Talk:History of Xinjiang/Archive 1

Removal of pro-independence POV[edit]

This article should be neutral, without hidden agenda from pro-independence supporters. Some of the things inserted by this group:

The region was referred to as part of "Turkistan" by the 13th century Venetian traveler Marco Polo

Turkistan" concept was created by the Russians in 1864. It didn't exist in 13th century. As for Marco Polo, he referred China and the surrounding area as "Khitay". Note that there are doubts whether Marco Polo even visited China as he made serious errors, including the name of China. Durianlover1 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making things up. Marco Polo called the towns of Kashgar, Khotan, Keriya (Peyn), Charklik, and the area of Lop Nor, i.e. practically the entire Tarim Basin area, all within Turkestan. See here. There was a East Turkestan Republic, it's the name the Uyghurs prefer, this is simply stating facts. Hzh (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that book is a 1908 English translation of Marco Polo's work, after East Turkestan was popularized by the Russians in the 19th century (also see sources in the footnotes at Turkestan#Etymology) to refer to the Tarim Basin? And that the First East Turkestan Republic came into being in 1933? The traditional Uyghur name of the Tarim Basin was Altishahr. The name modern Uyghurs prefer for seperatist/nationalist reasons is "East Turkestan". You need to provide the original Marco Polo book in Italian, to prove that he used Turkestan to refer to the region.Rajmaan (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This article needs a thorough rewrite, it makes the history of Xinjiang look like an internal Chinese affair. It doesn't mention the Tocharians once and the role of the Uyghurs is played down. I also take issue with the use of the loaded term "encroachment" every time non-Chinese peoples are entering the region.--Niohe 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Main|Western Regions}[edit]

removed this tag from the "Struggle between Xiongnu and Han China" section, as that article is definitely not a "main article" in this topic.

Jerome Potts 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping changes[edit]

The recent changes to the article have been far sweeping and greatly change the original content of the article. Much of the new content seems to need better integration to the article as well as more substantiating references from credible sources that can be checked. I suggest the changes be made to a sub page or a sandbox and then collaborated upon as well as discussed with the other major contributors to this article and subject matter. Mkdw ^talk 09:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up History of Xinjiang/Sandbox for this express purpose. Mkdw ^talk 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the excuse[edit]

What you are doing here is active vandalism. if you do not want Uyghur history included in wikipedia, I am sorry for you and your friend the Leopard. Just remind you guys that Uyghurs were the absolute majority in Xinjiang just 50 years ago, why you do not want their history being told in the wikipedia?, "sweeping changes" become an excuse for you to do not include aboriginal inhabitant's history?.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FACT NEEDED (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 February 2008

You should always assume good faith when editing. I would strongly suggest you carefully choose your words. Accusing people of active vandalism is a very serious matter. I understand you are new to Wikipedia and I do believe your intentions are good ones, but please be respectful of your fellow editors. You have made 13 edits to the English Wikipedia and calling someone a vandal is not a good start. I have made over 6,700 edits to the English Wikipedia, am a member of the WikiProject Council, am a member of the counter-vandalism task force, and have been entrusted with rollback privileges to fight vandalism. If you think I am vandalising Wikipedia you are welcome to report this incident to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mkdw ^talk 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I just want people to be neutral and respect the fact that aboriginal people's history. I will talk about my points in the discussion. thanks, FACT NEEDED (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Adding relevant new content without removing the previously existing material is not normally considered "sweeping changes". It's called "extending an article". The first entry on this talk page already complains that the article was written from a purely Chinese perspective. Improving on that is definitively a good thing, even if the sourcing of the new content still needs some work (as does the sourcing of the old version, for that matter). Complaints about grammar and formatting are a reason to fix the grammar and formatting, but never a valid excuse for removing material. In fact, I have yet so see any content related arguments from your side. All you really say is that you don't like it, because it wasn't there before. Not a very good argument, and neither is listing your edit count and all your project memberships. Instead of biting the newbie, you could just have added a few {{fact}} tags, and tried to enter into a friendly dialogue with the other editor.

I've replied to your comments for me on User talk:Latebird. Mkdw ^talk 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@FACT NEEDED: Once you have added your material with sources, please study WP:CITE and WP:STYLE very carefully. Then, in the light of those and related policies and guidelines, you may want to return and fix any of the formal problems in your contributions that you find. Judging from a cursory glance at your most recent edits, you seem to be using valid sources, so it's just a matter of presenting them in a way that is verifiable by others. --Latebird (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Latebird, thanks for your understanding. As I complained in History_of_Xinjiang discussion page, the article is extremely biased. It seems that original article tolerates history with no citations and wishful thinkings but denies historical facts with references.FACT NEEDED (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FACT NEEDED. This is an encyclopedia entry, so please get some consensus for your edits. Several of the sections, such as Moghulistan/Uyghuristan, Saidiye Kingdom, and The Khojah Kingdom seems very much like original research (I couldn't locat many of these on other electronic encyclopedias). Also, you should consult with other Wiki Central Asia or Wiki China editors before making massive edits. Until then, please use the sandbox.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History editing should not be politically motivated[edit]

