and criteria are they using to get those numbers.
If the procedure is published, it should be in the article in details, and document how exactly did they reach all the suspicious results. Is the procedure biased itself or has it been not fully followed in a few cases ?
If it's not, then we should plainly say that they give whatever scores the wish, and the numbers should not be considered to represent anything more than the staff's impressions. Taw 02:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Cute, they've published something on their methodology http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/methodology.htm
Unfortunately it only tell part of the story. A lot of criteria, especially in the "civil liberties", are open to many interpretations:
Taw 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
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 changed the description of how Freedom House describes its board to reflect how Freedom House describes its board on its website. As that description is attributed to Freedom House, it should reflect what Freedom House says.
Removed two cases of "citation needed"... one in the history of Freedom House (the list provided there is a fairly standard list of Freedom House's past achievements, cited in several places, and formarly listed on Freedom House's webpage. It doesn't appear to be there anymore, but I assume that isn't because they changed their mind about what happened. As the paragraph begins with "Freedom House says of itself" it would give the appearance that the whole paragraph is taken from Freedom House sources.) and the other in the "Other Activities" section (The fact that Freedom House does things other than write reports is clear from their webpage, and implied in other sections of the article. I verified that the claim was correct on their website.)
Thanks! -ElizaZ
Please see my question posted here and reply if able. =J // Big Adamsky 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I replied--Eviliza
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)
Why is it "Freedom House is a advo..." and not an? Skinnyweed 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Leading with an extended quote of Freedom House describing themselves gives undue weight to their self sytled POV. A more encyclopedic approach would be to give more weight to describe Freedom House for what they are, not for what they say they are. BruceHallman 13:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is significant to point the 'democracy' Wiki-link to the specific type of democracy that Freedom House advocates. There are other types of democracy that Freedom House does not advocate, and this article is improved if that fact is not obscure. For instance, Freedom House does not advocate for Bioregional democracy, Direct democracy, Demarchy, New Democracy, Soviet democracy or Workplace democracy. BruceHallman 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I also think it significant to identify that Freedom House is advocating for a specific ideology. This matters, for reasons including our duty to cleanse Wikipedia of systemic bias. Note, for instance that roughly one half of the population of the World does practice the ideology that Freedom House advocates. BruceHallman 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My population estimate comes from a rough estimate of the population of the red areas on their map, most all of Asia and more than half of Africa. BruceHallman 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The word 'ideology', or some such, is needed to balance the heavy bias of the word 'nonpartisan'. BruceHallman 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points regarding points of view and recent changes to this article:
1. In response to BruceHallman's point about giving weight to what Freedom House is vs. what they say they are-- this leads to an interesting point about the nature of truth. What Freedom House "is" is to a large degree a matter of opinion. Freedom House sees itself one way. Other parties sees it another way. Neither is necessarly true or false. Nor does there seem to be a general consisance on what Freedom House is. Different sources present radically different views. Freedom House definately has an interest in protraying itself a certian light, but other sources views are influenced by their own biases and points of view as well. It seems like the best way to describe what Freedom House "is" is to provide both what they say that they are in addition to well-sourced views who have a different view on what Freedom House *is*. For the record, of the links I've seen posted in the past couple of days to support critisim or different views of Freedom House, only one seems to be a well-sourced article as opposed to including Freedom House in a large list of groups without discussion of why Freedom House is included, or clear opinion peices. As the nature of Freedom House seems to be hotly debated, it looks like the only fair way to do it is to say that there are several points of view, and provide readers with the ability to easily compare primary sources if they so desire.
2. Regarding the sources of Freedom House's funding, which has been changed back and forth several times: On it's webpage, Freedom House includes copies of the annual reports (
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/23.pdf) which includes a financial statement that lists how much money they get from several broad catagories (government grants, private contributions, etc.) While this isn't a detailed list of what money they are getting for what purpose from where, it is enough to refute the statement that Freedom House does not disclose the source of its funding. I've also deleted the discussion of the 1990 report on where their funding comes from, because frankly a report looking at data that is almost 20 years old is more likely to confuse matters than make them clearer.
