Talk:Freedom House

"Other activities" needs sources

There's no sources under "other activities" at all, despite it making bold statements about the Uzbek government. I'm new here, so please let me know if there's a better way i could've handled this :) Tofuuunoodlesoup (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

Not sure how notable some of the criticism is, especially countries who've been given bad scores complaining. Of course they criticise their poor scores, they're hardly likely to welcome them.--Shimbo (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually have a different problem with the criticism section. It's not in keeping with best practice per the WP:CRITICISM essay to have dedicated criticism sections. I think most of this reputational information is absolutely due and should be on the page. But I think we should work to find a better way to present it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I made a few edits to page order to improve compliance wit WP:CRITICISM. These edits did not remove any previously extant material. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Freedom House betrays freedom by erasing Armenian victims

This one is interesting. It describes the attitude, the philosophy at Freedom House. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3336002/freedom-house-erases-armenian-victims-rankings-global-democracy/ "The situation in the occupied Armenian region has not improved, but alas, in its newly released 2025 report, Freedom House simply erased Nagorno-Karabakh entirely; it has disappeared from the report, rankings, and map. This is a bizarre move on Freedom House’s part: Rather than stand up for democracy in the face of dictatorship, it accepted Azerbaijan’s erasure of Nagorno-Karabakh’s identity and population. Even for Freedom House, this is an exception rather than the rule: 75 years after Chinese communists conquered Tibet, the organization rightly continues to assess its lack of freedom separately. Tibet rightly ranks at zero, even worse than the rest of communist China." Should a section be added about this? Vmelkon (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Freedom House only assesses territories separately if conditions are significantly different than the rest of that country. They stopped reporting on Nagorno-Karabakh because it is no longer de facto independent. They actually made an article condemning Azerbaijan's human rights abuses against Armenians. So no, it didn't "betray" Armenians. Also, putting "In 2025, Freedom House betrayed freedom" is hardly neutral. Please cite more sources than a random opinion article. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean it certainly does help to demonstrate that Freedom House is an advocacy group that is driven by ideological convenience rather than academic rigor. Perhaps we should be using them less as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

In what way is this "ideologically convenient" for Freedom House? Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd have to say it might be in a similar situation to the allegations of partiality to Uzbekistan although I will admit this is somewhat speculation as to motives. My key point here, notwistanding some rhetorical flare is that, rather than looking at the inconsistency between the handling of Tibet and the handling of Nagorno-Karabakh as being correct here, incorrect there, we should be framing it as it is: an inconsistency. Freedom House is often criticized for subjective, US centric, perspectives. This subjectivity doesn't lead to good scholasticism but, instead, to inconsistent perspectives. For a counter-example, I've recently read a V-DEM paper that, despite my own ideological differences, was undoubtedly good scholarship. This is what I'm driving at: Freedom House is not an academy-first org. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Tibet and Nagorno-Karabakh are not being handled inconsistently. In Tibet, the conditions are different than the rest of China right now. In Nagorno-Karabakh, all the ethnic Armenian refuges were kicked out and evacuated, making conditions not significantly different anymore. Also, the point of WP:NPOV is to not "frame" anything. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with adding this criticism to the article, but not with emotionally charged, loaded language. We also need to find actual sources before we add this. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with you about that. For clarity I'm more thinking from a perspective of this being evidence with the problems using this advocacy group as a source on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for not realizing what you were trying to say. Thank you for clarifying.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with using an advocacy group as a source. We use Amnesty International, which is another pro-democracy advocacy group. However, they also argue for access to abortion and increased LGBT rights, which is bias - but they're still perfectly fine to use. If we can use Amnesty International, I see no reason we shouldn't use Freedom House as a source. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Staffing size and Financial outlook are incorrect

Since the foreign assistance review the number of Freedom House staff shrunk from around 260 to approximately 50-60. There was also a significant drop in how much business it does with the organization losing all but a handful of its DoS and USAID grants. 69.197.200.69 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Following additional layoffs, current staffing is around 30 people ~2026-22067-17 (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

if you can find sources, then sure, I'll add it. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m not seeing anything public so I think we’ll have to wait until their 2026 financial statement drops ~2026-41793-27 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Possibly WP:UNDUE Statement

This is in the lede:
In 2018, the rankings were criticized by National Review, a conservative magazine, for its perceptions of the NGO being "anti-conservative". I don't think this is significant enough to be in the lead. It may be WP:UNDUE. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. This comes from the section "American conservatives". It would be better to replace the sentence with a suitable summary of that section. Burrobert (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Or just to remove the sentence altogether. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That is also an option. Burrobert (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)