TheLeopard. I am not making any "original research" per se. If have no knowledge about East Turkistan(xinjiang) history, read the references I gave or simply find out from wikipedia(example read Sultan Said Khan, Moghulistan ect.). I can see the original article is extremely biased. I have read so many sources , all mentions chinese was only 2-5% of population in Xinjiang until 1949. but this article about xinjiang only mentions Uyghurs several times as if aboriginal people did not exist before chinese arrived to xinjiang. Regarding Serus(Kasia Regio), mojority of writers agree it is modern xinjiang, current article is misleading by claiming it is china. Read the article about serus and it's blond haired population. This article claims Song dynasty conquered xinjiang in 609, read the chronicles again, it is later than that date and it was not a direct rule. Since this is wikipedia, history editing should not be politically motivated. Hope you do not take entire article as your hostage. FACT NEEDED (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC):FACT NEEDED, listen to your own words "politically motivated" since your recent "massive" change to the article could very much interpreted as "politicaly motivated" since you are adding it from a purely Uyghur persepctive when in fact, like yourself mentioned, many ethnic groups and states occupid this area beforehand (Xiongnu, Indo-European Tocharians, Yuezhi, Han Dynasty, Göktürks, Tang Dynasty, Uyghurs and Mongols....). Like I said, ask some editors opinion from Wikiproject China and Central Asia before making major contributions. BTW, please don't depends your knowledge of information from Wikipedia articles, that is simply laughable.[reply]

You need to add "date", page numbers to some of your references (look at APA or MLA style manual for how to cite references in English encyclopedia). Without it, the reference would not be accepted as a complete reference.

By the way, FACT NEEDED, are you a native speaker of English? I see the contents you added on this article often has punctuation errors, false captalization and missing commas and periods. If so, you seriously need to contact editors to review your contents before presenting it.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLeopard, I recommend you work more and talk less. Remember you are not a position to question me. period. FACT NEEDED (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just checking your contributions and the references you put up. In some instances, you are inaccurately citing references from books (such as citing Marco Polo when he never was mentioned on the page). If you continue such action, that would be something that I should be concerned with.

Are you planning on answering any of the questions that were posted above? Do you intend to fix your references or not?--TheLeopard (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@TheLeopard, I think it is you who Writes without citation and deletes important points. Before you criticize me, continue to read more and talk less. Go to google books and search for the book I mentioned. Since I am not your librarian, I can not be responsible if you can not find the obvious. FACT NEEDED (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with raising questions?

Are you playing rethorics or what? And could you respond any of my questions? Like questions about references and your grammatical skills? Shouldn't you also thank me for pointing out that you cited March of Central Asia by Ram Rahul inaccurately. What I have problem is that you incorrectly cite your references and sometimes manipulate them just to serve a specific agenda.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLeopard, I will take out Ibn battuta. thanks for pointing out that mistake. Yes, If you show me with evidence like this I will correct that. FACT NEEDED (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! What are you talking about. I only told you that Marco Polo did not appear on the page in March of Central Asia, but I didn't say Ibn Battuta didn't. In fact, it did mention him, on page 14, if you have read the book.--TheLeopard (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLeopard, here is the link about Marco polo. http://books.google.com/books?id=xJsv-bJe27kC&pg=PA100&dq=The+Travels+of+Marco+Polo+turkistan&lr=&ei=7vDJR4muI4eqtgPd8ujRAw&sig=Sa28QpYYhX-adESnMDCEwuY4dDk FACT NEEDED (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that is a different book called The Travels of Marco Polo, not the one you previously cited.

And you are distorting references, again! You're literally inserting words into the reference you cited for Changing China: A Geographic Appraisal by Chiao-min Hsieh, Max Lu. Some of the statements you wrote wasn't even mentioned on the references.--TheLeopard (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLeopard, I do not know why you still can not understand. I am giving you every detail with citation and exact pages. Regarding kingdoms in ancient xinjiang, they were vassal states, local kings paid tribute to han dynasty, Han never had direct control. if there was direct control why they have kings. You deleted the phrase invasion, I hope you respect the fact, it is an invasion and subjugation. Do you think original inhabitants invited the chinese?, why they rebel and expelled the chinese?. remember what Chinese said about ancient people in xiyu(east turkistan): The Western Hu are far away. They live in an outer zone. Their countries’ products are beautiful and precious, But their character is debauched and frivolous. They do not follow the rites of China. Han has the canonical books. They do not obey the Way of the Gods.2 How pitiful! How obstinate!

Please acknowledge the fact that they are totally different people from the chinese. FACT NEEDED (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, these were ancient Indo-European peoples living in the region, of course they're different than Chinese-speaking peoples. You'll need to respond to my questions accordingly because I never asked questions like what kind of people they are.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLeopard, right citation used for Marco polo. I did not insert any words into the reference I cited for Changing China: A Geographic Appraisal. I just translated the meaning of Sharqi turkistan. You may not like some facts I mentioned, but I have to respect the fact. FACT NEEDED (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You used another source for the Marco Polo statement after I pointed out that you incorrectly cited March of Central Asia when in fact it didn't mention him. But Ram Rahul's March of Central Asia did mention Ibn battuta, so what is the problem? You still haven't addressed it yet? I'm going to consider Ram Rahul's book though, because it is relatively comprehensive.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about the name of the region[edit]

Why Xinjiang (?), it is not the historical name of the region, the historical name of the region is East Turkistan! please correct the title of the article Abdullaev (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"East Turkistan" concept was invented in the 18th century by Europeans to refer to the region inhabited by the Turkish people. It was a misnomer and did not have any definite regional boundary. As for Xinjiang, it did not have any specific historical name, the muslim in the middle east called this region as Cathay, as it was associated with the Chinese civilization. Marco polo in the 13th century also referred it as Cathay.

Because it's a political subdivision of China, if China calls it Xinjiang, then it's called Xinjiang. For the same reason why 北京(Beijing) is not called 大都(Khanbaliq) as the Mongolians called it when they ruled the place. And two other things, 1. What you are proposing is already there, albeit just under in "The Name" section, which is already very uyghur bias in description. and 2. If Xinjiang should be called East Turkistan, then what about Afghanistan? South Turkistan? and Uzbekistan be called North Uzbekistan? And you can't even unite yourselves into one country. Who are you to complain? It's called Xinjiang because the whole region was under continuous Chinese administration of one sort or another for the last 250 years.

