Talk:Freedom House

Contradiction

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)

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)

Immaterial 3rd false charge vandalism by Neutrality

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)

Puffery

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)

Condemns conduct akin to that of “Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan [which] use military forces and tactics to silence the voices of legitimate dissent”:

[1] Doug Weller talk 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrectly cited source

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)

This reads like a brochure for freedom house

In contrast, here is what Chomsky and Herman have to say about Freedom House:

Freedom House, which dates back to the early 1940s, has had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League, Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the government and international right wing. It sent election monitors to the Rhodesian elections staged by Ian Smith in 1979 and found them “fair,” whereas the 1980 elections won by Mugabe under British supervision it found dubious. Its election monitors also found the Salvadoran elections of 1982 admirable.106 It has expended substantial resources in criticizing the media for insufficient sympathy with U.S. foreign-policy ventures and excessively harsh criticism of U.S. client states. Its most notable publication of this genre was Peter Braestrup’s Big Story, which contended that the media’s negative portrayal of the Tet offensive helped lose the war. The work is a travesty of scholarship, but more interesting is its premise: that the mass media not only should support any national venture abroad, but should do so with enthusiasm, such enterprises being by definition noble (see the extensive review of the Freedom House study in chapter 5 and appendix 3). In 1982, when the Reagan administration was having trouble containing media reporting of the systematic killing of civilians by the Salvadoran army, Freedom House came through with a denunciation of the “imbalance” in media reporting from El Salvador.107

DMH223344 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)