Talk:Reporters Without Borders: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:33, 11 November 2004

Latest revision as of 03:37, 17 August 2025

(349 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

==Punctuation==

{{Talk header}}

{{controversial}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}

{{WikiProject France |importance=Low |paris=yes}}

{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Internet |importance=Low}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 3

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Reporters Without Borders/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Archives}}

I'm changing the decimal punctuation to '.' from ','. I'm not sure how the brits do it, but ISO decimals are not American english. [[User:24.75.67.173|24.75.67.173]] 15:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== RfC: "RWB" or "RSF" initialisms in article body ==

Brits used do 100,000.001 to mean one hundred thousand and one thousandth. This means that commas are very confusing and are frowned on. Use dot for deciman point and spaces to separate every three digits (if anything). Thus 100 000.001 or just 100000.001. This also avoids confusing continentals and, even stranger, is quite okay for Americans [[User:Mozzerati|Mozzerati]] 16:13, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

{{closed rfc top

| status =

| result = Informed that an RFC wasn't necessary. {{nac}} <b>[[User:Dudhhr|<span style="color:navy;">dud</span>]]</b><i>[[User talk:Dudhhr|<span style="color:red;">hhr</span>]]</i><small>_{[[Special:Contribs/Dudhhr|<span style="color:green;">Contribs</span>]]}</small> 23:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

}}

==Title==

Possibly a stupid question, but why isn't this at [[Reporters Sans Frontières]]? MSF is, after all.

<br />

[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 19:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should the body of the article use RWB or RSF as an initialism for Reporters without Borders? Their logo uses the french initialism, and their English abbreviation is RWB. The article currently uses both arbitrarily. <b>[[User:Dudhhr|<span style="color:navy;">dud</span>]]</b><i>[[User talk:Dudhhr|<span style="color:red;">hhr</span>]]</i><small>_{[[Special:Contribs/Dudhhr|<span style="color:green;">Contribs</span>]]}</small> 06:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

: The vast majority of links and references point to the English version, and rsf.org has French, English as well as Spanish as official translations, too. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]] 10:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Dudhhr}} You don't need a full-blown thirty-day formal [[WP:RFC]] for this. I see no evidence that there has been any dispute (such as the acronym being changed back-and-forth by two or more editors), nor any indication that the suggestions given at [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] have been tried, let alone exhausted.

:Start off by [[WP:BOLD|being bold]] then if somebody [[WP:RV|reverts you]], [[WP:BRD|discuss it]] (perhaps as a continuation of this section). Only go for RfC when all else fails. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

== Criticism ==

:: In the EU, it's always refered to as "''Reporters Sans Frontières''", never as "Reporters without borders" (or, at least, I've never heard of it referenced thus, though. Links can be changed - policy is, after all, to locate articles at the "most common" term for them... I dunno.

:: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 19:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Be bold|I'll be bold]] and remove the Criticism section. It has been poorly sourced for a long time, used to consist also in content from deprecated sources, and I doubt that it current weight is appropriate. At its current state, it essentially amounts to an [[Wikipedia:Attack page|attack section]]. The removal can be contested, but if so the issues must be addressed because of these reasons. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::: That's probably just a custom, nobody insists on it. FWIW, Google has 73,700 English pages for "reporters without borders", 34,600 English pages for "reporters sans frontières", and 10,500 English pages for "reporters sans frontieres". I don't think we'll be doing anything wrong if we just keep it where it is. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]]

: I see the criticisms as valid and correct. It would be grievous to remove them. [[Special:Contributions/118.211.76.187|118.211.76.187]] ([[User talk:118.211.76.187|talk]]) 20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

::Please see [[Wikipedia:Criticism]], separate sections are not very encyclopaedic. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

==United States==

Any particular reason why they don't list the US at the top? We Americans practically invented [[freedom of the press]] and DID invent the Internet, which supports blogging and wikis and such.

What evidence does RWB give of "attacks" on press freedom in the US? (If no one answers this, I'll put '''which inexplicably ranks the US far down on its list''' in the intro paragraph.) [[User:Ed Poor|--Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(El Dunce)]] 14:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* Violations of the privacy of sources, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations kept the United States (22nd) away from the top of the list. [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11710]

:The reason for this is that the ranking is *not* done that way - it's not a propagandistic "we're the best, so we must rank at the top", it's compiled as a result of surveys where the journalists of the countries ranked are questioned. You could just as well ask [[Amnesty International]] to not report human rights violations in the USA. That being said, Wikipedia does not have an opinion on anything; we merely give the facts (and in this case, the facts are that the USA does *not* rank at the top of the list), so please don't insert POV text like the above into the intro paragraph. -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schnee]] 14:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which journalists are questioned? The RWB website apparently only queried its own staff:

* The questionnaire was sent to partner organisations of Reporters Without Borders (14 freedom of expression groups in five continents) and its 130 correspondents around the world, as well as to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11716]

