Talk:Nigmatilla Yuldashev

source

What source states that he is acting president? Constitutionally supposed to take office doesn't necessarily mean actually taking office; see, for example, the events in Turkmenistan after Niyazov died in 2006. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This for one. Number 57 00:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

From the BBC, dated 4 September:

"Uzbek officials have yet to formally announce the acting president or arrangements for presidential elections, if they are to be called.

But the Kremlin stated that President Vladimir Putin had sent his condolences to the "head of parliament's upper house and acting President Nigmatilla Yuldoshev".

Mr Yuldoshev, a former justice minister who is regarded as an unlikely contender for permanent power, was not given a central role in the funeral and was not seen meeting foreign leaders arriving in Samarqand to pay their respects to the Karimov family."

That is some weak sauce. Are we really going to declare him the acting President of Uzbekistan based on condolences sent by a foreign leader? In the absence of anything from the government in question? Everyking (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So, as it turns out, I was right: he was never acting president, and now someone else has been appointed instead. This shouldn't be a big revelation, though, since no reliable sources ever reported that he was acting president in the first place. Since whoever added this false speculation as fact did not clean up their own mess, I have now done so. Let's stick to the sources, please. Everyking (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

He was acting president. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources say he wasn't. Everyking (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources say he was until 8 september. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

By Uzbekistan constitution in case of President incapacity to perform duties or death, Chairman of the Senate automatically assumes power of Acting President. So, he was Acting President without any vote for 6 days. And that's the reason Shavkat Mirziyoyev is appointed as Interim President - to distinguish between automatic assumption of role by Yuldashev. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is the link to Constitution [1]. The article 96 was actually amended in 2011. Prior to amendment it stated that "in case of incapacity to perform duties or death of President, emergency joint sessions of the Chambers of the Oliy Majlis shall be held within ten days to elect acting President of the Republic of Uzbekistan." The amendment changed it to automatically vest powers of President to Chairman of the Senate, which happened on September the 2nd oficially when Karimov's death was announced and probably days before in fact when Karimov went into a coma after stroke. And only when Oliy Majlis had the session to confirm Yuldashev as Acting President, he proposed to wave the power to Mirziyoyev, making him Interim president, since it's actually agains the Constitution. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

None of you have presented a single actual source for these claims. I, meanwhile, have already quoted the BBC article above, and I also cited an RFE/RL article in the article itself. I will helpfully quote from that article:

A statement on the government website said the decision was made at a joint session of the upper and lower parliament houses on September 8, six days after the announcement of Karimov's death following a stroke left Uzbekistan with no formal head of state.

Mirziyaev's appointment veered away from the system laid out in the Central Asian state's constitution, which says that the chairman of the upper parliament chamber, the Senate, assumes presidential authority for three months if the president dies or is unable to perform his or her duties.

But Senate Chairman Nigmatulla Yuldashev asked lawmakers to appoint Mirziyaev instead, citing "his many years of experience," and lawmakers supported the proposal, the government statement said.

Italics mine. So I have two reliable sources, and those of you arguing against me have rulers.org? Seriously? If he was actually President, sources would be easy to find, so go find one. Until then, forget it. Everyking (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