"Last 250 years"?Qing empire was ruled by Manchu people.Don't provide Chinese propaganda!

we are talking about the history of the region, rather than on administrative-territorial units of the PRC. About this unit is another article. Abdullaev (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

history of the region consists of thousands

and 250 years of Chinese rule, it is not the end of the history of the non-Chinese regionAbdullaev (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously contentious. Please do not move the page before you launched a move-discussion/request. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20th century section ending removed[edit]

I removed these words from that section. "The PRC's first nuclear test was carried out at Lop Nur, Xinjiang, on October 16, 1964." It's a minor trivial information which is added seemingly with some political motive. Thus it is removed. Discussion on its removal is welcome.Gw2005 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qing administration of Xinjiang (pre 1884)[edit]

Ili (ele) aka Dzungharia was not considered a part of "turkestan"(tarim basin) during early Qing times. the tarim basin and ili were governed separately.

Put the information into wikisource and then link to this article

http://books.google.com/books?id=SV9AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ik4BAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA554#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=KGlJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA681#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang was never an administrative unit before the Qing, it was divided into Dzungaria and the Tarim Basin (Huijiang, aka "Muslim frontier")

Dzungharia or Ili was called Zhunbu 準部 (Dzungar region) Tianshan Beilu 天山北路 (Northern March), or "Xinjiang" 新疆 (New Frontier). It was formerely the area of the Zunghar Khanate 準噶爾汗國, the land of the Dzungar people

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false

While the Tarim Basin was known as "Tianshan Nanlu 天山南路 (southern March), Huibu 回部 (Muslim region), Huijiang 回疆 (Muslim frontier), Chinese Turkestan, Kashgaria, Little Bukharia, East Turkestan", and the traditional Uyghur name for it was Altishahr (Uyghur: التى شهر, romanized: Altishahr). It was formerly the area of the Eastern Chagatai Khanate 東察合台汗國, land of the Uyghur people before being conquered by the Dzungars.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

La Kalmouquie (Kalmykia), La Petite Bucharie (Little Bukharia) http://books.google.com/books?id=CghUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA144#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Uyghurs were known as Chantou Hui 纏頭回 (Turban headed Muslims) by the Chinese, as opposed to HuiHui 回回 (which referred to Hui people), the Uyghurs themselves were collectively called Turki (Uyghur: تركى, romanized: Turki)

"The Organisation of Workers and Farmers of Altishahr and Zungharia" was a Soviet Uyghur organization at the Tashkent conference in 1921 which decided to change their ethnic group name to Uyghur.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.academia.edu/1001829/Annotated_Bibliography_of_the_History_and_Culture_of_Eastern_Turkistan_Jungharia_Zungaria_Dzungaria_Chinese_Central_Asia_and_Sinkiang_Xinjiang

http://oxuscom.com/sovinxj.htm

http://www.academia.edu/398262/The_Soviets_In_Xinjiang

Turki

the Qing declared Dzungaria in Xinjiang as part of China and allowed Han settlement there[edit]

The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Dzungaria in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf

When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in the Ten_Great_Campaigns#The_Zunghars_and_pacification_of_Xinjiang_.281755.E2.80.931759.29, they proclaimed that their land was absorbed into "China".

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA77&dq=Dulimbai+gurun+land&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jEHtUunnIIvksASBzIEQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun%20land&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA83&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=steppes+mountains+rivers+Dzungar+unified+with+china&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5UHtUuvvCcu_sQStu4HYBw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=steppes%20mountains%20rivers%20Dzungar%20unified%20with%20china&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_0LtUoGlNMTCywHW0ICAAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

Han and Uyghur settlement in Dzungaria[edit]

Dzungaria was one of the places where the Qing encouraged Han and Hui migration and notable in that regard. The Qing did not allow Han and Hui to permanently settled down in outer Mongolia, for example. After destroying the native Dzungar population, the Qing settled hundreds of thousands of Han, Hui, and Uyghurs (Taranchis) in Dzungaria

There were few Uyghurs in Urumqi during the Qing dynasty, Urumqi was mostly Han and Hui, and Han and Hui settlers were concentraded in Northern (Beilu) Xinjiang (Dzungaria).

"the military colonies became the site for extensive civilian migration made up mostly by Chinese peasants who came to clear lands and create an agricultural basis for more densely populated provinces out of the sparsely inhabited, semi-nomadic regions....for by the early nineteenth century, 155,000 Chinese peasants had settled in northern Xinjiang, comprising a significant portion of the local population."

"This measure sufficed to create a population of around 155,000 Han and Tungan homesteaders in northern Xinjiang by the turn of the nineteenth century".

Taranchi was the name for Turki (modern Uyghur) agriculturalists who were resettled in Dzhungaria from the Tarim oases by the Qing dynasty, along with Manchus, Xibo, Han and other ethnic groups in the aftermath of the destruction of the Dzhunghars.

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA351#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA93&dq=Uyghur+anachronism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jJgRUYqFJYrn0QHql4DADQ&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Uyghur%20anachronism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=bBoTAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5p_rjMLgj_8C&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false

Settlement in the Tarim Oases[edit]

Han and Hui merchants were initially only allowed to trade in the Uyghur dominated Tarim Basin, while Han and Hui settlement in the Tarim Basin was banned, until the Talk:Jahangir_Khoja Jahangir Khoja invasion, when the Qing rewarded the merchants for fighting off Jahangir Khoja by allowing them to settle down. However, the decree did not make much of an impact.

