Talk:Reporters Without Borders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Journalism Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class* on the assessment scale.*
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance* on the assessment scale.*

[edit] Terrorist Organisation

RWB is a Terrorist Organisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.0.91 (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to who? --Djwings 09:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrupted entry for Iran

It seems that the Iran entry is corrupted in the 2006 data, instead of just "90.88" is has " bgcolor='#FF3333' style='color:#FFFFFF;' align='right'| 90.88 ". I have not been able to fix this by editing the table, maybe sombody with more knowledge could try.

this table should be removed from Wikipedia. This site is not supposed to be about political grandstanding and dissemination of propaganda. RWB is biased in the extreme.

Dear anonym user, I wholly agree with you that RWB is biased. So what? Should it be censored for this reason? You would be more helpful if you added, on this talk page or in the "Criticisms" section, reasonable arguments, including sources (see WP:VERIFIABILITY) backing-up your arguments. Thanks (PS: for easy comprehension of talk page, common use is to put your message at the end of the page, not at the beginning - it actually is more difficult to see your message if you put it in the beginnning). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tazmaniacs , This site is not supposed to be an encyclopedia. Censorship is not the issue at all. This is not the place for dissemination of political propaganda. That's what the table clearly represents. Therefore , it should be removed to protect the reputation of wikipedea. This would not be allowed in Encylopedia Britanica because it is just biased opinion designed to support a political agenda.

That is very plain and obvious for very many reasons. The most obvious is the way they want to single out the US and Israel for special attention even though both countries have free presses. Because they hate Israel and America they need to give them a special place by making up a new category in order to criticize them. in the How ridiculous can it get. It's a giant neon sign saying that this doesn't belong in a legitimate encyclopedia. It damages wikipedeas reputaion. There are very many other reasons to discount this tables credibility but that is more than enough reason.

I meant that it "is" suposed to be an encylopedia :)) Also , I just got here. Dont know how to put it at the end yet. I don't see a button for that.

dear anonymous, anonymous here. There appears to be a belief that anyone saying anything bad about the US or Israel is involved in bias of some sort. What you believe on this is entirely irrelevent, since what you are looking for is a verifiable source that can back up this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.22.79 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New data for 2006

[1] just published Lord Metroid 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I started to edit the index, map needs updating as well. Lord Metroid 14:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression the table template is completed by ThomasStrohmann. So I removed the plain text 2006 index. Only map needs updating. Also moved the Missing information box accordingly.— Adhemar 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the map with all the new 2006 data. As such, I've removed the Missing information box altogether, as everything should now be up to date. Keith Davies Lehwald 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia to fix this, or I would, but the Danish flag in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index has been wrongfully replaced by a picture of a burning car. Danish related pages do perhaps need closer attention these days... 80.202.34.53 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

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

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 Mozzerati 16:13, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

I updated some information about the Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents, provided links and added context to provide balance -- see reference to the UDHR -- to what was a pretty biased opening paragraph. See NPOV --Kaspiann 13:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Possibly a stupid question, but why isn't this at Reporters Sans Frontières? MSF is, after all.
James F. (talk) 19:35, 25 Aug 2004 (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. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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.

James F. (talk) 19:57, 26 Aug 2004 (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. --Joy [shallot]

All RSF's English-language press releases use the RWB form, including those on UK and other European topics. Seems silly to me (RSF sounds so much better, and is easily understandable) but I suppose they have their reasons. EdC 20:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Ok, lets put the Americans on the top of the list for inventing press freedom and the internet then. Not just this year but forever, in special recognition for your inventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.246.212 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

--The above posted by a typical American retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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.) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are joking, aren't you, dunce? Chameleon 14:05, 18 Nov 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. [2]

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. -- 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. [3]

I will not add my personal POV, but will merely contrast RWB point of view with the general beliefs of Americans. --Uncle Ed (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. -- 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. --Joy [shallot] 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 presses 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? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop being so arrogant. -- 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. --Uncle Ed (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 [having] 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. -- Schnee 18:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed, like Schnee I feel that your "US stands for freedom, so it must have the number one ranking on the freest of free presses list" stand is a lot of crap. But, unlike Schnee, I will assume (with a lot of effort) good faith and try to dignify your comment with an answer.

Reporters Without Borders believe in reporters'

freedom of speech, just writing critically of any government or powerful person/group/corporation should not be cause enough to be sent to prison.
freedom not to reveal (or be pressured to reveal) their sources, in case the whistle-blower can lose life and limb because he spoke to a journalist.
freedom not to be bothered, investigated, spied upon, kicked, threatened, jailed, tortured or murdered, just because they chose to exert any of the 2 freedoms above (or both).

Further down, Howard W claims that it's virtually impossible to have an objective, universally accepted definition of "Freedom of the Press." Maybe it's true, but RSF is guided by the principles above.

RWB does not look at human rights violations in general, just press freedom violations.

In their own words, the ranking is calculated as follows:

Reporters Without Borders compiled a questionnaire with 50 criteria for assessing the state of press freedom in each country. It includes every kind of violation directly affecting journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of issues, searches and harassment).

It registers the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such violations. It also takes account of the legal situation affecting the news media (such as penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly in certain areas and the existence of a regulatory body) and the behaviour of the authorities towards the state-owned news media and the foreign press. It also takes account of the main obstacles to the free flow of information on the Internet.

We have taken account not only of abuses attributable to the state, but also those by armed militias, clandestine organisations or pressure groups that can pose a real threat to press freedom.