I will not add my personal POV, but will merely contrast RWB point of view with the general beliefs of Americans. [[User:Ed Poor|--Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(El Dunce)]] 14:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Rubbish. It *is* your POV, not that of (all) "Americans"; furthermore, the article is not POV as it is, as it merely states facts. I'm sure the article on [[George W. Bush]] contains some of shrub's POVs, too, but as long as they're labelled as such and not present as facts themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. It's important to distinguish between a fact, an opinion, and the fact that someone has a certain opinion. That being said, even if the article *was* POV, the correct course of action would not be to add yours, too; two wrongs don't make one right. Wikipedia is about a *NEUTRAL* point of view, and that specifically includes that it's not americanocentric or biased towards the USA (whether in a positive or negative way). Considering you're an admin, I hope you'll understand that and keep your own opinion out of Wikipedia. -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schnee]] 14:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Any such beliefs aren't pertinent here, because this page is titled RWB, not [[freedom of the press]]. If the RWB mention in there looks wrong to you, fix that there. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]] 15:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

----

It seems this European-centered group has an anti-US bias. I thought it was beyond question that the US had the freest of [[free press]]es in the world, bar none.

The arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations, now was that for '''participating in a peaceful demonstration'''? That is, punishing a reporter for [[advocacy journalism]] (as opposed to straight news reporting)? Or was it for [[disorderly conduct]] during a demonstration that turned violent?

Also, is RWB asserting that no reporter should EVER be arrested? (They should have diplomatic immunity?) Or are they saying the arrests were bogus? Was there a trial? Were the journalists released, convicted or what? [[User:Ed Poor|--Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(El Dunce)]] 14:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Stop being so arrogant. -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schnee]] 14:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::I assume this means you have no plans to answer any of these questions. I can therefore only assume that RWB is the sole source of the claim that America merits a low ranking on press freedom. [[User:Ed Poor|--Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(El Dunce)]] 18:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::You're right. I have no plans to answer these questions; FWIW, I'm not affiliated with RSF in any way, either. I just happen to take offense at assertions like the one that "beyond question that the US had the freest of free presses" (which is entirely based on an overly large amount of pride rather than on facts), or allegations like "this European-centered group <nowiki>[having]</nowiki> an anti-US bias" simply because you don't like the results of their survey. Objective criticism should be not be taken as an offense, and if something's broke, then you should fix it, not scold whoever told you it's broke.

:::And for what it's worth, I think you're overreacting, anyway. A score of 4.0 is not too bad - you're still better than the UK, for example (6.0), Australia (9.0) and many others. -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schnee]] 18:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"We invented freedom of the press" does not equal (even if it were ture) "we currently have the most free press in the world." This sort of reminds me of a friend's story of his trip to Washington, where a tour guide claimed the US invented democracy. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 18:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Who answers the questionnaire?==

RWB says that they sent a questionnaire to their "partner organisations". Is their anything to distinguish them from a mere advocacy organization, since they apparently only surveyed themselves and their friends? Like the Bush campaign citing themselves for a survey on voter intimidation. --Ed Poor

: Nowhere in the article was it claimed that they didn't do this, it was simply implied that the sample is representative. I've integrated the two edits now, so everyone can be the judge of that. IMHO it seems as representative as it can get, because there doesn't appear to be another similar organization in the world. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]] 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Context is anti-US==

With the US getting kicked off the U.N.'s human nights commission -- by a clique of the worst violators -- I think it's important for readers to find unbiased information about American adherence to democratic principles such as [[freedom of the press]] and other [[human rights]]. When a European organization rates America as significantly lower than some European countries, I want to know why.

It looks like RWB just asked their own "partners" to fill out a survey form. That's not much of a basis for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I guess we should do an article about organizations which rate the countries of the world, and which sheds light on the criteria they use for rating and how they gather information relating to these criteria.

Want to help? [[User:Ed Poor|--Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(El Dunce)]] 18:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: You're going off on a tangent. You can't blame them for being some sort of camarilla without even a cursory investigation as to who those partners are. It seems to me that they partnered up for one reason only: to support journalists in the face of whoever violates their freedom of expression. That does not imply some sort of anti-American agenda by definition. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]] 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Also, other than the initial focus on the Iraq crisis -- which is explained by the simple fact it's the most advertized crisis in the world at the moment -- there's very little in the way of focusing on the US on their web site, quite to the contrary, they go on about the places that are the US keeps complaining about (as well as places about which nobody talks about, which is indicative of their neutrality). Your reaction is quite U.S.-centric, which is fine, but not exactly encyclopedic. --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]]

:Let's be honest; the countries that interfere least with their presses are going to be small democratic countries that have a stable, happy population. Larger countries with more dissent, and by necessity more complex political systems, in the push and shove of things are going to have a little overreaction and a few idiots and have a few cases of reporter oppression. The results are to be expected. --[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 23:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)