Bannerman settlement[edit]

Page 37

http://books.google.com/books?id=KHwPAAAAYAAJ&q=Valley+of+Xinjiang+to+colonize+Jungaria,+where+their+descendants+still+live+today.+It+is+as+yet+unclear+why+the+Sibes+were+chosen+for+this+purpose+unless+it+was+their+opposition+to+the+ruling+Manchu+Dynasty+(Lebedeva+%26+Gorelova,+1994:10-1).+In+the+document+number+seven+of+the+above-mentioned+collection+there+is+information+about+disor%C2%AD+der+among+the+Sibes.+It+is+also+mentioned+that+the+Qiqihar+Sibe+companies’+commanders+and+their+officers+were+removed+from+their+posts.+During+their+transfer+from+Mukden+to+the+Ili+Valley,+the+Sibes+were+convoyed+by+Manchu+regular+forces+of+eight+hundred+officers+and+men.+All+these+facts+corroborate+the+compulsory+nature+of+the+Sibe’s+transfer+to+Xinjiang+(SU).&dq=Valley+of+Xinjiang+to+colonize+Jungaria,+where+their+descendants+still+live+today.+It+is+as+yet+unclear+why+the+Sibes+were+chosen+for+this+purpose+unless+it+was+their+opposition+to+the+ruling+Manchu+Dynasty+(Lebedeva+%26+Gorelova,+1994:10-1).+In+the+document+number+seven+of+the+above-mentioned+collection+there+is+information+about+disor%C2%AD+der+among+the+Sibes.+It+is+also+mentioned+that+the+Qiqihar+Sibe+companies’+commanders+and+their+officers+were+removed+from+their+posts.+During+their+transfer+from+Mukden+to+the+Ili+Valley,+the+Sibes+were+convoyed+by+Manchu+regular+forces+of+eight+hundred+officers+and+men.+All+these+facts+corroborate+the+compulsory+nature+of+the+Sibe’s+transfer+to+Xinjiang+(SU).&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rl9oU_ebHe3QsQSPw4GADQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?id=KHwPAAAAYAAJ&q=Even+at+the+end+of+the+ninteenth+century+Xinjiang+was+a+place+where+bannermen+were+sent+for+their+faults,+a+place+for+...+of+the+authorities,+%22they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan%22+(Lao+She,++...&dq=Even+at+the+end+of+the+ninteenth+century+Xinjiang+was+a+place+where+bannermen+were+sent+for+their+faults,+a+place+for+...+of+the+authorities,+%22they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan%22+(Lao+She,++...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qWBoU4OMO8rLsASokoFY&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic & Central Asian Studies, Manchu Grammar Volume 7 of Handbook of Oriental Studies Volume 7 of Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic and Central Asian Studies Volume 7 of Handbook of oriental studies : Sect. 8, Central Asia / Handbuch der Orientalistik / 8 Volume 7 of Handbuch der Orientalistik. Achte Abteilung, Handbook of Uralic studies Volume 7 of Handbuch der Orientalistik: Achte Abteilung, Central Asia Handbuch der Orientalistik: Zentralasien Editor Liliya M. Gorelova Publisher Brill Academic Pub, 2002 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Oct 17, 2007 ISBN 9004123075, 9789004123076

Page 137

http://books.google.com/books?id=IIJRAQAAIAAJ&q=If+Shicheng+was+arrested+and+gave+his+name+to+the+authorities,+what+would+happen?+If+they+didn't+cut+off+his+head,+then+certainly+they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan!&dq=If+Shicheng+was+arrested+and+gave+his+name+to+the+authorities,+what+would+happen?+If+they+didn't+cut+off+his+head,+then+certainly+they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan!&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J2FoU6eEKOPmsATr_IA4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg

Page 86

http://books.google.com/books?id=GtgiAQAAMAAJ&q=If+Shicheng+was+arrested+and+gave+his+name+to+the+authorities,+what+would+happen?+If+they+didn't+cut+off+his+head,+then+certainly+they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan!&dq=If+Shicheng+was+arrested+and+gave+his+name+to+the+authorities,+what+would+happen?+If+they+didn't+cut+off+his+head,+then+certainly+they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan!&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J2FoU6eEKOPmsATr_IA4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ

Page 57

http://books.google.com/books?id=y0dkAAAAMAAJ&q=If+Shicheng+was+arrested+and+gave+his+name+to+the+authorities,+what+would+happen?+If+they+didn't+cut+off+his+head,+then+certainly+they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan!&dq=If+Shicheng+was+arrested+and+gave+his+name+to+the+authorities,+what+would+happen?+If+they+didn't+cut+off+his+head,+then+certainly+they+would+take+his+name+off+the+Bannerman+register+and+send+him+to+Xinjiang+or+Yunnan!&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J2FoU6eEKOPmsATr_IA4&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

04:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian sinologist N. Bichurin created the name East Turkestan in 1829[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA33&dq=The+Russians+researched+not+only+medieval+Uyghur+history,+but+also+the+recent+past+of+today's+Xinjiang.+It+was+Russian+scholarship,+for+instance,+that+introduced+for+the+first+time+the+terms+'West+Turkestan'+and+'East+Turkestan'.+In+1829,+the+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1YhYU_OgK87JsQT04ILYDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA34&dq=Turkestan'+and+'East+Turkestan'.+In+1829,+the+Russian+sinologist+N.+Bichurin+stated:+'it+would+be+better+here+to+call+Bukhara's+Turkestan+the+Western+one,+and+Chinese+Turkestan+the+Eastern+%5B+.+...+(+1+829,+12).+Nevertheless,+the+name+'East+Turkestan'+acquired+a+wide+usage+in+academic+literature+only+in+the+second+half+of+the+twentieth+century.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3IdYU9jWC4PMsQSj7ICYCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

