Talk:Uzbekistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Genetics[edit]

The referenced paper has no conclusion about Uzbek people's origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.69.250 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Uzbekistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Uzbekistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


37.110.215.58 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the coordinates of the country to a point nearer the center. Better now? Deor (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

De facto official?[edit]

Lamensi: I resent your edit summary here. I just happened to come across this article and made a few edits in good faith. Please read WP:VANDALISM and then explain how my edits constitutes vandalism.

I do not patricipate in edit wars, so I will not revert. However, the time for discussion instead of reverting is long overdue. You could start by explaining how something can be de facto official. To me it sounds like an oxymoron. --T*U (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss this with you, yes. It isn't an oxymoron because of what de facto and de jure mean.
Please observe Wikipedia's own page on the matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto "In law and government, de facto (/deɪ ˈfæktoʊ/ or /di ˈfæktoʊ/;[1] Latin: de facto, "in fact"; Latin pronunciation: [deː ˈfaktoː]) describes practices that exist in reality, even if not officially recognized by laws." This is the case of Russian in Uzbekistan. It is (as sources show) widely used in government services, (and can be used in notary services, as the Constitution provides) without having any legal justification. This is a situation that makes it de facto official.
If you continue to read down further, it says "Several countries, including Australia, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States, have a de facto national language but no official, de jure national language." and "Some countries have a de facto national language in addition to an official language. In Lebanon and Morocco the official language is Arabic, but an additional de facto language is also French."
These are opposed to De jure, which says (By Wikipedia's own standards): In law and government, de jure (/deɪ ˈdʒʊəri, di-/; Latin: de iure, lit. 'in law' Latin pronunciation: [deː juːre]) describes practices that are legally recognised, regardless whether the practice exists in reality.[1] In contrast, de facto ("in fact" or "in practice") describes situations that exist in reality, even if not legally recognised. Lamensi (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Lamensi: 1) I have indented your reply for easier navigation, please see WP:INDENT about indentation in talk pages.
2) Also please read WP:MINOR about use of the "Minor" tag. Most of your edits are not minor.
3) I ask you to acknowledge that you have read WP:VANDALISM and that your edit summary was inappropriate.
Re "de facto" / "de jure" vs. "official": None of your quotes support the claim.
practices that exist in reality, even if not officially recognized by laws: "exist in reality", but "not officially" is not the same as "de facto official".
de facto national language but no official, de jure: equates "official" with "de jure" as opposed to "de facto"
official language is Arabic, but an additional de facto language: "official" is opposed to "de facto".
All indicate that "offical" is equal to "de jure", in contrast to "de facto". The construction de facto official is your original research, see WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the pages you linked on vandalism and minor edits, thank you. My markings of edits as minor was indeed a mistake, and I apologise. However, I must ask if you read through the entire articles? I did not invent the term "de facto official" as you have implied by saying it is my "original research", as it is listed right here : In New Zealand, Maori and New Zealand Sign Language are de jure official languages, while English is a de facto official language. and here Russian was the de facto official language of the central government and, to a large extent, republican governments of the former Soviet Union, but was not declared de jure state language until 1990. A short-lived law effected April 24, 1990, installed Russian as the sole de jure official language of the Union. Quite clearly, de facto is not always opposed to official. The examples you gave imply a semantic meaning by "de facto" that you have not seemed to parse. For example, de facto national language but no official, de jure: does not contrast de jure and de facto, but that the national language (in the case of the USA for example, English), being the de facto official language of the country, as opposed to the de jure, legal clarification of the role of the language.
Or another, official language is Arabic, but an additional de facto language: refers to the de jure status of Arabic in Morocco, with the de facto (official) status of French. These are semantic meanings. De facto is not a state of language. You won't find a page on Wikipedia that says a language is De facto, full stop. De facto is a description of a specified role. As you will see in the provided links. Official, Recognised, and Unrecognised are.
As an additional point, given what I noted above, you must concede that English is not an official language of New Zealand and should be removed from the page, by your logic. It is not clarified in law, while NZSL and Maori are. But that would be ridiculous, no? It is by and large absolutely clear for Wikipedia standards that English functions as an official language in New Zealand, which is why it's listed as one. This same standard is applied to Uzbekistan, as it would be with any other country. There's no bias in that. Lamensi (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
My meaning was not to say that the construction de facto official can never be used. It will certainly be possible to talk about a de facto official language when there is no de jure official language, but hardly when official languages are defined (de jure). The sentence official language is Arabic, but an additional de facto language for Morocco is actually a good example, since it does not claim that the additional language is official. Your addition of "(official)" to this sentence in the de facto (official) status of French is WP:OR. French is not official or (official) in Morocco. Therefore French is not mentioned as official or (official) in the Morocco article.
I came across this article by chance and I will probably not be working more on it. It is obvious that there is currently no consensus in the case, so my advice is to work out a consensus in the talk page, preferably through a WP:RfC. Good luck!
You say that you have read about vandalism, but as I read you, you apologise for marking edits as minor, but not for calling my edits vandalism. I would suggest that you acknowledge that your edit summary here was inappropriate. My edits were not vandalism, and I resent the insinuation. --T*U (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to apologise for my comments to you, although I did mean them for the random IP editor who had deleted the sources without any discussion several times from multiple accounts despite many reverting the edits and asking them to give a reason first other than "I am a lawyer" and "The constitution says.." But still, that reflected onto you and it was not fair to you. So I apologise. Discussions on here should never get so heated because everyone should be trying to build a better wiki. But I'm glad I had this discussion with you and I'm starting to agree to your point more, and I feel that calling it "official" may be a bit inappropriate, although I think we do need more dsicussion as you say than just deleting it all unilaterally as some IP hopper has been doing over the past month. All the best Lamensi (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)