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. A scale devised by the organisation was then used to give a country-score to each questionnaire. The Statistics Institute of the University of Paris provided assistance and advice in processing the data reliably and thoroughly.

from RSF's How the index was compiled

Specific reasons why the US is down on the list:

Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.

from RSF's 2006 list press release

— Adhemar 15:17, 24 October 2006 (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. Adam Bishop 18:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They think they invented apple pie too. Chameleon 14:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's virtually impossible to have an objective, universally accepted definition of "Freedom of the Press." In other words, nobody is going to agree what's important about freedom of the press and what isn't. The US has much broader laws regarding freedom of the press than many European countries in certain areas. For example in the US you can basically publish any opinion legally, no matter how offensive it is to any minority group, whereas in Europe they have laws in some countries that disallow saying hateful things to certain people. On the other hand, there is no Federal law saying that the government can't require reporters to reveal their sources in a court case. Which is more important? Are they both directly related to freedom of the press? As an American I have answers to those questions, and I feel strongly that I prefer the US version of things (in general), but no matter how strongly I feel, it's not as if I can prove definitively that my position is somehow demonstrably and objectively related to "press freedom" because it's a somewhat nebulous term. Likewise apparently this index also includes non-governmental influences, like criminals threatening reporters and stuff like that.

So for those reasons RWB apparently did a completely subjective survey and let the chips fall where they may. My suspicion (based on nothing but a hunch) is that RWB and its members *do* have a somewhat anti-US bias, and the voting on this issue is tainted by their opinions of US policy in other areas, but that doesn't change the fact that they decided to do a survey and this is where it all turned out.

[[User: HowardWHoward W]] Aug 26, 2006

There's also the fact that the government pressures scientists in unprecedented amounts to publish results government-friendly results. It's nowhere near North Korea, but it's MUCH worse than the Clinton days -- see http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050218.html

-- DragonAtma71.247.238.133 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The USA are not the only country with free speech. Most of the 'West' has free speech too, so there's no reason why the USA should be on the top spot. Furthermore, the USA ranking has worsen in the past few years, in 2002 it was 17th. And RWB's ranking is not only about laws, it's also about pressure groups. Even if US reporters are legally free to say what they want, there are other pressure groups (editors, lawsuits, ...) that restrict them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtikuX (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The US ranking is only that good because RWB is totally in their pockets. In reality, the US press is one of the least free and least inquisitive in the whole world, because it is entirely owned by a few big corporations. The factual restrictions on reporting are just as bad in the US as in any backwood middle asian republic, only the censors are not an "evil government" but the people who pay RWB. Viande hachée (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment on Puerto Rico's association with the United States and Freedom of Press. We are a territory, but our press freedom is actually very good. I would like to know the reason why we are ranked just two steps above Cuba and China on that map? If anything we should be bright blue. The Press talks about anything and everything. They never shy away from a topic. Our association with the U.S. should put us in the blue-ish by default. Yet again, Puerto Rico is slandered by those who lack the research or the will to do educate themselves with truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.167.40 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. All we do is restate what people have already said and compile it into an encyclopedia. If you want to know, ask RSF, not us, and stop trying to say we slandered your country, hypocritically slandering us in the process. --Djwings 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Joy [shallot] 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, who else would they survey? Governments?? Even North Korea is going to claim they have a free press. Besides, the survey takes more into account than government interference. Organized crime and terrorism are bound to have an effect upon US ranking, along with the UK, etc. -- SwissCelt 00:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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? --Uncle Ed (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. --Joy [shallot] 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, it would be nice if this article went into more detail on the criteria used for rating. Even if that detail is made available on the website (and I have no idea if it is), having it here in this article would both be helpful to the reader and aid in our NPOV presentation. -- SwissCelt 00:24, 7 August 2005 (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. --Joy [shallot]

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. --Prosfilaes 23:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you compare the rankings to actual *laws* and *constitutional rights* in countries, the U.S. would rank much higher than 48. Many of the countries listed above the U.S. have specific prohibitions on freedom of speech that would be unconstitutional in the U.S. Canada, for example, has seized and censored publications being imported the country, including comic books, and gay and lesbian material from the U.S., while in the U.S. such a thing would only happen for something like child pornography.

I agree that RWB/RSF should better document their evaluation criteria. Lippard (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High US ranking

I'm a little surprised at the US's high ranking on the table. Tabloids aside, I would have though the UK, for example, was obviously freer (though still greatly lacking). Spain too. Chameleon 14:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's irrelevant; this is not a list of press freedom, it's a list of who Reporters Without Borders thought had more freedom. If you want to know why, go to the primary sources. It might have something to do with the fact that the US has an explicit guarentee of press freedom that the UK lacks; for example, the Pentagon Papers would have been illegal to print in the UK.

Oh yeah, and there was really no need to add derogatory, information-free jabs at old, responded-to comments on this page. All it does is inflame passions.--Prosfilaes 06:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The libel laws in the UK would seem to me to make its press freedom much lower than the U.S., which is why in the U.S. we can read Craig Unger's House of Saud and Rachel Ehrenfeld's Funding Evil, while those books can't be sold in the UK. Lippard (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

- The major difference between the USA and the two European nations mentioned is that ETA in Spain and the IRA and protestant paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland all threaten journalists, lowering the perceived level of freedom. This is not a government only record. Average Earthman 18:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ETA is not a paramilitary group

I have switched for two times the term “paramilitary” to the term “terrorist” regarding ETA.

Spain is not Colombia, here don’t exist paramilitary groups.

In ETA don’t exist military hierarchy, there are not Generals, sgts. or captains in ETA.

ETA have not uniform, they have not military basis or large training facilities, they have not garrisons. They shot in the back civilians while dressing a Nike shoes, blue-jeans and a T-shirt, for instance.

ETA attacks unarmed civilians, and also military personal, but when they are disarmed having a ride with his wife a saturday afternoon, for instance. ETA is included in the international list of terrorist organizations. Their tactics are classical terrorism, i.e. trying to impose their dogmas by terror. Thus, they threaten and kill journalist who wrote against them, and hence the low rank of Spain in freedom for journalism.