Demographics and population growth[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=K3XdB5o4VFAC&pg=PA102&dq=In+the+mid-1960s,+there+were+about+4+million+Uygurs+and+500,000+Kazaks.+By+1982,+the+Uygur+population+had+grown+to+almost+6+million,+and+Kazaks+numbered+over+900,000.+The+total+population+ofXinjiang+in+1987+exceeded+14+million.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jYdYU-HpC-etsATkqYH4Dw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20the%20mid-1960s%2C%20there%20were%20about%204%20million%20Uygurs%20and%20500%2C000%20Kazaks.%20By%201982%2C%20the%20Uygur%20population%20had%20grown%20to%20almost%206%20million%2C%20and%20Kazaks%20numbered%20over%20900%2C000.%20The%20total%20population%20ofXinjiang%20in%201987%20exceeded%2014%20million.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA64&dq=of+Xinjiang,+Toops+gives+an+overall+figure+and+the+province+population+in+1941+of+3,730,000,+of+which+2,984,000+were+Uyghur,+187,000+Han,+326,000+Kazakh,+92,000+Hui+and+65,000+Kirghiz.46+For+1949,+Hoppe+estimates+the+total+population+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIdYU4-LEvjNsQT974LQDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=of%20Xinjiang%2C%20Toops%20gives%20an%20overall%20figure%20and%20the%20province%20population%20in%201941%20of%203%2C730%2C000%2C%20of%20which%202%2C984%2C000%20were%20Uyghur%2C%20187%2C000%20Han%2C%20326%2C000%20Kazakh%2C%2092%2C000%20Hui%20and%2065%2C000%20Kirghiz.46%20For%201949%2C%20Hoppe%20estimates%20the%20total%20population%20to%20...&f=false

Maps of Qing Xinjiang[edit]

Maps of Qing Xinjiang

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

File:Qing-Empire1.jpg

Tianshan Beilu and Tianshan Nanlu with dates of original incorporation into China and dates or reincorporation after the Dungan revolt

The distribution map of Xinjiang's GDP per person (2011)

http://www.zwbk.org/MyLemmaShow.aspx?lid=80243

http://www.zwbk.org/Lemma_PictureShow.aspx?pid=20101011082329454_980.jpg&title=明朝疆域形势图&lid=80243

http://www.zwbk.org/edit/file/20101011082329454_980.jpg

Rajmaan (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shot through with POV[edit]

This article is atrocious. It is shot through with intrusive POVs.

In particular, the section on the genocide of the Zunghars repeats the same information over and over. I'm not sure what the POV is in aid of -- possibly anti-Manchu, possibly anti-China -- but it is there.

The second is the section which insists in spelling out in minute detail how Xinjiang really is a part of China (Qing intentions, settling of Han Chinese, etc.)

Both are repetitive, and because they are written from two quite different POVs, both succeed only in fragmenting and disrupting the coherence of the article.

92.51.247.46 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Xinjiang. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Xinjiang. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Xinjiang. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Xinjiang. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on History of Xinjiang. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro map[edit]

@Scriptions: and @Sirlanz:, there is no need to have this squabble occur via edit summary alone. Both of you now have 4 or 5 reverts as of this writing. And Scriptions, regarding this edit summary, you should take that up with the map workshop, as the map in both relief and political form is used as a pushpin across dozens of articles. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map promoted by Scriptions lacked almost half of the region's border, indeed its author was not even attempting to define the region; the map promoted by me, even if Scriptions is correct, had no defect as to the region's delineation but defined a disputed border of one internal subdivision. Which was better for the encyclopaedia? A reduction in fidelity of the encyclopaedia by providing no detailed map at all is a step backwards. sirlanz 01:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly better for the encyclopaedia to show a correct image than an incorrect one. As I wrote in the relevant edit summary, I find it a good idea to add a map such as the one you added, but it has to be correct. The current map conflates some of the Xinjiang–Tibet border with the India–China border as claimed by India. Scriptions (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation misuse[edit]

I'm not really sure how to proceed as there are countless examples (and I'm going to be traveling soon to a place where Wikipedia's blocked), but there's a lot of original research and synthesis, as well as overuse of primary sources in this article. At times, claims are generalized in the article in ways they are not in the original source. A large number of citations are misused or misinterpreted. To give an example, many of the things cited from Hultvall are quotes from a primary source taken verbatim and presented as factual. Similarly, information about historic venereal disease prevalence among Uyghurs cited from Beller-Hahn is not in the source provided. At other times these reliable secondary sources are paraphrased in such a way that changes their meaning, another example being under the "Turkic revisionism" sub-section, the paragraph, "But there is no evidence for such claims" is cited from Bovingdon. However Bovingdon's point in that chapter and the cited passages are to analyze the political motivations behinds Uyghur claims of indigeneity - I believe whoever wrote the paragraph singled in on Bovingdon's statements about the inaccuracy of Uyghur nationalist histories and his use of the word "insupportable" on page 30. And yet the way it's put in the article implies that Bovingdon is saying that Uyghurs are invaders and not the indigenous inhabitants - that is not at all what he is saying. Though Almas's claims of various Chinese invention indeed don't have any merit, claiming that Bovingdon said so (though I'm sure he'd agree), is clear attribution on the editors part, as he doesn't deal with any of that in the chapter, only the question of indigeneity and its political aspects. This is one of several instances in the article where I can only conclude that editors read sources in an incredibly selective and biased manner. As much as I'm trying to assume good faith here, the article at times really reads like propaganda. Darthkayak (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I am not the original author (it may be Milktaco, who contributed the most to this article) of the specific material mentioned by Darthkayak, so I will act as a 3rd party mediator.

1. Regarding 'venereal diseases' the citation has been fixed. The info comes from:

https://equmeniakyrkan.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Hultvall-ENG.pdf

This is the new link (the old one is dead), and the citations to Hultvall have been updated accordingly.

