Talk:Uzbekistan/Archive 2

Dominant party system
perhaps stop eddit warring. First, if an article is GA, doesn't mean everything is entirely correct. Those articles doesn't follow infobox template. Another thing is, your source is obsolete and from 2006. 2004–05 Uzbek parliamentary election have very much different composition than today, Liberal Democratic Party, having 53 seats in 150. Definitely not a majority (75). Beshogur (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC) ´
 * Hello . Hopefully we can both agree on Assume good faith, for each other's actions. Let's get to the topic now about LDP dominance. Firstly, a reply to your comment it is still the same, all parties in the Legislative Chamber of Uzbekistan are government friendly and in all presidental elections, Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party has won with a vote of over 80 percent. They have never been in opposition, the country is still described as not free in a 2020 report by Freedomhouse . And in the recent elections held two months ago, OSCE describes it as lacking genuine competition. But yeah, as they state the situation is getting better, “This election has shown that the democratic reforms of recent years must be carried forward to confirm what has already been achieved,” said Reinhold Lopatka and “The recent and ongoing reforms are an encouraging sign,” said Heidi Hautala, Head of the EP delegation. Except that yeah they are still in the dominant position: “But the exclusion of opposition parties and the lack of genuine competition, as well as the high number of irregularities we saw on election day, remain substantial obstacles in the path of the democratisation process.” "Five candidates ran in the election, including the current president. Excessively strict requirements for the right to become a candidate, together with burdensome party registration rules, overly limit the right to stand and narrow the range of political options open to voters. One of the five candidates was a woman and despite constitutional guarantees of equality and a recent significant increase in the number of women parliamentarians, women remain underrepresented in public and political life. Although reporting on local government and social issues has become more critical, particularly online, observers noted that criticism in the media of high-ranking public officials and candidates was almost completely absent. The restrictive legal framework for media, together with cases of pre-trial detention, intimidation and harassment of journalists and bloggers all contributed to self-censorship by many journalists, and further limited the amount of information and analysis available to the public." The distinction between the president in his current role and as candidate was generally blurred, giving him an undue advantage. In addition, most private media outlets provided more coverage of the incumbent than of the other four contestants combined in their election reporting, with all monitored media also extensively covering the activities of the president. Censorship by many journalists, and further limited the amount of information and analysis available to the public." So I don't think we should have a debate on that the country is led by a dominant party, because it clearly is (although it has started liberalizing in recent years). And yes, it is described as dominant by several reports ranging from the one in 2006 to the one in 2020 and plentyful of more, and most election observers describing the government's dominance in politics in their reports. The discussion should be around the infobox, almost all countries that have been led for over 20 years and can be found in dominant party system have dominant party in their infobox. And as previously mentions it ranges from good articles, to featured articles to most having an extended protection. I don't know if it is right or wrong, however we have to note consistency too, and Uzbekistan being the only country with a dominant party not described as dominant would also be strange. Perhaps a consesus can be achieved through this discussion. Noting Russia, they have this in their government infobox, "Before adding Dominant-party system here, discuss in the talk page, additions before any consensus will be challenged and removed. --->". So particuarly in Russia, a consesus would be enough to add it in. So clearly the discussion should be around that, and if we can't agree on if dominant party is allowed to be in infbox, we can always ask an administrator or a expert regarding this topic. Cheers, BastianMAT (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
 * can not argue about the free elections, your text doesn't make mention about a dominant party system. Second, there is no dominant party as you can see. Free election has nothing to do with this. Third, infobox template makes no mention of dominant party system. An article of Wiki isn't considered a rule. That's redunant. Even "constitutional" is not used. Comparing to Hungary, it doesn't even have that "dominant party" text on the infobox. Considering they have literally dominant party system, yet this doesn't mean it's a governmental structure. Beshogur (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you don't have answers on these, ignoring it. So asking kindly to remove that from the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per this report,, it describes the system like this: The party system appears stable and moderate, characterized by moderate fragmentation, relatively high polarization, and moderate voter volatility. However, it is not socially rooted. All five registered parties strictly follow the government line. The Liberal Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (LDPU) is