The Spanish Army does not act against ETA, but the National Police does. ETA is a police issue, not a military conflict.

Calling ETA “paramilitary group” is not just incorrect and fake, but also outraging. This is not suitable for the Wikipedia.

They are described in the Wikipedia article on ETA as a paramilitary group, and on the paramilitary article as such. Average Earthman 23:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Really? So I give clear evidences on why ETA is not a paramilitary group(look in a dictionary what a paramilitary group is) and your answer is that ETA is described as a military group in the Wikipedia? The Wikpedia can say that the Moon is made on cheese, but this does not mean that the statament is true. The Wikipedia article on ETA is wrong, and I have a lot of work to do.

as Jmabel says on the ETA talk page Terrorism is listed under words we should avoid and as Mtiedemann says his edit summary on the ETA page the term paramilitary does not exclude charges of terrorism so paramilitary is a solid term to use. O'Dubhghaill 15:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The other alternative as used by the BBC News is 'militant'. The BBC only uses the word 'terrorist' in quotations. Average Earthman 18:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the ranking

I have noticed that the ranking of the countries was not exactly the same in the other languages in wich this article appears. The english and the portuguese versions of the list are the same, of October 16 2004. The french and spanish versions are the same but they don't have a date. I don't know which version of those two is the most recent. A correction seems necessary. Thank you!

Well, you could have tried the links at the bottom of the page that take you to the RSF website and compared the tables. Since it's an annual thing, and we aren't in October 2005 yet, the latest (3rd annual report) is the one from 2004. The one on French Wikipedia is the 2nd annual report. Average Earthman 07:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On French Wikipedia the date is explicitly stated now, and up to date. The new table that lists the all rankings since 2002 is now imported onto English Wikipedia from French Wikipedia, and has been taken too by Korean Wikipedia, and others.

The years of rankings are clear now. And the complete set allows comparing them, and know immediately if the ranking is still the latest one or not. The yearly report and ranking is published in early november.

Instead of complaining there for those editions of Wikipedia that are not updated, correct them, and include the updated table!

It is simple to import the table because it is in a separate subpage included as a template: if your edition of Wikipedia uses the 3-letter templates for ISO country codes, the country names will instantly be translated, and all you'll have todo is to edit the table to replace the decimal separator, and the few table headers.

The color coding was actually computed from a spreadsheet using the indice values (to avoid errors). You can immediately see which indice values are used to delimit the color by looking at the table.

The position in the table reports the ranking number as seen in the original report. Note that the original report does not give any signification to the relative order of two countries with the same indice: they are just sorted alphabetically. In this combined table however, two countries with the same ranking are sorted according to the indice they have in the previous last known reports. This makes some presentation difference but the ranking number is still unchanged. 83.193.159.74 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The article still lacks information (facts) about RSF/RWB. After severaltalks on French Wikipedia, the controversial elements are now in a separate section, at the bottom of the article. And the other information (locations, list of reports and publications) are now listed and gives a better view about RSF/RWB activities. I'd like to include the list of the other 14 organizations, and a list of journalists or papers with which RSF/RWB works to compute the yearly ranking, butI don't know where to find this data.

For now there are still controversial information in the English version, too near from the factual definition. I think that the French edition is now more informative, and clearly separates the controversial elements from the verified facts. The current English edition now lacks most of the verified information you can find in the French version. 83.193.159.74 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

Reporters without Borders a fraud?

The introductory section of this entry seems to take Reporters without Borders at face value, but perhaps the organization deserves a closer look. Are more interested agendas at work beneath the benign surface of the organization? One reason to look closer is the reported link between RSF (the Paris-based organization's French acronym) and another benign sounding organiztion linked to powerful interests: the U.S. government agency known as the National Endowment for Democracy.

According to "The Reporters without Borders Fraud", an article by Salim Lamrani posted on the Z Magazine website on May 13, 2005, "Mr. Robert Ménard, secretary general of the RSF for twenty years, has confessed to receiving financing from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that depends on the U.S. Department of State, whose principal role is to promote the agenda of the White House for the entire world. Ménard was indeed very clear. 'We indeed receive money from the NED. And that hasn’t posed any problem'."

An international organization receiving money from a U.S. government agency dedicated since its founding to furthering U.S. interests if not democracy abroad, is unlikely to be free of U.S. government influence.

Edit by 68.232.250.167 on the 17 of May, 2005

I didn't cut the above text because it's wrong, per se. If there is a reputable link behind RSF and the US Government and some consider it evidence of fraud, it's probably worth adding to the article. But that text is non-encyclopedic in tone and clearly POV in color. Z Magazine needs to be linked, and a link to the article would be nice. Other sources would be nice, beyond one magazine article.--Prosfilaes 04:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)--Prosfilaes 04:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

- The readdition is still very POV (and also rather hard to follow). Accusing RSF of never going against US interests is clearly over the top given a number of complaints it has raised against the US. I feel it should be written in a reporting manner - that others have raised questions about the impartiality of RSF due to its funding sources. Average Earthman 08:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia in the business of repeating facts from sources that are neither NPOV nor particularly reliable? Zmag is avowedly left-wing, and does not belong as a legitimate source. - Jackson

So? Fox News is very right wing, and yet used as a reference/source numerous times on Wikipedia. If Z Magazine has criticism on RSF, then maybe its viewpoint deserves a paragraph or a reference in the Criticisms section. NPOV does not mean that avowedly left wing viewpoints should not be mentioned. — Adhemar 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adhemar , you are out to lunch. The table is clearly biased in the other direction. They single out America and Isreal for special attention because they hate America and Israel. They have an anti-American and anti-Israeli agenda. That is not what they were designed to do but that is what has happened. They obviously do not do what the state department wants. They were created to enhance free speech throughout the world and with American funding but from looking at what they say and do they are not controlled by the American state department at all.

What this article needs is to be removed from Wikipedia as propaganda. This does not belong in an encyclopedia.