An acting president is not formal. The previous source said he was acting. The constitution was violated because the president of the Senate should act as interim throughout the period . It proves nothing. Stop your revert. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So no source again, huh? Everyking (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that the article has been protected (on the version that isn't supported by reliable sources), I suppose this would be as good a time as any for those who keep reverting me to saunter over to Google News and find a source supporting their claims. Undoubtedly it will be easy. Certainly the government of Uzbekistan would have said something if someone new had taken over the presidency, and certainly news agencies would have reported that. Right? Everyking (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There are three sources : [2], rulers, [3]. Your affirmartion is a lie. And rulers is reliable. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's one. The Guardian article. Rulers is a self-published website, and the BBC article explicitly confirms what I've been saying ("Uzbek officials have yet to formally announce the acting president"). That and the RFE/RL source both postdate the Guardian article and contradict it—the Guardian article is probably based on a groundless assumption of automatic succession (or maybe the Russian condolences). Everyking (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This can be argued both ways. There seems to be no evidence Yuldashev exercised any presidential authority, or that he was even referred to as acting president by any Uzbek official source. But then according to the constitution his taking on the position was automatic, there's no mention of a particular confirmation or installation requirement, and there was no official statement that he didn't hold the position, or that anyone else did, before September 8, so it is not unreasonable to consider him the de jure acting president for that interval rather than assuming a total vacancy based on some a priori assumption that the constitution is being ignored. Mewulwe (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because the constitution says it's automatic doesn't mean we can just assume it in the absence of a credible source. I find it inconceivable that someone could be President of Uzbekistan for six days and there's no official source saying so and no news outlets reporting it. In any case, we can't state in the absence of proper sourcing, and we do have sources stating that the position appeared to be formally vacant until 8 September. Everyking (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Arguably that's more conceivable than a total vacancy at the head of a major state for six days. News outlets can only report what official sources are saying, and they were quiet, which is not too unusual when it comes to an acting position. So it comes down to what the default assumption is: the constitution being followed, or being ignored. ANY definite statement as to who was head of state in that period is original research. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Mewulwe (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, we are talking about one of the closest countries in the world in terms of politics and internal power balances. That's pretty obvious they were silent in that period and Constitution can be the only reliable and verifiable source for us here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The constitution is a fine source for what the constitution says, but totally worthless on its own as a source for what has actually happened. Everyking (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That isn't true at all. We have sources saying that the post was vacant. A constitution is a piece of paper and its provisions may or may not be applied. In this case, there is no evidence that it was applied and good reason to say it wasn't. Do you think he was actually doing the job of President? If so, why is there no record of that? Do you think anyone in Uzbekistan considered him the President? What if he was sitting in jail during those few days—would we still classify him as President based on assumptions about the constitution, disregarding facts on the ground? Remember, basically the same thing happened in Turkmenistan ten years ago—the person who should have succeeded was immediately shoved aside (and into jail, I believe). Nobody thinks he was President for one minute after Niyazov's heart stopped beating. If you aren't doing the job, nobody calls you President or recognizes you as such, why in the world would Wikipedia say so? Everyking (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources saying the post was vacant date from September 8, to fit better with the course then adopted. But there was no denial of the constitutional position before that date. I don't think he was "doing the job" - but I think the regime did not have a definite plan on September 2, otherwise there would not have been a six-day delay. So they just kept quiet but keeping the option open of just confirming that Yuldashev is acting president. In Turkmenistan there was no significant delay. Yuldashev might be considered the acting president (if only in a passive and theoretical way) because of a constitutional position that was not denied (and Putin at least did call him acting president and other condolence messages were also addressed to him: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1395031.shtml). Mewulwe (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The BBC article is dated 4 September. Anyway, if you don't think he was doing the job, or that people considered him the president, this doesn't seem like much of an argument. Everyking (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The BBC article doesn't say there is a total vacancy, only that nothing has been announced. I think going by the constitution while there is no explicit contradiction is as good an argument as the alternative. Mewulwe (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't just make things up to fill a gap in the timeline. If there's no proper evidence for it (indeed, the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion), we certainly can't declare it to be a fact. What we know, what can be verified, is summarized in the paragraph in the article text; to go beyond that requires a big assumption unsupported by reliable sources. Everyking (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Declaring an actual gap (rather than just a lack of announcements) to be a fact is making things up just the same. Avoiding either interpretation leaves the matter undefined. Mewulwe (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The RFE/RL article I quoted states that there was no formal head of state during that period. I'm just reporting what the sources say, certainly not making anything up. Anyway, what sort of resolution do you suggest? Everyking (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The RFE/RL article is from September 8 and reflects the official line given out then. No one was able to report before that date that there was no acting president. Well, the undisputed facts just have to be laid out. As far as this article is concerned, one could just leave out the infobox or add some wording indicating the questionable status of his acting presidency. Mewulwe (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mewulwe: I am against your proposal. I prefer to not put anything because the many sources from major newspapers showed it was acting president. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The argument given is clear and sources published during the short period are clear too. Thank you not to try to remake the game. There is no consensus for your proposal. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus either. And you are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof naturally rests on you. Everyking (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it is you who changed the page without consensus and refused to sources. Now everything is clear. The reliable sources have been given. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How can you possibly even be serious? Everyking (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Repeat your absurdities repeatedly not happen truths. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Folks, here are two sources on Russian. One is Argumenty i Fakty and the second is RIA Novosti which is state running news agency. Taking into account the lack of any information in Uzbek, which is understandable in the situation of Uzbekistan, those are two most verifiable sources we have. Both are talking about Yuldashev as Acting President. This source [4] is from 03/09. And this [5] is from 02/09. I don't think we need more then this. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

More information. Translation of Yuldashev speech in Olij Majlis from this source [6]. He told that he decided to remove from himself the constitutional powers of head of state because he does not have enough experience in running the country. Hence, it was officially mentioned that until he removed himself from the position during the session, he was considered President of Uzbekistan. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Some editors should have read the page WP:NOR. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)