63.138.81.98
21:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that almost 2/3rds of their funding comes from government sources is very significant information for readers, and it should be included in the article. BruceHallman 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Misleadingly named Freedom House is an organization tasked with promotion of US interests and is widely known as a CIA front. The organization that is funded entirely by government (directly and through tax deductible "donations"), in this case the government of nation with poor human rights record on its own, with little respect for individual freedoms, with more citizens behind bars than in Communist China, which has not been a democracy for most of its history (not until 1960s) and which is engaged in wars of aggression abroad and occupation of other countries, such an organization, by definition, cannot possibly compile an impartial rating of how free or unfree are other societies are. Freedom House is a policy tool, not an objective international forum or organization capable of producing such sort of evaluations or ratings. It is ridiculous to include Freedom House (and link thereto) and its phony rating in the Wikipedia on par with (respected) UN Human Development index or other such measurable indexes. The article should either removed or modified to reflect the fact that Freedom House is not an independent international organization but a foreign policy tool producing bogus ratings of metaphysical substance. User:212.129.107.21
I temporarily removed the "American principles and interests" line that has been going back and forth lately. Perhaps the proponents could indicate what is specifically American about these here in the Talk page first, as opposed to the common values of Western liberal democracies. I'm not rejecting the concept, especially since it is an American based and funded group, but as a Canadian I always hate to see "American" used when a more general word is just as appropriate! - David Oberst 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, if they are willing to equate freedom and "supporting U.S. positions" explicitly like that, the phrase is fully justified. - David Oberst 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that Bruce's quote was from a Heritage Foundation analysis, not Freedom House itself using the voting patterns as part of the freedom levels measurement. I take back my support for the wording :). - David Oberst 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine refused before to answer my question of: Why should how they describe themselves be considered a relevant criteria? Will you answer that question now? Our goal is a neutral description, and the subjects of articles cannot be presumed to neutrally describe themselves. BruceHallman 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If the intent of the phrase "generally associated with United States principles and interests" is something like "generally associated with the mainstream conceptions of freedom and democracy in the west", then "United States" is too specific. If it is "generally associated with the United States as distinct from...", then a lot more justification would have to be provided, and I doubt it would make the grade for intro paragraphs in any case. Bruce seems to have his causality backwards - the Heritage paper is looking at foreign support of the US and noting the correlation between that and their FH rankings - it is not analyzing Freedom House and finding its policies designed to correspond to US interests specifically. They may of course be, but this isn't a useful cite to argue that. If Heritage had noted a link between the level of Big Mac consumption and alignment with US interests, it wouldn't make the case that McDonalds was promoting recipes "generally associated with United States principles and interests. - David Oberst 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I used "west" deliberately as a cliche, larger term than American, not as proposed wording or some sort of "western" bias. Even if you convince folks here that a qualifier is necessary, it would still be necessary to justify why "United States" as opposed to something more inclusive. Also, the use of "liberal democracy" in the sentence already begins to provide context as to what they are "promoting". - David Oberst 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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 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. [14]"
we are going to take freedom house's word for it? what's the evidence for this 'fact'? because Freedom House says so? i'm changing that to 'claims to'... of course it makes the sentance ridiculous. ignoring the fact that the subject claims the criticisms are not true. if anyone wishes to research in depth just how closely the freedom house fits with the UDHR in application. it's be a good topic for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.182.108 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
for the longest time freedom house was funded by the us information agency wich was a propaganda organisation that got absorbed into the state department. it's stated objective was to promote U.S. foriegn policy abroad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.182.108 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Browsing through the dubious claims made by Freedom House, one can observe that it has a pro-Yeltsin bias which is unsurprising because Yeltsin yielded to western interests while this is much less so the case with Putin. This superficial overview even contains historical inaccuracies. For instance, it is lied that Yeltsin put down an attempted coup by hard-liners when in fact it was he who unleashed a coup. He violated the constitution and was legally removed from office. With support from the military he invaded the capital and slaughtered hundreds of patriotic Russians. This also seems to piss and moan about Putin's restriction of the activities of NGOs who in actuality are spies who act on behalf of foreign governments rendering them puppets. This is the case with other countries as it is illegal to not report foreign funding. Needless to say, foreign funding severely undermines the input of the People who these NGOs clearly do not represent or take into account. I would like an explanation as to why in the Russian legislature today there are over a dozen political parties including those figures of a very different political spectrum of Putin such as Zyuganov and Zhirinovskii. While Putin is implicated to have engaged in electoral fraud following his presidential victory, there is nothing whatsoever mentioned about the blatantly unscrupulous methods used by Yeltsin to steal the 1995 presidential election which included the complete negligence of information about Zyuganov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.7.200 ( talk • contribs) .