[edit] 2005 List

Could someone please update this list? This is the old 2004 one, there's a new one out now. 151.205.183.82 01:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFS?

Is there a reason RFS redirects to this? I understand the French abbreviation is RSF, but I'm just wondering if there is a reason for this. Drunkasian 16:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

True! Corrected. Now RFS redirects to Remote File System, until there are other known uses of the acronym (in this case the redirect will need to be converted to a disambiguation page).

Note that RSF is also the official Spanish acronym for RWB (it may be important for use in US where Spanish is the second language, and RWB is probably better known under its official Spanish name). I'll add itto the existing disambiguation page. 83.193.159.74 13:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coloured Chart

What is the relvance of the coloured blocks on the chart? Epeeist smudge 14:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

An immediate visual indicator of the ranking, which we don't appear to have bothered giving a legend for. Average Earthman 14:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the table

The Table has now CHAD flag icon, instead it says "Flag of Chad. We should fix this. JP 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems at either Wikipedia or your connection or system. It's better now.--Prosfilaes 17:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the 10th entry, that of Slovenia, isn't formatted properly because it doesn't quite work as a table. I would fix this, but I'm not too sure how to modify the template appropriately. --Robbie aka Zoqaeski 12:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Hi! We are seeking impartial reviewers for our article. If you would be willing to help out, please come visit us! Kyaa the Catlord 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel (occupied territories) vs. Palestine

What is the difference betwen the category "Israel (occupied territories)" and "Palestine"?

---mnw2000

I suspect these are the territories that were captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967, but are not currently under the nominal auspices of the Palestinian National Authority - e.g. the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank. However, this is just my guess at what the RWB mean by this. Average Earthman 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact it would be more correct, Reporters Without Borders calls it "Palestinian Authority" not Palestine. Read the website. As far as "occupied territories", it refers to the Israeli-administered parts of the West Bank (not the Golan Heights). The Palestinian Authority part refers to the land given to them by Israel since 1993 in hopes of peace (which we are yet to see). They have jurisdiction over certain areas.

Please make sure to have it changed to Palestinian Authority, like the way it is written on their website. --Shamir1 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haiti

Some apologist for RSF continues to erase the critique on its activities in Haiti and the information posted in regards to RSF in Iraq. The articles with this information have been cited. I hope this vandalism will stop.

(VIk)

[edit] anti-Haiti Vanadals

The RSF apologists for activities in Haiti and Iraq have struck again. They deleeted posts once more today. (VIK)

Please use proper sources for all claims. One does not mention RSF and one is in Spanish, requiring at least a translation. Also, do not present criticisms as the truth, when they are allegations. Haitis is mentioned in a npov way.Ultramarine 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of these sources talk about RSF. Why do you keep deleeting the posts? Do you now want criticism of RSF's activities in Iraq/Palestine and Haiti? What are you covering up? Why do you erase the information on RSF ignoring the murder of Abdias Jean?

See above.Ultramarine 11:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of 2006

1 Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands 0.50
5 Czech republic 0.75
6 Estonia, Norway 2.00
8 Slovakia, Switzerland 2.50
10 Hungary, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia 3.00
14 Belgium, Sweden 4.00
16 Austria, Bolivia, Canada 4.50
19 Bosnia and Hercegovina, Denmark, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago 5.00
23 Benin, Germany, Jamaica 5.50
26 Namibia 6.00
27 Lithuania, United Kingdom 6.50
29 Costa Rica 6.67
30 Cyprus 7.50
31 South Korea 7.75
32 Greece, Mauritius 8.00
34 Ghana 8.50
35 Australia, Bulgaria, France, Mali 9.00
39 Panama 9.50
40 Italy 9.90
41 El Salvador, Spain 10.00
43 Taiwan 10.50
44 South Africa 11.25
45 Cape Verde, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro 11.50
49 Chile 11.63
50 Israel 12.00
51 Japan 12.50
52 Dominican Republic 12.75
53 Botswana, Croatia, Tonga, United States of America 13.00
57 Uruguay 13.75
58 Fiji, Hong Kong, Poland, Romania 14.00
62 Central African Republic, North Cyprus, Guinee-Bissau, Honduras 14.50
66 Madagascar, Togo 15.00
68 Ecuador 15.25
69 Nicaragua 15.50
70 Burkina Faso, Kosovo, Lesotho 16.00
73 Republic of the Congo, Kuwait 17.00
75 Brazil 17.17
76 Argentina 17.30
77 Mauritania, Senegal, United Arab Emirates 17.50
80 Albania, Qatar 18.00
82 Paraguay 18.25
83 East Timor 18.50
84 Liberia 19.00
85 Moldova 19.17
86 Mongolia 19.25
87 Haiti 19.50
88 Tanzania 19.82
89 Georgia 21.00
90 Guatemala 21.25
91 Angola 21.50
92 Malaysia 22.25
93 Comoros, Zambia 22.50
95 Niger, Seychelles 24.50
97 Morocco 24.83
98 Bhutan, Côte d'Ivoire, Turkey 25.00
101 Armenia, Malawi 25.50
103 Indonesia, Sierra Leone 26.00
105 India, Unkraine 26.50
107 Lebanon 27.00
108 Cambodia 27.25
109 Guinea, Jordan 27.50
111 Bahrein 28.00
112 Cameroon, Peru 28.25
114 Gabon 28.50
115 Venezuela 29.00
116 Uganda 29.83
117 Tajikistan 30.00
118 Kenya 30.25
119 United States of America (extre-territorial) 31.50
120 Nigeria 32.23
121 Djibouti 33.00
122 Thailand 33.50
123 Kyrgyzstan 34.00
124 Chad 35.50
125 Burundi 39.83
126 Algeria 40.00
127 Swaziland 40.50
128 Kazakhstan, Rwanda 41.00
130 Afghanistan 44.25
131 Colombia 44.75
132 Mexico 45.83
133 Egypt 46.25
134 Palestinian Authority 46.75
135 Azerbaijan, Israel (extra-territorial) 47.00
137 Bangladesh, Equatorial Guinea 48.00
139 Sudan 48.13
140 Zimbabwe 50.00
141 Sri Lanka 50.75
142 Democratic Republic of the Congo, Philippines 51.00
144 Maldives, Somalia 51.25
146 Singapore 51.50
147 Russia 52.50
148 Tunisia 53.75
149 Gambia, Yemen 54.00
151 Belarus 57.00
152 Libya 62.50
153 Syria 63.00
154 Iraq 66.83
155 Vietnam 67.25
156 Laos 67.50
157 Pakistan 70.33
158 Uzbekistan 71.00
159 Nepal 73.50
160 Ethiopia 75.00
161 Saudi Arabia 76.00
162 Iran 90.8
163 China 94.00
164 Burma 94.75
165 Cuba 95.00
166 Eritrea 97.50
167 Turkmenistan 98.50
168 North Korea 109.00

