Anon user -- you are not using facts and you have no clue whatsoever how ludicrous your POV edits are. "Turkey is also given more credit as a democracy than it deserves." Who the *hell* are you to judge how much credit it deserves? That's not a fact, that's just your own opinion. When using the phrase "some believe" you have to be prepared to cite specific references, otherwise it's just a weasel expression to push your own POV. And you have to separate facts from opinions, which you have been unable to do. And "western European" is clearly used by Freedom House with its political sense, not its geographical. Aka the countries of the once-western bloc. User:Aris Katsaris 14:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) ok im a new user and did not read the guide. anyway if i want to point out that this organization is biased how do i say it? or you can say it for me. i think it is ridiculus that they give US full points despite the obvious recent problems. and i just compared turkey with other countries, and they have given turkey a lot more credit considering their military intervenes with election as well as turkey not even recognizing the existance of a kurdish people (20%) of population in turkey. clearly this is a biased organizaion. i dont need sources to prove it, logic is enough. : You can point that some feel that the organization is biased, but you have to give sources for that: which are the people that so feel it? Wikipedia is not meant just a place to voice *your* (or mine opinion) -- it's a place to detail facts. If there's a significant amount of people sharing your opinion, you can do the research and discover them. Then we can reference the objections to Freedomhouse alongside a link to examples of these objections. : You talk about the military interventions, and yet don't you see that they are rating Turkey as *partly* free? Do you see any other country that's actually *better* than Turkey being rated as lower? Don't you know how many countries don't just have military interference but rather full-fledged dictatorships? : Yeah, Turkey doesn't accept the existence of the Kurdish nation, it calls them Mountain Turks instead. But it nonetheless allows them to vote, and it allows them to use their language. That's a large extent of political and civil rights which is more than many minorities have worldwide. And again Turkey is rated as only "partly free". : You think it's ridiculous they give US full points: Tough -- they explain the methodology they are using in their site. The "civil rights abuses" you mention in a handful of districts in the USA aren't enough to diminish its grade -- why do you feel they should be? Have you *seen* what other nations are like? For example, in Greece which gets a 1/2 (as opposed to the 1/1 of the USA), do you know that books can be banned because they insulted the state religion? Can you imagine that thing happening in the USA? : Your grievances about the Freedomhouse's supposed bias in favour of USA are themselves parochial. Yeah, bad things happen in the USA. But you have no reason to feel they are happening to such an extent that it should be downgraded. User:Aris Katsaris 15:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) And yeah "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world" is indeed POV, which is why we are quoting what the source is, namely Freedomhouse itself. We are *saying* that's their own description for themselves. If you want, we can detail comments that other organizations or celebrities have for Freedomhouse also, again describing who's the one who held these opinions. But not your personal objections. User:Aris Katsaris 16:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) the abuses in US happened in a handful of districts i agree. but considering US electoral system that handful of problems changed the entire outcome of the elections. therefore using their own methodology. POLITICAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES CHECKLIST Political Rights Checklist A. Electoral Process 1. Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections? 2. Are the legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? 3. Are there fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling, and honest tabulation of ballots? you cannot say that the election is fair. if people are being barred from voting or their ballots are being disproportionatly cancelled. if election is not fair and this unfairness is actually affecting the outcome of presidency then you cannot say america is a perfect 1/1 democracy. im not suggesting putting it with n korea but its definitly NOT 1/1. and its a clear bias. :: If it's not 1/1 what is it then? Would you put it at 2/1, Since your objections mainly concern the political rights? That's the same level as Argentina where political rights are concerned. Read the article on Argentina: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/argentina.htm and see whether you feel the situation there is as good or as bad as in the USA. :its not fair for me to wait for somebody famous to point out FH 's flaw otherwise i cannot comment on their bias. what if no one sais anything. its still a clear flaw. any suggestion on this point? :: You can prove discrepancies between claims they make and factual truth. But you can't just argue "They should have rated US lower". Why? Because you say so? And how lower should they have rated? Argentina level at 2? Bolivia level at 3 where the elected president