the dominant party. At the other end of the party spectrum, there are four opposition parties that have consistently been denied registration. Most of the officially registered cooperative associations and interest groups are part of authoritarian corporatist structures. From this 2016 report from OSCE , it describes the system like this, The dominant position of state actors and limits on fundamental freedoms undermine political pluralism and led to a campaign devoid of genuine competition. Media covered the election in a highly restrictive and controlled environment, and the dissemination of a state-defined narrative did not allow voters to receive an alternative viewpoint. Significant irregularities were noted on election day, including indications of ballot box stuffing and widespread proxy voting, despite a concerted campaign to address the latter. So in fact, the government is described as dominant, and in dominant-party system, it goes like this "A dominant-party system, or one-party dominant system, is a political occurrence in which a single political party continuously dominates election results over running opposition groups or parties." So in fact, it is relevant, as the party has always been in power and won every presidential election with over 80%, meeting the criteria and the government being described as dominant in reports. In the 2021 report, it is described like this by Freedom house, "Uzbekistan remains a consolidated authoritarian regime. No genuine opposition parties operate legally." and in the CIA report as highly authoritarian. You mentioned Fidez from Hungary, they have only been in power since 2010 and have lost elections, they also get a score of 69 compared to Uzbekistan's 10. I don't think its too comparable. What can be argued here is tha it's not really the party that is in power but Shavkat Mirziyoyev and a dictatorship tag would be better fitting like Belarus. And lastly for the infobox, it seems like relevancy is what matters, and in this case it is Uzbekistan being led by a dominant/authoritarian regime. If you can find proof that dominant party/dictatorship/authoritarian is strictly not allowed, do find that, because then there are plenty of countries to be fixed, or we could ask an administrator regarding this.BastianMAT (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I call this wp:or. As I told, 2006 report is obsolete, plus it's redunant. (see infobox template, no mention.) Your OSCE report makes no mention about dominant party either. it goes like this we don't take wp articles as a rule or example. And I don't think Shavkat Mirziyoyev is comparable to Lukashenko. Beshogur (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course WP infobox template will not mention UK as dominant as it isn't. The question here if there is any strict rule that does not let us use dictatorship/dominant party/authoritarian regime, because if we are allowed too, there is no reason of it not being used. I don't think you deciding if Shavkat Mirziyoyev is comparable to Lukashenko/a dictator should be in play here, we should let the sources decide that, and OSCE, Freedomhouse, CIA work all put in the same label to the government, as authoritarian. While these recent reports don't call it a "dominant party" they call it a dominant government which is highly authoritarian. And it is relevant as the opposition is surpressed along with free media and free elections in the country. Here from BBC which counts as a fully Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Uzbekistan is one of the most repressive regimes in the world." Another one from, "While ongoing reforms under President Shavkat Mirziyoyev have led to improvements on some issues, including a modest reduction in media repression and reforms that mandated more female legislative candidates, Uzbekistan remains an authoritarian regime with little movement toward democratization. No opposition parties operate legally." So in fact we could change the dominant tag to either dictatorship or authoritarian. From Aljazzera as also fully reliable, “All five parties in this election were supportive of government policies. Regardless of the final figure for the ruling party, it’s not that anything will really change.” . Seems to be something all sources can agree upon that there is no opposition and the government is dominant and authoritarian, making a tag of that sort relevant. BastianMAT (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you deciding I think it's you're deciding, not me. all your sources mention Mirziyoyev lessened the repression, so what's your point here? Your sources don't explicitly make remark about "dominant party" I call this wp:or and wp:due comparing it to life-time dictators like Lukashenko etc. The fact that Fidesz dominating Hungary in every way, and Russia having an authoritarian government as an example, and you're not doing edits in that way makes me thinking. Most of Human rights in Uzbekistan is old stuff as well. Beshogur (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For Russia it needs a consesus as I previously mentioned, if there was a consesus, dominant party would have been added there too. And the sources say it is liberalizing but still describe it as authoritarian and the government being dominating. The difference here is that Hungary gets a 70 score by Freedom house and described as a parliamentary republic by CIA. On the otherhand, by CIA Uzbekistan is described as a presidential republic; highly authoritarian  and 10/100 score.  