I, hereby, support the text list. I contend that it offers options. However, it does seem to need some typo. editing.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reporters_Without_Borders&diff=83412977&oldid=83396739 >.

Is anyone working on the map?

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean to re-add the text list to the article:

Strongly disagree. Oh, come on! What use would the text list over the coloured template table. I'm pretty sure Daanschr only added the 2006 text list < diff > as a temporary solution until somebody updated the coloured template table. ThomasStrohmann has done a great job there, so the text list would not serve any purpose any longer. — Adhemar 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fewer

I think the image should have the word "fewer" instead of "less"...its pedantic i know, but i dont see how once can change the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.209.204 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

the level of bias is unbelievable. This list should be removed from wikipedia as false. This site is not supposed to be about political grandstanding and propaganda disinformation.

[edit] Pakistan Press Freedom

Pakistan so low in ranking...........are u guys sure?.....this list is stupid!.........goto pakistan and see for your self! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mm11 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

You may be right - it may be incorrect. However, this article is just on the Reporters without Borders organization. *They* rank Pakistan (and all the others) at that level, and so the article lists their list. If another organization were to produce a list, and that list got widespread currency, I'm sure that list would be in Wikipedia, too. AshleyMorton 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba criticism

"Some people sympathetic with Cuba are highly critical of an apparent RWB anti-Castro bias."

You don't have to be sympathetic to Cuba to recognise the bias in the RWB activities mentioned, that's what led me to write this comment. Do RWB act against any other nation using these methods, and with such frequency? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.110.1.40 (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

So it's anti-Cuba and anti-America and anti-UK? Maybe it's pro-journalists? I'm sorry, but but I fail to see any particular bias here. They are based in Europe, receive US support, an EU award and they STILL bite the hand that feeds them? Seriously, and without trolling, is there any dictatorship that hasn't tried to suppress the press? Also, national interest and the Patriot Act have seriously hurt US freedoms in general, not just journalists, so no surprise either. And ALL journalism has bias, some are conservative, some are liberal and that is just the way it is. It's a naive to admit that someone will report what he sees without imparting some sort personal opinion. Galf 08:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"In addition, RWB receives free publicity from Saatchi and Saatchi, a member of the world's fourth-largest marketing and public relations conglomerate, Publicis Groupe. A major Publicis client is Bacardi, which has been at the forefront of financing anti-Castro groups."

What kind of crazy conspiracy theory is this? Is there the slightest shred of evidence that RWB are acting under orders from Bacardi? Why should they? Because Publicis give them free advertising space????? This is precisely the kind of unsourced insinuation that Wikipedia doesn't need.Raoulduke47 10:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed

The critizism uses sources from 2005 which seem to be opinional and/or which have an agenda, which isn't neutral journalism. If the critizism is substantiated, there should be follow up after 2005 un more neutral medie. Please quote these media as well as their comments on the claims made against the RWB. Also, the RWB does publish critizism, which is not in the interest of the US. Therefore the critizism directed against the RWB in an enzyclopedia ask for some more research, which is missing here. --84.150.84.160 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the critizism in the German, French and Chinese wikipedia. The lack of follow up and the structure of that critizism is quite interesting. If RWB is an annoyance to despotic regimes, attacking the credibility of RWB surely is an more efficient way to weaken the RWB than trying to show, that the reports of the RWB directed against these regimes are wrong. I am not sure, that desinformation sneaks into the wikipedia. Could anyone dig deeper into this? Already the methodical analysis of the criticism against the RWB shows, that it shoud be verified more thoroughly. --84.150.84.160 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above opinion. As it is clear from this discussion page, many people rather think that RWB is an anti-american association. Their judgment (as anyone else's of course) may be questionable and I wouldn't have included in the article body, at the same time I don't see a good reason why roughly a third of the article is about criticism of the cuban regime toward this association, leaving the reader with the impression that RWB is, more or less, a branch of CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.247.240 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Is this article about the RWB?

The text is dominated by Cuban criticism. With all due respect to Cuba, it is only one of 162 countries. What is "According to Granma"? Don't you have UN sources to write about UN activities?Xx236 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Others would not consider this as "criticism" but as praise! Tazmaniacs 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost in translation

I would like to add the following to the article, but I am not sure where to fit it in.

The English title "Reporters Without Borders" is not an exact translation of the French original. "frontières", and also the German "Grenzen", means "limits", "restrictions", as well as literally "International borders". The translation "Borders" loses this secondary meaning.

Any suggestions how to work this in?