had to flee out of the country? Where exactly should they have put it? It's NOT a "clear flaw" when there's dispute about whether the flaw exists or not. User:Aris Katsaris 17:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) :turkey cannot be categorized as western europe and hungary east, because FH says countries are categorized by REGION not political or military alliances. if thats the case taiwan should also be in western europe.... do you agree? :: Nonsense. Western Europe had a certain political and historical meaning even though it. FH often categorizes regions by historical criteria -- even if geographically it doesn't make much sense. For example check out how in http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countries.htm#dropdown they even have Kyrgystan in the "Central and Eastern Europe" category. Why that? Because they see the world from the political perspective, and by "Central and Eastern Europe" they in reality mean the post-communist countries in Europe as well as the break-up nations of the Soviet Union. They group them together because they see the world from its political perspective. :: But now that you mentioned it *that* may be a good thing to mention about Freedomhouse, the way it groups nations. Give me a min and I'll add it in. User:Aris Katsaris 17:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) :im sure you are aware that US gov. tries to push turkey into the EU. a good way to this is by using think tanks like FH, suggesting here and there turkey is western europe. :: EU isn't as naive as that. Greece is also labelled as Western Europe, and yet geographically it's in the Southeast instead. *Cyprus* is labelled as Western Europe, and it's even further to the East. That's because they are using the political definition of Western Europe -- meaning the European nations that weren't in the Soviet sphere of influence. User:Aris Katsaris 17:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) the article is looking better now ( i like the judged part and that you removed the word fully democratic) to answer your question yes US should be 2. the difference between me an u is you compare it to other countries, whereas i compare these ratings with theories of democracy (which the main pillar is unversal sufferage) once this pillar is messed with, in my book its pretty far from a perfect score. im not talking about something little here, im talking about changing the outcome of who would be the country's leader! and its irrelevant what argentina does, they could move them up another notch as well if you dont want the US to be in the same category. the same argument goes for turkey as well, based on their behavior in comparison with theory of human rights. : In a grading system you *have* to compare it to other countries. In a 10-point or a 20-point system, USA might very well get a 2 rather than 1 in its political ratings. In the 7-point system it simply *doesn't( according to Freedomhouse's criteria. That it simply irks you that this is the case isn't a factual disagreement: you simply dislike the entirety of the system Freedomhouse is using. You claim the system is "biased"? Biased in favour of what? Biased in favour of Argentina, which is rated at 2 -- should we downgrade it to make room for the much more democratic USA? Biased in favour of Bolivia, which is rated at 3 and we should downgrade it to make room for Argentina? Should we also downgrade Bosnia which is rated at 4? But then what about Burundi? We should *also* downgrade it. : That you want more points in the scale isn't a real disagreement. as for it being in west europe it cannot be cultural reasons as you claim in the article, cannot be historical, because anatolia was always considered asia for thousands of years since alexander the great and before. only recently they are making it look like w europe. the reason can only be military and political alliance. if this is their basis then why israel is placed in the middle east?) i dont agree cyprus to be in western europe as well. tajikistan is in Asia, if FH wants to group cis countries together then it can make a separate category called cis. which brings me back to my previous argument that they are innacurate with definitions. : Turkey was part of NATO during the Cold War. Israel wasn't, and no part of it was in Europe. Western Europe was used as the opposite of Eastern Europe -- aka the American sphere of influence as opposed to the Soviet Sphere of influence. User:Aris Katsaris 18:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) by the way i just checked their website now while writing this and all the regions and countires were changed?!!! turkey was in the middle east now ... wats that about?! : I beg your pardon? No, go here: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countries.htm -- Turkey is still placed at Western Europe. go to yahoo, write freedom house, then click on the "FH country rating" on the left in the blue column you will see. by the way, if their system "has" to give US 1/1 then their system is biased. which means FH methodology is biased. : In what way are they biased, you still haven't shown it. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) in a country that the president is not fairly chosen, voters are barred or discounted, the main pillar of democracy is broken, therefore it cannot be an ideal democracy. you cannot convince any intelligent person that it still is an ideal democracy. 