2. Regarding Hultvall: quotes are quotes, and they are cited. Whether it is fact or not is a different matter, but one would need reliable sources to challenge the veracity as well. Moreover I read through each citation to Hultvall, and I don't see how the quotes are 'presented as factual'. It's just telling me that one person said this or another person wrote this.

3. Reading p.27

https://books.google.com/books?id=NrtIa77Sj2IC&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bovingdon's statements are well-represented. He does say there is no evidence for such claims on p.27. I don't see how the article is implying Bovingdon supports that Uyghurs were invaders.

4. After these edits, and upon further review of the sources you mentioned, I don't see any citation misuses or misinterpretations that alter the original meanings.

5. If every source was taken from the Global Times, then maybe you'd have a point about propaganda. Otherwise, these sources seem reputable to me, and I don't have much reason to suspect otherwise. Alexkyoung (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article's primary issues are with original research and synthesis. I probably wasn't clear enough about this, but my aim was to illustrate a pattern of selective reading and cherrypicking. Regarding the Bovingdon citation, the original paragraph (which has since been edited to provide greater context and which gets at fixing that specific issue, [[1]]), was a one line paragraph citing Bovingdon as refuting the entirety of the above paragraph about the broader claims of Almas and Wali about Uyghurs and gunpowder, etc. Nowhere in the citation does Bovingdon address their claims, other than those regarding the questions of age. Regardless, Almas and Wali's claims are false, but the citations used here for disproving them are misused.

As for Hultvall, the problem is not that they are included, it is that they are not attributed in text. Instead they are paraphrased line for line from the source without in-text attribution, a violation of WP:PLAGFORM. As Hultvall is a primary source, this is where the "presentation as fact" comes in. As for finding "reliable sources to challenge the veracity" of Hultvall as a factual source (not that I necessarily intend to challenge his veracity), that's not how the process works. A primary source's inclusion has to be justified through the use of secondary sources, not the other way around. We do not first look for secondary or tertiary sources challenging Hultvall's veracity, we look first for sources which establish his veracity, in accordance with WP:PSTS. We can quote (keyword being quote), Hultvall's interpretations or analysis, but we cannot state his writings as fact, unless otherwise established through other sources.

This gets at the larger problems of OR and OS in the article; to quote WP:SYN, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The paragraph directly after the Bovingdon one I discussed above is a prime example of this sort of synthesis, though it occurs throughout.

Lastly, the question of propaganda doesn't have to do with the quality of the sources used here - they are by far the best sources, written by well-respected scholars. The issue is with how they are used, that being to selectively draw conclusions outside of the texts. When I say it reads like propaganda, I'm saying that it reads like someone went through various books and looked for only the things in them which supported their own initial conclusions while ignoring the authors' other points, and then synthesized that material to create their own novel (and in a propagandistic context, politicized), interpretation - I doubt that something so intentional was what happened, but ingrained biases can have a similar effect in making an article read like propaganda. Darthkayak (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair things to bring up, but unfortunately you have to be more specific than that. When you say parts of the article read like propaganda, please pinpoint exactly which parts? When you say material is synthesized, exactly where and which material was synthesized in what way? When you say there is OR, exactly where? I'd love to help you, but without being more specific, I simply do not know which parts you are referring to.

As I have stated, most of my edits left the original material intact, so I cannot claim responsibility for all remaining issues. However, I can help you fix the existing ones to make this article better.Alexkyoung (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up[edit]

I already did what I could to address some of your concerns. If you would like to edit any more places of specific concern, be my guest. But remember you have to oblige by those standards too. Alexkyoung (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my specific points have really been addressed. In addition to the Hultvall stuff, the question of original synthesis still remains. Perhaps we should take it to a noticeboard for discussion? Darthkayak (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, when you pinpoint a specific line or source, I have fixed it. But when you make a very general accusation on the whole article, I do not know where exactly you are referring to or if you are just making an empty claim because others have. This is why I invite you to edit yourself. It is one thing to complain about things in general, and another to actually make an effort to edit things specifically. Alexkyoung (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darthkayak: It's a long-term problem - diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, I strongly recommend noticeboard. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except not really 'long term' as most of those edits are from a month ago or more. But regardless, focus less on trying to screw other users and more on trying to improve the existing article. If you pinpoint very specific lines as Darthkayak and Sirlanz have done, I will help you improve this article. But if you make very general accusations that do not improve the article, it is not helpful for me or wikipedia.

Be more of a creator and less of a complainer.

Alexkyoung (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future editors[edit]

I'd be happy to help you improve this article. But please state on this article's talk page very specific feedback on exactly which lines of this article or which specific sources or citations need to be fixed. You are welcome to make specific edits as well to the existing article, but please avoid general accusations. This is a long article, and we can work together to make it better. Alexkyoung (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid "general accusations," you should take serious those "accusations," and avoid the behavior that "causes" such "accusations." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article can I help you improve the content?Alexkyoung (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I want to give special thanks to User:JimRenge and User:Joshua Jonathan for honoring my original edits and then extensively editing and improving the article from there. Based on my observations, one new page was created Uyghur women under Qing rule (which retains my original organization) to split the article as it was originally too long. It seems that the Ush rebellion article originally added by User:Baternik was removed (I'm not sure by whom). Moreover, a lot of 'undue' terrorist propaganda was removed to trim the article even further (I would surmise the info was added by User:Milktaco).

