Talk:Freedom House
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Ultramarine in topic Question to Ultramarine
Deletion of relevant and properly sourced tnformation by biased person.
I would like to pay attention to consistent censoring activities of user Ultramarine, who constantly deletes any criticism of Freedom House from these pages. He calls sources published in March this, 2007, year as outdated. Mister Krubbs 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- You include material that state that the dead Jeane Kirkpatrick is on the board of trustees, quote from a tax form from 1997 (outdated and primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia), and generally include information from outdated reports.Ultramarine 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have included citation, that "even at that time" meaning the reference not to current time. Therefore nothing here is contradictory. Perhaps you should read first. Second, what do you conceive under "outdated" sources? How are you going to label article dated March 2007 as outdated source? Moreover, information in the sources relates to the past events, therefore we could use "any" information that is pertinent to these "past events". Please, explain why you don't like personally this information. It comes from reliable sources. Why you attempt to censor out this information? A lot of information in this article is clearly written with POV bias using the words like "its major allies", "strongly criticized" and etc.
- You are criticising activities decades ago, so it is outdated. Again, tax forms is a primary source, not allowed.Ultramarine 10:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please, tell me if this article refers only to the last 5 days of Freedom House activities, or it refers to Freedom House? Second, could you give me internet link to specific Wikipedia rule that primary sources are not allowed?
- You are criticising activities decades ago, so it is outdated. Again, tax forms is a primary source, not allowed.Ultramarine 10:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have included citation, that "even at that time" meaning the reference not to current time. Therefore nothing here is contradictory. Perhaps you should read first. Second, what do you conceive under "outdated" sources? How are you going to label article dated March 2007 as outdated source? Moreover, information in the sources relates to the past events, therefore we could use "any" information that is pertinent to these "past events". Please, explain why you don't like personally this information. It comes from reliable sources. Why you attempt to censor out this information? A lot of information in this article is clearly written with POV bias using the words like "its major allies", "strongly criticized" and etc.
- Oh, I have looked at this Talmud of Wikipedia Policies and found that one internet link, with which you should familiarize yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source.
- ACriticisms of activites decadesa ago should at least be clearly marekd as such. Regarding primary sources, see Wikipedia:No original research.Ultramarine 10:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I have looked at this Talmud of Wikipedia Policies and found that one internet link, with which you should familiarize yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source.
- Well, I have read the first sentences of your link, just to understand that "original research" relates to material which is not supported by any source. Then, there is a section which explains what "sources" stand for and lists sources types as "primary, secondary and tertiary". Your given link only supports my opinion that all the materials in question should be kept in the article". Criticisms of past activities are well marked as there is a clear indication that in the "1980-ies" Freedom House lobbied against a resolution. Perhaps, you should care more about POV praises of Freedom House scattered in the article which do not clarify the time for which they refer?
- Again, primary sources are not allowed as per W:NOR. Why did you delete much of the sourced praise without explanation? Ultramarine 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I have read the first sentences of your link, just to understand that "original research" relates to material which is not supported by any source. Then, there is a section which explains what "sources" stand for and lists sources types as "primary, secondary and tertiary". Your given link only supports my opinion that all the materials in question should be kept in the article". Criticisms of past activities are well marked as there is a clear indication that in the "1980-ies" Freedom House lobbied against a resolution. Perhaps, you should care more about POV praises of Freedom House scattered in the article which do not clarify the time for which they refer?
- I repeat again, I have found no prohibitions of using documents there in Wikipedia. Moreover, I see that people use texts of Molotov Ribbentrop treaty text right here in Wikipedia. So you claim these guys violate Wikipedia policies?
- Go ask them. W:NOR prohibits primary sources.Ultramarine 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I asked you first to produce a link confirming your opinion, you haven't produced such, now you ask me to do your job?
- Link given, W:NOR. I do not want to dispute the treaty text, you do.Ultramarine 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I repeat again, I have found no prohibitions of using documents there in Wikipedia. Moreover, I see that people use texts of Molotov Ribbentrop treaty text right here in Wikipedia. So you claim these guys violate Wikipedia policies?
- As far as I have read it, I could tell this policy requires us to cite sources which may be primary, secondary or tertiary.
Misleading headers
Please, do not mislead and dis-attribute links. The material in criticism belongs to Diana Barahona and wasn't written by Monthly Review as you try to show. Your misleading headings amount to weasel words, designed in order to discredit the argument itself. Could we write then the Freedom House is being run by warmongers like Wolfowitz and Rumsfield then? Ultramarine, please be more objective to the article. There is a criticism of Freedom House and it should be published.
- It an article in the magazine. If it was self-published it should be deleted. Why did you delete much of the sourced praise? Ultramarine 11:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neither Rumsfield or Wolfowitz is on the board.[1]Ultramarine 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Both of them are now former members of Freedom House.Please consider these links http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1346 and http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1390. So nothing is wrong here.