2+2=4. so dont bother replying and talking about bolivia, argentina. it is up to them to rectify their methods (that produce biased results) not up to me to give them suggestion . all i know is what democracy means, and what US status quo is. : Voters are "barred or discounted" -- because you say so? And was it done *against* the election laws that these voters were barred or discounted? As far as I know, no it wasn't. Yes, you may very well know what democracy means, and you may be better informed about the US -- but you still haven't shown a single factual inaccuracy or omission in Freedomhouse. And I definitely don't think you know the meaning of rating systems. A country doesn't need to be *perfect* in order to get a 1. It simply has to rate better than 2. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) : i cannot believe you think that discounting votes that actually changed the outcome of the presidency is a NOT major prolem deserving a demerit point. you said before who the "hell" am i to decide which country is what. well now i say who the hell is "FH" to decide that! just because they are backed with money and have a website does not make them more "right" "fair" or "intelligent". they are clearly wrong and biased. at least i understand what makes and does not make a democracy. :: FH is an organization notable enough to be described in article. The article doesn't *claim* as a fact that they are either right or fair or intelligent. It's you who wanted to claim the opposite, pushing your ludicrous POV version as if it was fact. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) and again, im tired or repeating myself, if they want nato countries together (they must say NATO) not western europe, its misleading (biased). get it???????? same goes with former soviet union. your continiuous naggin is not going to change world geography. the word region is geographic, does not define military alliances. :: No. "Biased" is not even a near-synonym for "misleading". You don't know the meaning of the words -- read a dictionary. "West Europe" did have a political meaning for decades and decades no matter how much you might like it to be differently. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) : im not bothering with this article anymore, its not important enough for my time. but think about what you are saying for your own sake. the brainwashing by media, government and so called "think tanks" is hindering you from thinking clearly. :: Which media, pray tell? Which government? Do you even know what country I'm from? User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Freedom_House:
Freedom_House
Freedom_House
Freedom House
Freedom House
Anon user -- you are not using facts and you have no clue whatsoever how ludicrous your POV edits are. "Turkey is also given more credit as a democracy than it deserves." Who the *hell* are you to judge how much credit it deserves? That's not a fact, that's just your own opinion. When using the phrase "some believe" you have to be prepared to cite specific references, otherwise it's just a weasel expression to push your own POV. And you have to separate facts from opinions, which you have been unable to do. And "western European" is clearly used by Freedom House with its political sense, not its geographical. Aka the countries of the once-western bloc. User:Aris Katsaris 14:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) ok im a new user and did not read the guide. anyway if i want to point out that this organization is biased how do i say it? or you can say it for me. i think it is ridiculus that they give US full points despite the obvious recent problems. and i just compared turkey with other countries, and they have given turkey a lot more credit considering their military intervenes with election as well as turkey not even recognizing the existance of a kurdish people (20%) of population in turkey. clearly this is a biased organizaion. i dont need sources to prove it, logic is enough. : You can point that some feel that the organization is biased, but you have to give sources for that: which are the people that so feel it? Wikipedia is not meant just a place to voice *your* (or mine opinion) -- it's a place to detail facts. If there's a significant amount of people sharing your opinion, you can do the research and discover them. Then we can reference the objections to Freedomhouse alongside a link to examples of these objections. : You talk about the military interventions, and yet don't you see that they are rating Turkey as *partly* free? Do you see any other country that's actually *better* than Turkey being rated as lower? Don't you know how many countries don't just have military interference but rather full-fledged dictatorships? : Yeah, Turkey doesn't accept the existence of the Kurdish nation, it calls them Mountain Turks instead. But it nonetheless allows them to vote, and it allows them to use their language. That's a large extent of political and civil rights which is more than many minorities have worldwide. And again Turkey is rated as only "partly free". : You think it's ridiculous they give US full points: Tough -- they explain the methodology they are using in their site. The "civil rights abuses" you mention in a handful of districts in the USA aren't enough to diminish its grade -- why do you feel they should be? Have you *seen* what other nations are like? For example, in Greece which gets a 1/2 (as opposed to the 1/1 of the USA), do you know that books can be banned because