Ever thought it might be because Ukraine has reasonably fair elections, while Russia's are show elections since Putin came to power? — Nightst a llion (?) 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with the map. Italy is a PARTLY FREE country. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16&year=2005&country=6760 But it's shown as green in this map.
Bosnia, Macedonia and Albania are party free, unlike Serbia? WTF? Whats so comparatively wrong with them? And Macedonia and Albania are candidates to NATO, expected to enter in 2008, and are candidates for the EU, having the usual drill of jumping through hoops to satisfy both criterias? How could they be partly free????????? I see one of the negative points for Bosnia and Herzegovina is the fact that there is a High Representative of the UN (also the Special Representative of the EU) with significant powers in the politics. But thats crazy, how can they conclude apriori that this is an impediment to democracy in this country; at least, apparently the EU and the UN dont think so... The only common denominator is that they all have large islamic populations, but thats blatant discrimination-- 83.131.138.135 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The country and territory ratings were proposed by the writers of each related report. The ratings were reviewed on a comparative basis in a series of six regional meetings--Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Middle East and North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe--involving the writers and academic advisors with expertise in each region. The ratings were compared to the previous year's findings, and any major proposed numerical shifts or category changes were subjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews were followed by cross-regional assessments in which efforts were made to ensure comparability and consistency in the findings. Some of the key country reports were also reviewed by the academic advisors.
The survey's methodology is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee on methodological issues. Over the years, the committee has made a number of modest methodological changes to adapt to evolving ideas about political rights and civil liberties"
"The process of creating the report, Puddington says, begins by assigning countries to area experts who sift through reports from human-rights groups and local and international media as well as governments themselves. Then the experts rank countries from one ("quite free") to seven ("very repressed")."
"The report questioned how compatible Bosnia's membership in that body is given the High Representative's near dictatorial Bonn powers to dismiss elected officials from office and freeze their assets, without any requirement to show the basis on which such decisions are made.""In June, the current international High Representative, Sir Paddy Ashdown, removed 59 Bosnian Serb officials from their posts in government and state-owned enterprises,"
"Serious investigative journalism remains a dangerous activity for Bosnian journalists."
"While the various governments in Bosnia-Herzegovina do not restrict academic freedom, ethnic favoritism in appointments to academic positions, and the politicization of such appointments, remain a continuing problem."
"Corruption in the judiciary, police forces, and civil service forms a considerable obstacle to establishing the rule of law in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
"The judiciary is still considered to be unduly influenced by nationalist political parties and executive branches of government. Judges who show some independence are reported to have come under various forms of intimidation." Ultramarine 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, some of the causes of criticism Ive found in this investigation are clear-cut enough to varrant a mention in the article. Id like to find some source of criticism, its easier to frame it without violating the no original research policy if I do. I still hope others possible conversants finding merit in this criticisms might show interest and hopefully have an idea of where to find such sources. -- Aryah 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To reanswer a prevous question:
Regarding Bosnia, it is not a sovereigtn democracy and not even state because those elected does not control the territorium. A state should have monopoly on the legitimate violence in its territiorium. It is that same situtaion in Hong Kong: there are elections, but the most important executive is selected by China which also has military troopis in the city, and has the final word on decisions, not those elected. Thus not a democracy. Regarding how to make a map, you can simply download one of the blank maps in Wikipedia and then color the nations with a paint program that has a "bucket" funciton. Ultramarine 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"While elections for Presidents are relatively open and competitive (although heavily scrutinized and influenced by the international community), all appointments to the executive branch must be made in consultation with the international community's Office of the High Representative (OHR). Real power resides in the OHR who can, and does, remove elected leaders and impose decrees. De facto executive power resides in the fragmented constituent "entity" administrations (Bosniac-Croat Federation and Serb Republic) and in informal structures linked with ethnic-militias. The Bosniac-Croat Federation should also be considered fragmented as cooperation between Bosniac and Croat leaders remains tenuous, at best. The judiciary in both "entities" is subject to intimidation and influence by local leaders." and "Together, these international institutions provide the ultimate executive authority that governs the Bosnian state, therefore, an "interruption" code (-66) is assigned." [12] Ultramarine 08:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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?
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)
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).
