This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Russian one was added after the war. Belarus is a dictatorship tho. under an authoritarian government is not appropriate for infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"under an authoritarian government is not appropriate for infobox." Why so? What's wrong with that wording? That's the light way to say "a dictatorship". GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both Kazakh and Uzbek presidents are reformists, not dictators. They may be authoritarian, but more softer compared to their predecessors and they're liberalizing their country. Viktor Orban is authoritarian as well despite being in a democratic country. "authoritarian government" is not appropriate for the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>"Both Kazakh and Uzbek presidents are reformists, not dictators." - again, your POV, that's not a neutral and objective POV at all
>"They may be authoritarian, but more softer compared to their predecessors and they're liberalizing their country." - in a what way, especially Uzbekistan? - "Uzbekistan is one of just three post-Soviet states in which male homosexual activity remains criminalised, along with Turkmenistan and Chechnya.", the elections are highly likely fake (or atleast the results are a result of fear and repression), the government uses censorship, political persecutions are present too etc. etc. Even the Wikipedia articles on Uzbekistan's political system (Politics of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party etc.) say that the other parties in the parliament are puppets of the rulling one (i.e. they were created in order to pretend that the country's a democracy, which it isn't in any way: "Despite self-identifying with different ideologies, the parties are seen as no different from each other, with the Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party being created to give an illusion of a competitive multi-party system; this is supported by the fact that the People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan remained supportive of Karimov's policies and retained his favor.") GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only reverted to pre-whitewash accusation version, I have no opinion on content. I will say though that "source is the page itself" is a weak argument. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:INFOBOXCITE: References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere i.e. it's a similar to the lead. Generally, the information in the infobox doesn't need to be cited because it's a summary of sourced material in the article. The issue should be whether it or not it matches sourced material in the article. As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: this user doesn't understand that "authoritarian government" isn't a parameter for type of government on the infobox.
Russia example is pretty bad. Putin is declared as dictator on wikipedia infobox directly after the invasion. He may be dictator, but "authoritarian dictatorship" is simply ridiculous. A dictatorship is already authoritarian.
Belarus, NK, Tajikistan are examples of long lasting dictatorships, while Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan definitely aren't of these examples. They may be still authoritarian, but both rulers are liberalizing the country. Mirziyoyev even, after a protest, backed down from a law proposal to revoke autonomy of Karakalpakstan. 2022 Kazakh constitutional referendum is another example how president's powers decreased. Beshogur (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "authoritarian government" isn't a parameter for type of government on the infobox. The paramet is "type of government" and I'm not aware that the template documentation restricts what's entered against that parameter in that way. It's a local WP:CONSENSUS question. I don't see anything in the article - certainly not the recent "slight" liberalisation - precluding the "authoritarian" description. Other countries' Infoboxes is a rather WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, @DeCausa correctly says a few comments above and agrees with me: "Generally, the information in the infobox doesn't need to be cited because it's a summary of sourced material in the article. The issue should be whether it or not it matches sourced material in the article. As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox.". That's the whole problem, for the N-th time, that you're arguing with all these Wiki articles themselves and they firmly state the opposite of your claims and POV. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's right about not citing on the infobox. As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox I don't think he can decide on that. The infobox template is clear about that. And are we going to list every orange+red country as authoritarian on the infobox? That's not a real parameter. I gave an explanation for dictatorship stuff, that's not the case here. It's not other stuff argument.
The lead has the following cited statement It is de jure a democratic, unitary, constitutional republic;[14] however, it is de facto an authoritarian regime[15][16] with no free elections.[17] The Infobox should reflect that. Please stop referring to other countries. That's not revant. DeCausa (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: You know the sentence is an original research right? And this does not mean "Freedom House said so = it's correct". Freedom House has connections with the US government. Beshogur (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the BBC in 2022: Kazakhstan is often described as authoritarian, and most elections are won by the ruling party with nearly 100% of the vote. There is no effective political opposition.[3]DeCausa (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's this source? I can find sources calling Macron authoritarian[5]. But the thing is, I'm arguing that "authoritarian government/regime" isn't a parameter for the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you have linked to that Guardian article. It's irrelevant. I don't know why you keep saying ""authoritarian government/regime" isn't a parameter for the infobox." That makes no sense. I don't think you are using the right words in English. The parameter is "type of government". There's then a blank against that paramater - it's for editors to then insert the description against that parameter. What are you trying to say? DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Every time you've used the word "parameter" you mean "description" not "parameter". Looking at the headings at the top of the template Ok so what you are trying to say is that "authoritarian government/regime" isn't a description in the template document. That continues to make no sense. There is no list of descriptions that must be used. "federal republic" is just an example. it's left to consensus of editors to fill the blank. Do you understand? DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most countries claim to be some sort of democracy...however we all know this isn't correct let's make sure we inform our readers what is correct well at the same time letting them know what the claimed regime type is.