- Not "being run" as you stated. Why did you delete much of the sourced praise? Ultramarine 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Both of them are now former members of Freedom House.Please consider these links http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1346 and http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1390. So nothing is wrong here.
- Again, this is not a praise, but an opinion on unknown academician. Could you substantiate it is notable PRAISE?
- Could you substantiate that Diana Barahon is notable journalist, especially since she states material not in the source she gives? Ultramarine 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again, this is not a praise, but an opinion on unknown academician. Could you substantiate it is notable PRAISE?
- Well we publish the mass media in which the source was published in the reference, don't we? Which specific "sourced" praise was deleted by me?
Writing in National Review Online, , a research professor at the George Washington University’s Elliott School, states that
- Freedom House has unwaveringly raised the standard of freedom in evaluating fascist countries, Communist regimes, and plain old, dictatorial thugocracies. Its annual rankings are read and used in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as by the U.S. State Department. Policy and aid decisions are influenced by Freedom House’s report. Those fighting for freedom in countries lacking it are encouraged or discouraged by what Freedom House’s report covers. And sometimes — most importantly — their governments are moved to greater effort."[1]
Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007 as not paying enough attention to slavery in its reports. Democracies such as Germany and India, but mostly repressive regimes, needed to be held to account for their lack of enforcement of laws against human trafficking and the bondage of some foreign workers, he wrote.[1]Ultramarine 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that this could be described as a praise. It is rather an opinion of some academician. Who is he? Do we know in which science branch does he specialize?
- More credible than Diana Barahon. If excluding him, the same applies to her.Ultramarine 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that this could be described as a praise. It is rather an opinion of some academician. Who is he? Do we know in which science branch does he specialize?
- Could you substantiate your claims. Please give a source which tells that John R. Miller is more credible than Diana Barahon?
- Please give a source that Diana Barahon is more credible than John R. Miller.Ultramarine 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could you substantiate your claims. Please give a source which tells that John R. Miller is more credible than Diana Barahon?
- I don't understand what you mean now. I have told you if you want to make your point please produce to us a source telling that Miller is more credible than Barahona.
- It is you who are arguing that the academic Miller should be exclude but the journalist Barahona included, so it is up to you to produce a source showing her to be more credible.Ultramarine 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Especially since the material she claims is nowhere in her source.Ultramarine 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean now. I have told you if you want to make your point please produce to us a source telling that Miller is more credible than Barahona.
- I said that his words are not a praise, but point of view. You may create a separate sections for opinions on Freedom House. Could you take a look at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/barahona030107.html? All the information is contained here, I don't understand what bothers you.
- She states material not in the source she gives. See source 7, has no relation to the material she writes in the article.Ultramarine 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I said that his words are not a praise, but point of view. You may create a separate sections for opinions on Freedom House. Could you take a look at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/barahona030107.html? All the information is contained here, I don't understand what bothers you.
- There are no links to source 7 in Criticism section. Please pay your attention that I have corrected previously wrong link to 7th source.
- Source 7 in her article.Ultramarine 11:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are no links to source 7 in Criticism section. Please pay your attention that I have corrected previously wrong link to 7th source.
- I have told you that you don't even care to read the articles. Here is the relevant passage: "U.S. Role
After the Soviet invasion in 1979, the U.S. focused its efforts on supporting the mujahedin with a massive, $3-billion covert aid program channeled mostly through Pakistani military intelligence".
Please, first read, and don't make noise.
- There is nothing there regarding her claims about Afghanistan Information Center, neoconservative at time, Trilateral Commission, and so on.Ultramarine 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- You may create a separate article, if you like. But as for now, why are you so passionate over such a minor detail as criticism? Are you an employee of Amnesty International? I have cited sources. Are you going to fight the sources?
- She seems to invent much of her material. Why are you including her and not the academic Miller?Ultramarine 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- You may create a separate article, if you like. But as for now, why are you so passionate over such a minor detail as criticism? Are you an employee of Amnesty International? I have cited sources. Are you going to fight the sources?
- Look, using the same approach, I could tell that everything in this article is invented. So please, relax. You could create a separate section entitled "opinions" and publish you revered academician there.
- No, I have shown that she invents material not in her sources. So you agree to including Miller? Ultramarine 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look, using the same approach, I could tell that everything in this article is invented. So please, relax. You could create a separate section entitled "opinions" and publish you revered academician there.
- Please support your claim that Barahona "made false accusation" with sources. I have agreed on creation of a separate section entitled "Opinions on Freedom House" in which you could publish Miller.Mister Krubbs 11:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have source 5 and 7 in article has no relation to the material she writes. So we can include Miller in the praise section? Ultramarine 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Question to Ultramarine
Ultramarine, please tell us if you are an employee of Freedom House?
- No, are you user:Vlad fedorov?Ultramarine 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- ^ a b [2]Miller, John R., "Does 'Freedom' Mean Freedom From Slavery? A glaring omission.", article in National Review Online, February 5, 2007, accessed same day