BTW, Médecins Sans Frontières also suffers from the same loss of meaning in translation problem. Here it is quite clear that they were trying to imply they were doctors who would accept no limitations to where they would go. TiffaF 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to work this, as RWB is the English name of the organization. You might however create a special section on this lost of sense (of which I was not aware: isn't a border a limit, whether in English, German or French? Or does only the word "Frontier" carries this tone in English?) Tazmaniacs 15:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the piece you want to add about lost sense is ok to add, but I'd like to re-emphasize that, in fact, "borders" in English does carry some of the meaning that its French and German translations do, however it is just not as obvious in English that a border is also a limit, etc. In other words, "frontières" makes a Frnech person think a little bit more about limits and restrictions, in addition to real national borders, whereas the English "borders" makes a person first think about real borders, but any length of thought on the subject (along with a proper command of the English language) should make the person also realize the sense of limits and restrictions. To summarize, it's ok to note this interesting linguistic point in the article, however I don't believe it's a significant problem for the actual name of the organization in English. Arcades 11:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dudes, the word you are looking for is "boundaries" (duh). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.12.139 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

At the moment this section is very badly formed and cited. The "Granma" source was very unreliable and biased, so I don't think it can be used - it also looks very shoddy too. We need fresh, objective sources or most of the text will have to be pulled. The bit about Bacardi smacked of original research and was rather tenuous.

As to the lead (which I have removed), it was irrelevant towards claims of bias. Receiving funding from a group doesn't automatically prove RSF is not objective - that's original research again. John Smith's 09:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove whole, sourced, portions of text without discussion. Your POV is only your POV. Information about origins of funding of any group whatsoever is of course relevant in an entry about this or this organization. Please discuss point by point the sentences with which you have problems instead of deleting three paragraphs at the same time. Thanks Tazmaniacs 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already made the point about the source I removed. It is not credible because of the website it is posted on. You need credible sources to make points, which the website clearly is not. Please address that point - I've already made it.

The point about Publicis is original research and very POV, because it doesn't matter who one of their clients are.

Funding is relevant if it goes in a section about funding (which would have to be NPOV and not made simply to insert the extract in question). As it stands the point about the National Endowment for Democracy is not relevant in its current section, because having funding from there is not a point of criticism. John Smith's 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you have the Le Monde criticism in English? Otherwise I think it's not a good idea to use it as a source - it's unfair on readers who don't speak French to understand the criticism. John Smith's 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've just add sources to NPOV the entry based on your criticisms, and all you do is again delete everything. Please take it point by point, it will be a lot easier for everybody. Now, concerning your problems with French sources, you may find it "unfair" to use French sources for a French NGO, but this is in line with WP:CS. Furthermore, you may find a partial translation using automatic translation programs. Finally, concerning Granma, the latter is credible when it is speaking about itself ! Finally, I will heed your advice on the "Funding" section as I agree with you. Tazmaniacs 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, whether or not the "Granma" paper itself is credible, the website that the article appears on is not. Don't you understand the difference? You can't use a members aol page to detail serious allegations like that. That's why I put the citation tags up to encourage someone to come up with real sources.

Also please stop reverting all changes I make unilaterally. I'm trying to improve this page, but your stubborn attitude is not helping. John Smith's 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do it point by point. You can't claim that Granma did not qualify RWB as it did! You can disagree with them (I personally do, so what?) I will revert wholesake deletion of paragraphs, as this is no way to proceed. Beside, you may try to find some more information on RWB, as you don't seem to be aware of the debate lifted by this NGO in France. Sorry if it's "unfair", but there's a clear reason why I do not edit Japanese articles. Tazmaniacs 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What excatly is the "source" that you dispute? You deleted several, including RWB, so I am kind of confused. Sorry. Hope we find consensus! Tazmaniacs 16:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How lucky you are that an anonymous user just made edits to which you would surely agree! Tazmaniacs 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you check the IP you'll see its in a different country from me - you can ask an admin to have a look if you want.

I am doing it "point-by-point", but for some reason you don't appear to be able to understand what I have to say. The "Granma" source is not on an official website - it looks like someone's personal homepage. That is not a verifiable source for the purposes of a citation. Also Granma itself is a highly POV production anyway, because it is a government production in a country where the media is heavily censored. So you need to come up with something more NPOV than that.

On the point about the free advertising from Saatchi and Saatchi, as I said you can't keep that section. It is highly POV and original research to try to establish a link between them and Bacardi - the explanation given in the article is not a direct link. It's like saying "Joe Bloggs lives next to the guy who cleans Tony Blair's car" - there is no credible relationship between Joe Bloggs and Tony Blair, just as there is none between RWB and Bacardi. The source cited doesn't even mention RWB!

For the French article, WP:CS also says non-English sources need a translation. If you want to keep the source and section you should work on one for the article, translating the whole thing into English. I would be happy to tidy it up for you afterwards if you're not sure on a few things. We can then put it on the talk page somewhere and see about putting it into a citation.

On the issue of funding, a "funding and criticism" section is not appropriate. Any points on funding need to be separate from the criticism bit, and they need to be NPOV with a full break-down of funding not just cherry-picking a few things that go on. As it is, this article does not establish why funding from the National Endowment for Democracy or the French government is a point of criticism. I will move them to a new section if you want. John Smith's 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem concerns massive deletions. I'll try to answer you point by point:

concerning Bacardi, I agree with you.
concerning the NED, please find an automatic translation program (they are free - I will not cite any brands) and read the article. Of course one attracts suspicion when one is funded by the NED — or are you not aware of the conditions in which the NED was created & in the multiple allegations it has faced? Please note that I've NPOVed this part by putting a French source, which I'm sure you don't mind in this specific case.
WP:CS says quotes need translation. There are no specific quotes. Again, find an automatic translation program, and I'll be pleased to correct any mistake or lack of translation done by the machine.
Concerning the ref n°10, well, it is refering to a Granma article so it is acceptable. If you want to challenge it, please give a proof that the Granma did not write this. Furthermore, of course Granma is acceptable if cited in this context, as it gives the newspaper's and henceforth Cuba's quasi-official position on this. Tazmaniacs 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you agree with me on Bacardi, why is the quote about Saatchi and Saatchi still there - what does that have to do with Cuba?