And still "authoritarian government" is not appropriate for the infobox since there are other countries at same level with Kazakhstan. We should label all of them if it's alright. However, again, Freedom House removed this word in its 2022 report if we're going to look at them (since you quote the particular text in the article that links Freedom House). Beshogur (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: you've driven me to shouting: ITS CITED TO THE ECONOMIST!!! The Economist, The Economist. OK? I've already told you this. THE ECONOMIST. Specifically, it's page 50 of the Economist's 2022 Democracy Index where, under "Regime type" it receives the classification "Authoritarian". And, once again, other countries' infoboxes are WP:OTHERCONTENT. I think there's a serious WP:IDHT problem emerging. DeCausa (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You call my every other link "irrelevant" and suddenly come with the economist. You repeatedly told me the particular quote, which cites Freedom House, and when I show you an evidence, you come with the Economist. Beshogur (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see that the sentence is supported by citation no.16 which is the Economist? Do you not see that I have never mentioned Freedom House? Do you not see I referenced citation no.16 the Economist at 16:40, 18 October 2023, when I told you you were missing the point? Beshogur, competence is reequired. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean The Economist Democracy Index which is citation no 16 that describes Kazakhstan as "authoritarian" regime that I've been trying to get you to pay attention to for the last 2 days? YES! Hallelujah. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "under an authoritarian government" part looks like original research. Is there a source that formulates it in the same way? Yes, we can say de jure democratic and de facto authoritarian, but democratic is not mentioned in the infobox. A republic can have a democratic or authoritarian government; this implies that the above is false. Otherwise, why would we also not say "under a democratic government" or "under a mixed regime"? Either way, if we are measuring the level of democracy, why not do it for all countries? Mellk (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Moxy: since you are active in the countries articles, I think it would be better if we got consistency on government type in the infobox. It seems odd to only mention the level of democracy for (some) countries with authoritarian regimes but not for those with democratic/semi-democratic/mixed regimes. Mellk (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "under an authoritarian government" part looks like original research. Is there a source that formulates it in the same way? Yes, it's cited. Not sure why you think it's OR. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is cited, but does it say it is not actually a semi-presidential republic? The EIU democracy index also categorizes countries as full democracies, flawed democracies and mixed regimes to addition to authoritarian regimes, but then would it be appropriate to add "under a democratic government" or "under a mixed regime"? Mellk (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only description Kazakhstan is given in the source is "authoritarian". It doesn't refer to it as a flawed or hybrid democracy at all. Have you looked at the source? DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it uses those terms because it is called the democracy index. If the United States is categorized as a flawed democracy, should we add "under a flawed democratic government"? Mellk (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is it doesn't use those terms for Kazakhstan. As far as the US is concerned, that's a question for the talk page of that article, not this one. There is, of course, wide variance on whether there is this type of descriptor in infoboxes across Wikipedia. The "consistency" argument doesn't work not only because of WP:OTHERCONTENT but because there is no consistency anyway. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not necessarily saying the level of democracy should not be mentioned, but the current wording ("under") implies it is not actually a republic. The cited source does not mention the republic part, so where does "under" come from? Mellk (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand. The citation is supporting that it is "authoritarian". Are you challenging that it is a republic? Where does "under" come from? The source says "type of regime" "authoritarian". I can't see a problem with that meaning "under authoritarian government". DeCausa (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source only categorizes it as an authoritarian regime, but it does not mention anything about republics, so how can we say it is a "semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian regime"? The lead says however, it is de facto an authoritarian regime while citing the democracy index, which does not mention the republic part and does not use "de facto", so again, that looks like original research. My point is, we can say that it is both a republic and authoritarian without using terms such as "under" which imply that the other is false. Mellk (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the "de jure" and "de facto" wording in the lead should come out. But as far as the Infobox is concerned (which this thread is about) I think you're reading far too much into the word "under". No matter: what form of words would you suggest? DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible that I am reading too much into that one word. I think a separate field in the infobox for degree of democracy might work better but of course I do not think that is feasible now. I am not sure now what would be a better way to phrase it but I would be interested in seeing how sources mention both in a concise way. The World Almanac for example says for Uzbekistan for government type: "Presidential republic; highly authoritarian" (though for Kazakhstan it does not seem to mention authoritarian). Mellk (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with replacing under with a semicolon. It has the benefit of indicating that the source is applying specifically to the "authoritarian" part. I also think it might be better to replace "government" with "regime" which is the word used in the citation. DeCausa (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not understanding DeCausa. Most presidential or semi-presidential rules tend to have authoritarianism. I don't understand how this makes much a difference. Beshogur (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit removed a modifier before the 4% figure for some area. I question this removal since the removal gives a false sense of exactness. What is the consensus? Kdammers (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't described the recents edits correctly. That's not what's happened. The first sentence of the article ends with the statement that Kazakhstan is "...mostly in Central Asia, with a small part in Eastern Europe". There is a longstanding footnote to this sentence which says: "About 4% of Kazakhstan's territory, west of the Ural River, lies in Eastern Europe." A source was given for this percentage. Eight days ago a new editor, with currently 193 edits, decided to ignore that source and without an edit summary add to "about 4%" the following additional unsourced qualification "By some definitions, about 4% ...". that gives the impression that other definitions say it is a different percentage. No source has been given for a different percentage. Today, that was reverted and the longstanding sourced version was restored. 59 minutes later the above message, which makes no sense, was posted. The longstanding and now restored version includes the "about" modifier. The reverted unsourced version includes the "about" modifier. DeCausa (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence saying in 2022 the current president names the city after his predecessor is not clear.
When the city changed to Nur Sultan it reflected the first president. When the name was restored to Astana the name of the first president was being removed.
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
20:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