I'm not deciding anything, this is just how sources describe it, can you find any sources telling me how much of a democratic republic Uzbekistan is despite reforms? It seems like you are deflecting this and comparing Uzbekistan to Hungary lol. And, in fact the party Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party has been in power since 1991, longer than Belarus, surely a party sitting in government since 1991, with no free elections and described by BBC, Aljazzera, Freedomhouse, CIA etc as authoritarian, gives the grounds to a dictatorship/authoritarian/dominant party label. The reforms look promising but there is still a long way to go until the government is free of an authoritarian tag. Here is a recent source describing the last time an genuine opposition candidate featured an Uzbek election, "Erk leader Muhammad Solih ran against Soviet-era appointee Islam Karimov in the December 29, 1991 presidential election, taking an amazing 12.7 percent in a poll many decried as heavily rigged. It was the last time Solih, or any genuine opposition figure or party, would ever run in an Uzbek election. Solih had to flee the country in 1993 and continues to live in exile.  An authortarian tag could instead be added. On, Authoritarianism, you can find the Uzbekistan regime with 3 interesting academic works backing it up. BastianMAT (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Non-governmental human rights organisations, such as IHF, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, as well as United States Department of State and Council of the European Union, define Uzbekistan as "an authoritarian state with limited civil rights"[17] and express profound concern about "wide-scale violation of virtually all basic human rights".[72] According to the reports, the most widespread violations are torture, arbitrary arrests, and various restrictions of freedoms: of religion, of speech and press, of free association and assembly. It has also been reported that forced sterilisation of rural Uzbek women has been sanctioned by the government.[73][74] The reports maintain that the violations are most often committed against members of religious organisations, independent journalists, human rights activists and political activists, including members of the banned opposition parties. As of 2015, reports on violations on human rights in Uzbekistan indicated that violations were still going on without any improvement.[75] The Freedom House has consistently ranked Uzbekistan near the bottom of its Freedom in the World ranking since the country's founding in 1991. In the 2018 report, Uzbekistan was one of the 11 worst countries for Political Rights and Civil Liberties." Seems to be pretty clear as to being authoritarian/dictatorship.BastianMAT (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

so this page doesn't need consensus, instead doing an edit warring? Your point on authoritariansism article, has 3 sources, all about Karimov's rule. Sorry I have to revert back, you're continuing with original research. Regarding your last paragraph, I can't understand how you tie "freedom of speech, etc." to a government type "presidential republic, etc". Two different things. You couldn't prove that Mirziyoyev is a dictator either. Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC) So BBC does not count as a reliable source now and as a originial research? When in fact it is a reliable source here on Wikipedia. They describe his regime as one of the most repressive, he has been in power since 2016 and I posted multiple articles that are from 2018 and newer describing his regime as authoritarian. [] 1) Human Rights Watch - Nevertheless, Uzbekistan’s political system remains largely authoritarian. There is little political pluralism, and the conduct of the country’s elections has for many years been highly restricted. President Mirziyoev’s election in December 2016 took place under severe restrictions that denied voters their basic rights and prevented the elections from being free or fair. 2) Freedom house - While ongoing reforms under a new president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, have led to improvements on some issues, Uzbekistan remains a consolidated authoritarian regime. No genuine opposition parties operate legally. The legislature and judiciary effectively serve as instruments of the executive branch, which initiates reforms by decree, and the media remains tightly controlled by the state. Reports of torture and other ill-treatment remain common, although highly publicized cases of abuse have led to dismissals and prosecutions for some officials. Despite some high-profile releases, the government still holds numerous prisoners on political or religious grounds. 3) BBC Uzbekistan is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. But could it actually be getting more democratic? The Central Asian nation is famous for systematic human rights abuses. But since President Shavkat Mirziyoyev came to power following the death of the former leader Islam Karimov in 2016, Uzbekistan has been experiencing some rather unexpected changes. On Sunday, the country is holding its first parliamentary election under the new president and its slogan is "New Uzbekistan - new elections". However, all may not be quite as transparent as it seem . But this election has already shown that the core of the political system in Uzbekistan remains the same - no real oppositional parties are allowed to run. All five parties participating in the election are viewed as loyal to the president and the regime. The oppositional Erk party and its exiled leader Muhammad Solih remain banned in Uzbekistan. Is a repressive regime still in place? In its recent report, the UN Committee against Torture expressed concerns over continued use of widespread, routine torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement and prison officials. UN rights expert Diego Garcia-Sayan concluded following his visit to Uzbekistan that "substantial threats against judicial independence and the rule of law remain". 