Still Joshua re-assessed the article from B to C. After reviewing the edits, it seems that the article was made more neutral. And the original 'citation misuse' by Darthkayak is something I have already fixed. Alexkyoung (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tarim mummies[edit]

I've started to check Alexkyoung's edits; while the first paragraph is quite okay, the section on the earliest inhabitants seems to be redacted (diff diff, among others). This is unacceptable:

we find recorded north of the territory of the "fish dragons" the land of the whites (Bai), whose bodies are white and whose long hair falls on their shoulders. Such a description could accord well with a Caucasoid population beyond the frontiers of Ancient China and some scholars have identified these Whites as Yuezhi.

into

we find recorded north of the territory of the "fish dragons" the land of the whites (Bai), whose bodies are white and whose long hair falls on their shoulders. Such a description... some scholars have identified these whites as Yuezhi.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious that those mummies are related to the Indo-Europeans; maybe inconvenient for bith uyghurs and Chinese, but that's the way it is. I'll check those sources into detail. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What this ignorant comment fails to understand is that most Uyghurs consider themselves Chinese nowadays (since Xinjiang is part of China), even if they are not Han, but an ethnic group of China.Sven Karmanova (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and original research[edit]

From User talk:Joshua Jonathan#on the existing tags:

You restored the tags to the article, even after you and JimRenge edited the article extensively. Is there something more that can be done? Or should the tags just remain there?
Update: Ok I'm not sure what this silence treatment is about, but I think it's helpful to discuss. After all that's what Socrates would have promoted.
I read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove
and I'm guessing I should just wait for somebody else to fix any pov or or (if it exists), or for Darthkayak to elaborate more and then I can help fix. But if you're just going to remain silent, then I'm just guessing since I'm not the administrator here.
Anyways, I just want to say thanks for listening and editing off of the version I was advocating (which I won't say is 'my' version).
Alexkyoung (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alexkyoung: I live in Holland; I woke up in the middle in the night, and started editing just to have some diversion before trying to get back to sleep. That's why I was silent after I reverted your removal. But let's continue this discussion at the talkpage over there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sirlanz and Darthkayak: I'll have to go to the details; could the two of you provide feedback here? Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alexkyoung, Joshua is not an admin, so don't have to treat him like one. Also Sirlanz and Darthkayak have not responded for days.Sven Karmanova (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Population table[edit]

There are some other contributions that Joshua forgot to mention. User:Alexkyoung added this table here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Xinjiang#Population

~~I think this timeline is helpful.Sven Karmanova (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Review of edits by Alexkyoung[edit]

Grammar and style[edit]

Quote okay; in this respect, a lot of improvements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Europeans[edit]

This edit, edit-summary

in the original article it was referred to as 'early inhabitants' since the evidence is still being disputed, not to mention that the PRC even banned mair and others 'outsiders' from doing further genetic research on the tarim mummies

removed links to "Indo-European; I can't help but seeing this as a vioaltion of NPOV. Especially this commentary, placed within  to make it invisible, is ridiculous; "Indo-European" is the common term, and the first Indo-Europeans in the Tarim Basin were not Indo-Iranians:

Also,

The Shan Hai Jing (山海经, 4th-2nd century BCE) describes the existence of "white people with long hair" or Bai (白), who lived beyond the northwestern border. These are thought to have referred to the Yuezhi people. According to J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, "[s]uch a description could accord well with a Caucasoid population beyond the frontiers of Ancient China," possibly the Yuezhi.^[1]

was changed into

The Shan Hai Jing (山海经, 4th-2nd century BCE) describes the existence of "white people with long hair" or Bai (白), who lived beyond the northwestern border. These are thought to have referred to the Yuezhi people. According to J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, "[s]uch a description could accord well with a Caucasoid population beyond the frontiers of Ancient China," possibly the Yuezhi. At the same time, the Chinese used to refer to themselves as 'white' as well.^[2]^[3]

References

^ J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, "The Tarim Mummies", p. 55, ISBN 0-500-05101-1: "The strange creatures of the Shanhai jing: [...] we find recorded north of the territory of the "fish dragons" the land of the whites (Bai), whose bodies are white and whose long hair falls on their shoulders. Such a description could accord well with a Caucasoid population beyond the frontiers of Ancient China and some scholars have identified these Whites as Yuezhi."
^ J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, "The Tarim Mummies", p. 55, ISBN 0-500-05101-1: "The strange creatures of the Shanhai jing: [...] we find recorded north of the territory of the "fish dragons" the land of the whites (Bai), whose bodies are white and whose long hair falls on their shoulders. Such a description could accord well with a Caucasoid population beyond the frontiers of Ancient China and some scholars have identified these Whites as Yuezhi."
^ Jacques, Martin. (2014). When china rules the world : the end of the western world and the birth of a new global order. Penguin Books. ISBN 9781101151457. OCLC 883334381.

That's WP:SYNTHESIS. When china rules the world cannot easily be checked, since the reference is without pagenumber. Yet, what it does say, is:

From the most ancient times, the Chinese chose to call themselves white, with a light complexion highlu valued and likened to jade.

Martin does not connect this to the Tocharians or Yuezhi. This way, if I have to spend so much time on checking each and every edit you make, I'll request a topic-ban for you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I live in the USA, and I was also getting a bit sleepy. That's cool, my grandma is also part Dutch.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How come? Indonesia? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this commentary, this last personal attack by User:Joshua Jonathan is quite undue and honestly inappropriate for an administrator to make. Such abusive attacks are usually made by those quite insecure themselves and are unwelcome in wikipedia. Perhaps a removal of adminship [2] is in order if Joshua makes further abuses of his privileges by making personal attacks. I've taken a look into User:Alexkyoung's edits, not just for this article, and overall they seem quite positive.General Lincoln (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, actually for this, and reading the literature on the subject I can't help but feel that using the term Indo-European is pov and original research. In Milward's history, he even critiques Mair's analysis and use of the term 'European'. See pp.16-18.

~~If we describe the ancient Tarimites as 'European', then we should call Iranians and Indians 'European' as well—but we generally don't. (Milward, p. 17)~~
We simply do not know what language those mummies spoke, and research still apparently needs to be done before any final word is made (a lot of those studies are from ten or more years ago). Of course, calling the Tarim mummies Europoid or European fits perfectly in the Eurocentric world view. But for this I have to side with Milward and User:Alexkyoung. 'Early inhabitants' or 'prehistory' are much more historically neutral terms.