It is not for us to decide whether the NED is suspicious or not in terms of funding links - it is original research for us to say so. Thus I've moved the section to a new "funding" category, whilst also trying to tidy up the English.

It is not for me to prove anything in reference to the Granma article - it is on an amateur website so cannot be verified in its current forum. Besides you can't prove a negative - I can't prove Granma did not write that article. Also as I said before, the propaganda mouthpiece of a government is not a reliable source in substantiating controverisal facts.

So either please try to find some reliable sources or leave it alone. John Smith's 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

First, when you make an edit, please put an honest edit summary — or just don't bother. You did not only improve the English, but also removed new sources (one from France 5, which is quite mainstream enough, and another from RWB themselves!). Second, yes, you might not care, but origins of funding of an organization, be it by advertisements, subsides or whatever, is an important fact which should be registered, and is in any other articles where such funding is known. RWB is honest enough to give at least an idea of where their funding come from. Third, you might think that being funded by the NED is not controversial, but Le Monde diplomatique and other quoted sources disagree with you. I need not remember you the links between the NED, the USAID and the CIA. Finally, of course you can prove that Granma did not write that article, all you need is look up in a library the archives of Granma and see if such an article did not exist. It appears it exist, so what? Tazmaniacs 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add new sources, stop undoing my changes in terms of layout, the need for a new source for Granma, etc. Why not discuss your changes first? Go on - I bet you can't resist not editing the page and making changes without disucssing and getting consensus first.

"I need not remember you the links between the NED, the USAID and the CIA" No, you don't because that's original research! Please stop fitting conspiracies into this article. John Smith's 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting sources first. For instance, you deleted this source from France 5 and added a "fact tag" instead. This is bordering on vandalism, especially when you've been warned not to delete sources without discussion. You also have deleted the RWB source (!!!) here:

"They lost in July 2003 their UN approved NGO status for one year, as a result of their uncivilized behavior during the opening session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva [REFERENCE: Reporters Without Borders suspended for one year from UN commission on human rights, Reporters Without Borders, 24 July 2003 (English) (URL accessed on 9 August 2007) ]

Start by playing by the rules, and we'll be able to discuss whatever. But when you don't even admit RWB sources, what can I do? Tazmaniacs 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Taz, if you keep reverting the changes that I make I'm not likely to go through and keep the things you want. I've done my best to keep the new sources you added this time - please do not revert if I've missed something. Also please do not insist on keeping the "Granma" source. You should be able to find something independent to verify anything it says. John Smith's 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit, it's lot better. I just wonder how you want us to back-up the sentence "Korda's daughter declared to Granma that "Reporters Without Borders should call themselves Reporters Without Principles." if you delete the Granma reference. Take another example: "X said to the New York Times such and such", but no NYT source are allowed. Doesn't this sound strange to you? Review WP:RS again: "The reliability of a source depends on the context. I'm sure you could argue that Granma is unreliable for info about, say, the Vietnam War. But surely Granma is reliable about info concerning an interview made to Granma? Tazmaniacs 12:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Granma is a reliable enough source on points such as "promote subversion on the island and coordinate plans with RWB". John Smith's 13:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is when it is to state that: "According to Cuban diplomats cited by Granma..." See WP:Attribution. I'm sure we're all wise enough to decide on ourselves if, or not, to believe Granma ! But that's beside the point: the fact is that Cuban diplomats have protested against that, be it true or no. Note that by putting the original source I've, again, done what you requested earlier. Tazmaniacs 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did ask for a proper source, but I also commented that I didn't think Granma was reliable enough. Wikipedia isn't a place for silly allegations, even if they are sourced and attributed. A causal reader would have no idea how biased Granma is. So I don't think we should be giving them a platform for their views. Also I don't even trust them on the supposed quote the girl gave after the trial - they might have made the quote up for all we know, though I might let it lie. However on the conspiracy bit I think it has to go - as I said wikipedia is not a platform for groups to express their views. John Smith's 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an entry on Granma, just as there is one on NED or USAID. Tazmaniacs 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But we are not quoting either the NED or USAID on a highly controversial point such as accusing an NGO of working to overthrow a government - indeed we're not quoting them on anything. John Smith's 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only place where Granma is quoted is after that sentence: "Korda's daughter declared to Granma that "Reporters Without Borders should call themselves Reporters Without Principles." How would you expect to give a source to that without providing the article in Granma where she said that? Tazmaniacs 18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the only place it is quoted. I'm talking about where it says According to Granma, Ménard and several RWB members received prison terms in Cuba. According to Cuban diplomats cited by Granma, Orlando Gutiérrez, founder of the Cuban Democratic Office in Miami, received over one million USD from USAID to promote subversion on the island and coordinate plans with RWB. That implies RWB is working with other people to "promote subversion". That is a very serious allegation and should not be taken at face value - it should be deleted. At this point I'm not going to do into the other quote you mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Menard on torture

I've reinstated much of the Menard quote on torture (although I've taken out the first two lines originally included). These remarks by Menard are directly relevant to his views on the use of torture, addressing what circumstances justify torture. It's also fairer to Menard to keep this info, so that users of wikipedia have the full context of what he's talking about.

If I was a carpenter 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section is "Controversy and Campaigns," and this quote was originally included to satisfy the former. The referenced article argues that Menard is, in fact, supportive of torture.