they insulted the state religion? Can you imagine that thing happening in the USA? : Your grievances about the Freedomhouse's supposed bias in favour of USA are themselves parochial. Yeah, bad things happen in the USA. But you have no reason to feel they are happening to such an extent that it should be downgraded. User:Aris Katsaris 15:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) And yeah "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world" is indeed POV, which is why we are quoting what the source is, namely Freedomhouse itself. We are *saying* that's their own description for themselves. If you want, we can detail comments that other organizations or celebrities have for Freedomhouse also, again describing who's the one who held these opinions. But not your personal objections. User:Aris Katsaris 16:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) the abuses in US happened in a handful of districts i agree. but considering US electoral system that handful of problems changed the entire outcome of the elections. therefore using their own methodology. POLITICAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES CHECKLIST Political Rights Checklist A. Electoral Process 1. Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections? 2. Are the legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? 3. Are there fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling, and honest tabulation of ballots? you cannot say that the election is fair. if people are being barred from voting or their ballots are being disproportionatly cancelled. if election is not fair and this unfairness is actually affecting the outcome of presidency then you cannot say america is a perfect 1/1 democracy. im not suggesting putting it with n korea but its definitly NOT 1/1. and its a clear bias. :: If it's not 1/1 what is it then? Would you put it at 2/1, Since your objections mainly concern the political rights? That's the same level as Argentina where political rights are concerned. Read the article on Argentina: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/argentina.htm and see whether you feel the situation there is as good or as bad as in the USA. :its not fair for me to wait for somebody famous to point out FH 's flaw otherwise i cannot comment on their bias. what if no one sais anything. its still a clear flaw. any suggestion on this point? :: You can prove discrepancies between claims they make and factual truth. But you can't just argue "They should have rated US lower". Why? Because you say so? And how lower should they have rated? Argentina level at 2? Bolivia level at 3 where the elected president had to flee out of the country? Where exactly should they have put it? It's NOT a "clear flaw" when there's dispute about whether the flaw exists or not. User:Aris Katsaris 17:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) :turkey cannot be categorized as western europe and hungary east, because FH says countries are categorized by REGION not political or military alliances. if thats the case taiwan should also be in western europe.... do you agree? :: Nonsense. Western Europe had a certain political and historical meaning even though it. FH often categorizes regions by historical criteria -- even if geographically it doesn't make much sense. For example check out how in http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countries.htm#dropdown they even have Kyrgystan in the "Central and Eastern Europe" category. Why that? Because they see the world from the political perspective, and by "Central and Eastern Europe" they in reality mean the post-communist countries in Europe as well as the break-up nations of the Soviet Union. They group them together because they see the world from its political perspective. :: But now that you mentioned it *that* may be a good thing to mention about Freedomhouse, the way it groups nations. Give me a min and I'll add it in. User:Aris Katsaris 17:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) :im sure you are aware that US gov. tries to push turkey into the EU. a good way to this is by using think tanks like FH, suggesting here and there turkey is western europe. :: EU isn't as naive as that. Greece is also labelled as Western Europe, and yet geographically it's in the Southeast instead. *Cyprus* is labelled as Western Europe, and it's even further to the East. That's because they are using the political definition of Western Europe -- meaning the European nations that weren't in the Soviet sphere of influence. User:Aris Katsaris 17:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) the article is looking better now ( i like the judged part and that you removed the word fully democratic) to answer your question yes US should be 2. the difference between me an u is you compare it to other countries, whereas i compare these ratings with theories of democracy (which the main pillar is unversal sufferage) once this pillar is messed with, in my book its pretty far from a perfect score. im not talking about something little here, im talking about changing the outcome of who would be the country's leader! and its irrelevant what argentina does, they could move them up another notch as well if you dont want the US to be in the same category. the same argument goes for turkey as well, based on their behavior in comparison with theory of human rights. : In a grading system you *have* to compare it to other countries. In a 10-point or a 20-point system, USA