~~Also after the Tocharians, Indo-Aryans or 'Eastern Iranians' did migrate en masse around Central Asia and the Xinjiang region. General Lincoln (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Funny, Alexkyoung also thinks that I'm an administrator. And he also thinks that the therm "European" is inappropriate here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millward's critique (p.15-17) is not directed against Mair and the term "Indo-European," but against the popularisation of Xinjiang archaeology and the term "European mummies." Suggesting that the word "European" was used for the header of this section is misleading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshua Jonathan Are you seriously trying to insinuate that User:Alexkyoung is Chinese? On what grounds? Because he isn't as pro-Europe and anti-Chinese as you are? This is why we have Brexit. The Germans think we are lazy ungrateful thieves, the French just side with the Germans, the Italians, Spanish, and Greeks hate us; and now the Dutch think we are Chinese. Clearly, other Europeans don't see us as 'European' anymore. Perhaps it's no surprise Europe is going downhill.Steph Goodwin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steph Goodwin да. Welcome to the club. Westerners have been calling me 'communist pig' for years, so I've given up on this pan-European bogus. 'European' mummies or 'Indo-European' are all just silly attempts by western Europeans to endorse some artificial unity among Europe. I agree with Lincoln that 'early inhabitants' is more neutral, but I think Joshua is also giving undue weight to the Tarim mummies, copying most of the content from other articles and pasting it here when really the content should just be reserved for other articles. Also once Brexit is complete and the EU is dead, you are welcome to join us. The last thing the UK wants to become is the lapdog of the US.Sven Karmanova (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were mummies with 'Mongoloid' features also found as well, so without further excavations and genetic research, the exact composition of the region in early times still poses questions.Sven Karmanova (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Limited table of contents[edit]

Contrary to what Alexkyoung thinks diff, a long TOC is not helpfull. Too much detail. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well I think a detailed toc is helpful, especially since this article is so long.General Lincoln (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Agree with Lincoln. Adding more to toc.Sven Karmanova (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

List of empires in lead[edit]

WP:LEAD summarizes the article; a list of links diff is not an adequate, or informative, summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list of links does not appear to be appropriate in the lead. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree it should not be in lead, but I put it in a Timeline section since the material is still helpful.Sven Karmanova (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Which is unsourced, and gives undue weight to China, violating WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art and literature depicting the Muslim victory[edit]

This is too much detail, and WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, too much detail added to an article already tagged as too long. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pretty gory. It seems Milktaco added that (and maybe enjoyed it). I am migrating the material to Islamization of Xinjiang instead.Sven Karmanova (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

On the origins of the Uyghurs[edit]

This section diff is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Try Uyghur nationalism, not this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable relevance, it does not inform the reader about the origin of the uighurs but focuses on the refutation of nationalist claims. This text does not appear to be neutral. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is a history of Xinjiang, and Uyghurs comprise around half of the current population so a word should be added about their origins. I agree that the material on nationalism should be taken out.Sven Karmanova (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the info, but I dare to predict it's not neutral and not a good representation of the sources. Obviously, the info was found with a specific Google-search: Example text. Also obviously, it was in the 9th century when Uyghurs migrated into Xinjiang contradicts the info in the preceding section: By 745 the Uyghur Khanate stretched from the Caspian Sea to present-day Mongolia and lasted from 745 to 840. After the Battle of Talas in 751, the Uyghur Khanate took control of northern Xinjiang. Furthermore, there is a section on Uyghur nationalism; that's where this info belongs. And there is nothing about geneteics in those sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic expansion[edit]

Yet more pov-pushing diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~By this token, Turkic expansion can also be seen as pov pushing. Moreover saying 'Tang and Tibetan intrusion' is also pov pushing. Intruding what exactly?~~

Millward has a different division of history: early history to 8th century; 9th century to 16th (roughly rise of mongols and turks); rest just deals with chinese qing, roc, prc. General Lincoln (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side with Lincoln and Alex. Tang was a major Han-Chinese led dynasty, and its rule of Central Asia more or less ended in 8th century, so mark that as end of Chinese expansion, not to be continued until Yuan or Qing. Also agree that Xiongnu fits better in context of the Han. And it was Han rule; there were Han settlements, and Millward says that. So just leave it at Han Chinese expansion.Sven Karmanova (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names of China[edit]

The Muslim names for China diff are WP:UNDUE; move it to Names of China if you like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant in this article which has been tagged as too long. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some of the material is relevant and have been kept. The other have been migrated to Names of China.Sven Karmanova (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Demographics[edit]

This] is WP:UNDUE for a history-article; it belings at the Xinjiang-page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, "The Tarim Mummies", p. 55, ISBN 0-500-05101-1: "The strange creatures of the Shanhai jing: [...] we find recorded north of the territory of the "fish dragons" the land of the whites (Bai), whose bodies are white and whose long hair falls on their shoulders. Such a description could accord well with a Caucasoid population beyond the frontiers of Ancient China and some scholars have identified these Whites as Yuezhi."

[2] J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, "The Tarim Mummies", p. 55, ISBN 0-500-05101-1: "The strange creatures of the Shanhai jing: [...] we find recorded north of the territory of the "fish dragons" the land of the whites (Bai), whose bodies are white and whose long hair falls on their shoulders. Such a description could accord well with a Caucasoid population beyond the frontiers of Ancient China and some scholars have identified these Whites as Yuezhi."

[3] Jacques, Martin. (2014). When china rules the world : the end of the western world and the birth of a new global order. Penguin Books. ISBN 9781101151457. OCLC 883334381.

[1]

[2]

[3]