I personally very much disagree with this reading of his quote. It seemed to me that Menard is not at all saying that torture is legitimate or justified in any particular case; rather, he seems quite torn on the issue. He admits "I don't know what to think" and "It's a real question." He seems, to me, to be merely empathizing with the families of kidnap victims, admitting, "I, if my daughter were kidnapped there would be no limit ... on torture." Yet he takes care to preface all these statements with "we are not here in the world of ideas," clearly implying that, in such a world of ideas (i.e. ideologically, morally, in a perfect and just world), torture would of course not be an option. To summarize, I'd say Menard is admitting an understanding of the heated and emotionally-driven "reasoning" which takes place when people authorize torture. He admits he'd be susceptible to it, himself, if one of his family members were in danger. Yet, he strongly implies that this is of course not just, not moral, as it does not fit in "a world of ideas" and "principles."

However, and unfortunately, arguing for this interpretation would constitute original research, as seemingly no one has bothered to publish an article with this seemingly (to me, at least) straightforward and more reasonable interpretation of the quote. It should be noted that the contrary interpretation stems from a very small pool of original sources, and then was seemingly grabbed at by a number of sensationalist writers. But, since my statement was original research, I applaud "If I was a carpenter" for taking my assertion out.

However, recall, this is a "Controversy" section. The reason for the quote in the first place is to illustrate some sort of controversy. The article should therefore point out why the quote is so controversial. Specifically, it is controversial because some have interpreted the quote as Menard being supportive of torture. I think this is a very much necessary statement to preface the quote with, in order to expain the reason for the controversy. It is significantly less POV than the assertion which was there before I edited, which was something like "Menard says torture is acceptable in some cases." This was much more POV than saying "some interpret it that way." Please don't remove the prefacing statement again without some discussion. Thanks, 65.183.135.40 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It’s the clause "which some have interpreted as being supportive of it" that is problematic.

It’s not a matter of “interpretation”; Menard clearly backs the use of torture, saying “if my daughter were kidnapped there would be no limit, I tell you, I tell you, there would be no limit on torture.” (Hey, what father could do more?) There’s no ambiguity there and certainly no need for interpretation. It stands on its own. The use of the word “interpretation” itself provides an ambiguity that’s not there in Menard’s statement, and surely we don’t want to undermine the page by creating opaqueness when his statements are clear? I don’t like wikipedia’s term “weasel words”, but essentially this is what it refers to – the use of language that spins statements one way or the other. So, on the grounds of factual accuracy and spin the clause has got to go.

If I was a carpenter (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Carpenter is completely correct, IMO. Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Tazmaniacs. If I was a carpenter (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the clause does favor a specific interpretation and so should be removed. However, I continue to disagree that the statement paints Menard as "clear[ly]" supporting torture. The point is that it's his daughter; of course he would stop at nothing in that situation. He doesn't say anything about the ethics of the thing in general; rather, he may be doing little more than admitting he would do wrong. I would steal, assault someone, even torture or kill to save a loved one, but at the same time I am more or less completely opposed to anyone else acting in the same way, and view it as morally wrong. I think it's this dichotomy and conflict between intellect and emotion, very human, which Menard is trying to express. So it's not really clear to me, given the rest of the quote, that he's pro-torture or otherwise. Maybe he is... I know nothing of the man other than this article. In any case, neither my reading or yours is terribly relevant to the purpose of this discussion page (so why am I still writing...). You might find it informative that I only wrote the bit about "which some have interpreted as being supportive of" as a pov-reduction of an earlier statement which bluntly asserted he was "in favor of torture" or something to that effect. I wasn't trying to sneak in my own opinion, but rather to tone down an assertion which seemed (no offense) absurd. I would agree that it is best to have no such statement whatsoever, though, since apparently different people are reading the quote different ways (and it's a spoken quote translated from a different language => massive loss of meaning ;). Thank you for your edits.65.183.135.40 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Hi All

Ive been editing for a while but Im still a bit of a noob really. I would like (if no one minds) to remove "(mainland only)" which is next to China in the table but when I edit the section there is just a { { TABLE } } line. How can I access the table to edit it? Also anyone objet to me changing the table.?

CaptinJohn (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't agree to remove "(mainland only)". This indication is absolutely necessary. The country "People's Republic of China" consists of mainland, Hong Kong (handover in 1997), Macau(handover in 1999), and (arguably) Taiwan. However, in the table, Hong Kong and Taiwan can be found separately and ranked 61st and 32nd in 2007 respectively. So obviously the country which ranked 163 in 2007 is evaluated without Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is not consistent with the actual meaning of "PRC". Therefore the "mainland only" indicator is a must in order to avoid confusion. --Quest for Truth (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba bias

The Cuba section barely touches RWB's criticism of Cuba on press freedom. Instead, it focuses almost solely on tangential issues (copyright infringement, U.S. funding, UN NGO status, etc.). Clearly, more information about RWB's Cuba campaigns should be added. It's not hard to find. There are 1,870 pages about it on their website. Superm401 - Talk 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Name of the Reporters Without Borders

I am a Chinese and my first language is Chinese. I found that the Chinese name of Reporters Without Borders has been incorrectly stated, so I corrected it. However, someone who seems don't know Chinese language undo my correction. I want to clarify what is wrong. (Note that the content below contains Chinese characters)

"恐怖组织" is a term in simplified Chinese meaning "No Borders Reporters" (which is the official translation by RWB)
"无国界记者" is a term in simplified Chinese meaning "Terrorist Organization" (which is unlikely to be the Chinese name of RWB)
"無國界記者" is a term in traditional Chinese meaning the same as "无国界记者" (which can be confirmed by translating "无国界记者" from simplified Chinese to traditional Chinese by most software or web site providing this function)

I hope no more incorrect statement about the Chinese name of RWB in this article and the entire Wikipedia, thank you for everyone's attention. Quest for Truth (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What no criticism

And i don't mean the Cuban Government, where is the criticism of RWB supporting the "Journalists" who used their radio shows to incite the Rwandan Genocide and hate speach in general. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If this is true, it certainly belongs in the article. May I have a source? 65.183.135.231 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)