4) CIA - Government type - "highly authoritarian" 5) The Diplomat - Uzbekistan: A Reforming Dictatorship Will Test US Foreign Policy 6) Dawn (newspaper) - Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev cruised to victory on Monday in an election monitors ruled was “not truly competitive” despite some reforms in the authoritarian Central Asian state. 7) France 24 - Uzbekistan President Shavkat Mirziyoyev was poised Monday for a crushing victory over token competitors, after initiating a reform drive that left the Central Asian country's authoritarian foundations intact. 8) openDemocracy - Modernising authoritarianism in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan’s so-called “spring” is more about upgrading this Central Asian state than providing political freedoms. 9) Rubén Ruiz-Ramas and Javier Morales Hernández, National Distance Education University and Complutense University of Madrid - Uzbekistan’s Neopatrimonial State and Authoritarian Regime: From Karimov to Mirziyoyev 10) Euronews - But like Karimov, the new leader has sidestepped political reforms that would allow any alternative to his rule. As his first term nears its end, Mirziyoev is now struggling to counter impressions that his government is sliding back toward the authoritarian habits of his predecessor. The Uzbek leader has come under criticism for cracking down on his critics and activists ahead of the vote, and some of his relatives have been accused of using his political clout to amass wealth. 11) Luca Anceschi, University of Glasgow, UK - This article aims to locate the version of authoritarianism developing in postKarimov Uzbekistan to current debates on the emergence of new forms of authoritarian governance within and beyond post-Soviet Eurasia. To this end, the article re-evaluates. Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s policies in light of authoritarian modernisation theory, revealing how the ultimate end of the process of political change currently at play in Uzbekistan is connected with an upgrading of local authoritarian practices rather than to the liberalisation of the domestic political landscape. 12) Al Jazzera - Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from Tashkent, said: “It’s not a big victory yet, but it is good news for the ruling party, as it has always been good news for the ruling party ever since it was created 28 years ago. “All five parties in this election were supportive of government policies. Regardless of the final figure for the ruling party, it’s not that anything will really change.” While the OSCE observers praised reforms to the electoral law, they said such progress “did not offset the absence of opposition parties, a continuing lack of respect for fundamental rights, and some serious irregularities on election day.” All of these articles are after 2016 and the death of his predecessor, so reliable sources prove that his regime is the light of democracy? As it is a relevant, and reliable sources describe the country as authoritarian/dictatorship, it is relevant putting that in the infobox, a government type under a dictatorship/authoritarian such as in Belarus.BastianMAT (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I opened a rfc at Template:Infobox country. Please feel free to put your opinion there as well. We shall see what others will say. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Cheers. BastianMAT (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Page protection
The article's been vandalized multiple times in the past 48 hours, I think someone should intervene here. Can we bar anonymous IP addresses from editing the page? --RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Doubly landlocked
Should the opening description of Uzbekistan, "Uzbekistan, officially the Republic of Uzbekistan, is a landlocked country in Central Asia." be changed to "doubly landlocked"? It is one of only two countries to be such, and would be an interesting tidbit of information that wouldn't take anything else away from the article. Stoostoodoodoo2 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to change it. Uzbekistan and Liechtenstein are the only two internationally recognized countries (not including Artsakh) on earth that are doubly landlocked. It only seems necessary CanadianOntarian (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"Uzbekistane" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Uzbekistane and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Bekistan" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bekistan and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Uzbeckistan" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Uzbeckistan and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Uzbek khanade and formation
Uzbek khanate should be added to the "Formation" section of Uzbekistan, since both are synonyms. Kergid (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

"Uzbekistani people" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Uzbekistani people and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"Ouzbékistan" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ouzbékistan and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

O'zbekistonning dunyo sahnasidagi o'rni
O'zbekiston Respublikasining dunyodagi o'rni UZBEK REPUBLIC (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Armiya 55 UZBEK REPUBLIC (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Little Bukaria" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Little Bukaria and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)