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, [13], seems to be a rather POV website. Heimstern Läufer 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the sources cited in the criticism section do not qualify as notable, aside from the Washington Times. Half of them are just random websites with no notable status whatsoever, just so that people can bash FreedomHouse as being "neoconservative". I mean, would it be ok for me to make a website arguing that FH was pro-communist and then use it as a wikipedia source. Most of these citations should be removed. 144.32.196.3 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Going through the various citations in the criticism section, we have:
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)
Vlad fedorov, why are you adding material from "terrorfileonline"? It makes many claims but lists no sources? Ultramarine 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What an idiotic statement??? How about Constitution of Russian Feederation? Absolutely absurd claims. The US don't have direct elections and they have electoral democracy and Russian Federation which has direct elections of a President and Parlament is not? Who is that Liar who drawed that map? Vlad fedorov 08:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To qualify as an electoral democracy, a state must have satisfied the following criteria: 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. Ultramarine 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like also to note that some criteria here are hard to measure and therefore they create a basement for subjective and biased estimates. The words like 'significant', 'major political parties', 'reasonable', 'massive fraud' are subjective. To me Florida elections do not confrom to these criteria and therefore the US is not an electoral democracy too. However these issues are not covered by that map - and it is evident that it is just a propaganda map. Vlad fedorov 09:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just an example of freedom of speech in Russia. Journalist for five years had been writing the following in Russia: There is no negotiating, there can be no negotiating with Russia, which Aslan Maskhadov talked about so much. Russia can only be destroyed. And she MUST be destroyed, — it’s a preventive self-defence measure on the part of humankind from that fanatic diabolism which Russia carries inside since the first mass murders and executions for criticisms of power, since the conquests of Novgorod and Kazan. [1570 and 1552. — Trans.] Russians must be killed, and only killed — they lack those normal, clever, intelligent ones who you could talk with and rely on their understanding. Harsh collective responsibility must be introduced for all Russians, all loyal citizens of Russia, for the actions of the authorities they have elected — for genocide, mass murders, executions, dead body trade… […] Kill, kill, kill! To bathe all of Russia in blood, to show not the least mercy to anyone, to try to set up at least one nuclear explosion on the territory of the Russian Federation — this is what the agenda of the radical Resistance should be, Russian, Chechen, or anyone’s. http://www.veryrussian.net/2006/boris-stomakhin-the-opposition-journalist-who-wanted-me-killed.html. Vlad fedorov 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this discussion is somewhat irrelevant for article purposes - Freedom House does what it does and that gets reported on here - the article isn't the place to make primary arguments for or against their methodology or conclusions. Presumably their views on Russia have created enough notable and sourced discussion out there to be reported on as well, but that isn't quite the same thing. - David Oberst 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Validity and reliability of FH activities, reports are pertinent and relevant to FH - but it is not the job of Wikipedia to pass editorial judgement on FH's validity and reliability, any more than on the validity and reliability of, say, the Flat Earth Society. Obviously comments like "Absurd!!!" have no place in the article, while "Some of the these goals seem to contradict to the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, which is a basic principle of international law" appears as original research unless sourced to some sort of summary of notable opinion on Freedom House. I'm sure they've made Russia unhappy enough that there should be a useful paragraph to be written and sourced on the reaction, but this isn't it. Even if there was a concept of "international law" that should somehow restrain FH from saying and doing things that peeve the Russian government, it isn't for a Wikipedia article to come to that conclusion and scold them on our own hook. - David Oberst 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That actually cuz Russia have their own president not controlled by yanks
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)
From WP:RS, self published sources
Terrorfileonline is a Havana based Wiki, run by the Cuban governemnt,
and as such does not satisfy the WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. Unless a good case can be made for its inclusion, I am going to remove the section. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to provide the evidence of this? Vlad fedorov 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure
The Instituto Cubano del Libro is a division of the Cuban Ministry of Culture. 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As could be clearly seen fromt the cited passage, there is no any prohibition for citing Wiki-engine based sites. As for 'self-published' pattern (term), as you actually don't know who has written this material, how then you could claim that it is self-published? If you could tell that it is self-piblished, then you admit that the website was created by Cuban Government. If you admit that it was published by Cuban government we could cite it as Cuban government POV. Vlad fedorov 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
http://www.nowaroncuba.org/Organization/Press/US_Ops_against_Cuba.htm
Some more links http://www2.poptel.org.uk/cuba-solidarity/CubaSi-January/FreedomHouseFoundation.html
The Time. CONTROVERSY CRASHES THE PARTY http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983137-1,00.html
(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 [18]. Vlad fedorov 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
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 agree with you QZX. You may not be aware of this but you are useing my old username. To avoid confusion, please create your own (Maybe QZX with a period). QZXA2
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)
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) Pexise ( talk) 18:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)