I removed the warning box that had been placed at the top of the article. It was rather over the top and is more an indication of the excessive caution shown by the US Government than any problem in Uzbekistan. I am a regular visitor to Tashkent and have never experienced any problems. David Stanley 14 June 2006
What is the warning box doing there? I'm not even from the US, nor are many other wikitravel users. So why on earth should I be interested in warnings from a department of the US government? These messages don't belong on this site IMO.
Any travel advisories from any government constitute information that some travelers may find useful. It's up to each person to make up his/her own mind up, and withholding information because many travelers aren't from the US is not a policy guideline I can agree to. Whether the advisory is accurate or not is a different question. Ikan Kekek 18:16, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
There have been several warning boxes added to articles lately that seem a bit questionable. In this case the information seems useful, but I think it belongs in the "Stay safe" section and not at the top of the article. I've moved it accordingly. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:24, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
For what it's worth, that seems reasonable to me. As I understand, warning boxes are to be used mostly in cases of imminent threats to life only, such as in war zones. Ikan Kekek 19:04, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
I think it would be appropriate to remove the warning box as it stands now, but retain the warning text about border areas. I'll do this and see how others feel. I won't be too offended if it gets reverted! The Uzbek authorities are on top of security across the country (arguably too much so). Davidbstanley 08:01, 7 October 2011 (EDT)
Should I create a seperate page for Aral Sea, as it is not ordinary sea. It is possible to get there, I have been there, but it is really not a place for swimming and sunbath —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darameja (talk • contribs)
This is another rather tough country to divide, especially as the population is quite large, there is a fair amount to see, but we have relatively little content. Here is my idea, mostly following provincial boundaries:
Northern Uzbekistan (Qaraqalpaqstan, Khorezm, Navoiy). I wanted to have Qaraqalpaqstan as a separate region, as it is quite large & semi-autonomous. But the other two northern provinces have much less content, and Khorezm would totally be cut off from the rest of the country by the Qaraqalpastan province (and I don't think it could support a good article).
Samarkand and Bukhara (Samarkand, Bukhara). The most romantic names of the Silk Road should go together. I propose we include that long, skinny stretch of Navoiy in this region. There might be a better name? Perhaps something in the more cheesy vein of Heart of the Silk Road?
"Republic," if it doesn't mean "constitutional system with [at least reasonably] free and fair elections," provides no information to the traveler except that there is no official king. I think "authoritarian presidential rule" is an accurate description of the actual situation in Uzbekistan. Please make a persuasive argument that Uzbekistan is a democracy or an explanation of why "republic" is an informative description for travelers, or stop editing the description of "authoritarian presidential rule." Thanks. Ikan Kekek 15:18, 6 May 2012 (EDT)
I agree. IMO, "dictatorship" sounds better than "authoritarian presidential rule." AHeneen 15:30, 6 May 2012 (EDT)
That's fine, but there is no longer a space for a description of the governmental system in the info box at the upper right of the article. I guess a decision was made to exclude that info? Any insight from the decision-makers? Ikan Kekek 16:10, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
It's there - the "government" attribute of the quickbar, currently set to "Republic" for this article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:16, 7 May 2012 (EDT)\
That's funny. Now I see it. Ikan Kekek 17:34, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
I see that there has been a minor editing war over the government attribute. I am not convinced that "Dictatorship" is the right description. I think legally peaking it is a republic, even if in practice, there is no credible opposition to the current president. "Dictatorship" has some pretty negative connotations, particularly in the light of the Sacha Baron Cohen film of the same name. Remember his Borat film caused considerable offence in both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. I think the actual status of the government is better described in the main text. Davidbstanley 02:10, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
Of course the word "dictatorship" has negative connotations! But that's not the issue, is it? What makes Uzbekistan not a dictatorship? Also, if we simply delete a short-hand description (which I would prefer to making the word "republic" meaningless or simply a synonym for "not a monarchy"), what would you put in as a slightly longer summary of the type of governmental system Uzbekistan is under? And I don't think Borat is relevant to whether either Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan are in fact dictatorships. Ikan Kekek 04:18, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
It could say "Republic (See article)", just to highlight that all is not as it should be. The article does describe the government system. Also note that both Wikipedia and CIA factbook describe the country as a republic.Davidbstanley 02:21, 1 June 2012 (EDT)