might very well get a 2 rather than 1 in its political ratings. In the 7-point system it simply *doesn't( according to Freedomhouse's criteria. That it simply irks you that this is the case isn't a factual disagreement: you simply dislike the entirety of the system Freedomhouse is using. You claim the system is "biased"? Biased in favour of what? Biased in favour of Argentina, which is rated at 2 -- should we downgrade it to make room for the much more democratic USA? Biased in favour of Bolivia, which is rated at 3 and we should downgrade it to make room for Argentina? Should we also downgrade Bosnia which is rated at 4? But then what about Burundi? We should *also* downgrade it. : That you want more points in the scale isn't a real disagreement. as for it being in west europe it cannot be cultural reasons as you claim in the article, cannot be historical, because anatolia was always considered asia for thousands of years since alexander the great and before. only recently they are making it look like w europe. the reason can only be military and political alliance. if this is their basis then why israel is placed in the middle east?) i dont agree cyprus to be in western europe as well. tajikistan is in Asia, if FH wants to group cis countries together then it can make a separate category called cis. which brings me back to my previous argument that they are innacurate with definitions. : Turkey was part of NATO during the Cold War. Israel wasn't, and no part of it was in Europe. Western Europe was used as the opposite of Eastern Europe -- aka the American sphere of influence as opposed to the Soviet Sphere of influence. User:Aris Katsaris 18:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) by the way i just checked their website now while writing this and all the regions and countires were changed?!!! turkey was in the middle east now ... wats that about?! : I beg your pardon? No, go here: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countries.htm -- Turkey is still placed at Western Europe. go to yahoo, write freedom house, then click on the "FH country rating" on the left in the blue column you will see. by the way, if their system "has" to give US 1/1 then their system is biased. which means FH methodology is biased. : In what way are they biased, you still haven't shown it. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) in a country that the president is not fairly chosen, voters are barred or discounted, the main pillar of democracy is broken, therefore it cannot be an ideal democracy. you cannot convince any intelligent person that it still is an ideal democracy. 2+2=4. so dont bother replying and talking about bolivia, argentina. it is up to them to rectify their methods (that produce biased results) not up to me to give them suggestion . all i know is what democracy means, and what US status quo is. : Voters are "barred or discounted" -- because you say so? And was it done *against* the election laws that these voters were barred or discounted? As far as I know, no it wasn't. Yes, you may very well know what democracy means, and you may be better informed about the US -- but you still haven't shown a single factual inaccuracy or omission in Freedomhouse. And I definitely don't think you know the meaning of rating systems. A country doesn't need to be *perfect* in order to get a 1. It simply has to rate better than 2. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) : i cannot believe you think that discounting votes that actually changed the outcome of the presidency is a NOT major prolem deserving a demerit point. you said before who the "hell" am i to decide which country is what. well now i say who the hell is "FH" to decide that! just because they are backed with money and have a website does not make them more "right" "fair" or "intelligent". they are clearly wrong and biased. at least i understand what makes and does not make a democracy. :: FH is an organization notable enough to be described in article. The article doesn't *claim* as a fact that they are either right or fair or intelligent. It's you who wanted to claim the opposite, pushing your ludicrous POV version as if it was fact. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) and again, im tired or repeating myself, if they want nato countries together (they must say NATO) not western europe, its misleading (biased). get it???????? same goes with former soviet union. your continiuous naggin is not going to change world geography. the word region is geographic, does not define military alliances. :: No. "Biased" is not even a near-synonym for "misleading". You don't know the meaning of the words -- read a dictionary. "West Europe" did have a political meaning for decades and decades no matter how much you might like it to be differently. User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) : im not bothering with this article anymore, its not important enough for my time. but think about what you are saying for your own sake. the brainwashing by media, government and so called "think tanks" is hindering you from thinking clearly. :: Which media, pray tell? Which government? Do you even know what country I'm from? User:Aris Katsaris 02:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
F
FA | FB | FC | FD | FE | FG | FH | FI | FJ | FK | FL | FM | FN | FO | FP | FR | FS | FT | FU | FW | FX | FY | FZ |Words begining with Freedom_House:
Freedom_House
Freedom_House
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
