Talk:History of Xinjiang

Latest revisions

Many parts of the text from the Han, Tang, Islamization, Qing, PRC, were dense and full of incoherent unorganized random details as well as repetitive, redundant, or irrelevant information. The recent edits have organized these and subdivided the previously dense paragraphs into many subsections for easier reading and future editing. A lot of the repetitive info was removed, and many many stylistic and grammatical improvements were made.

As for examples of other major edits, some tables were created for better organization of some facts like population count. Neutrality was improved by fixing or just outright removing a lot of anti-Chinese separatist rhetoric, though some remain as illustrative examples to highlight the still looming threat of terrorism in the region. As such the sections on terrorism in Xinjiang have also been organized and updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Presume that the above is authored by Alexkyoung whose very substantial editing effort I have just undone. That editing was generally and consistently promoting the idea of a reduced claim to the region by Uyghurs, a correspondingly increased claim by Han, to cast a more negative light on Uyghurs and more positive on Han. It introduced material not present in the sources provided (e.g. that Takada's work was US funded and that he had never visited the region; injecting "Persian" into the Mitochondrial DNA analysis report) and unsourced plain commentary (e.g. "Like how the US and Europe were attacked by terrorists ...) and unsourced hyperbole (e.g. "China was known and idolized for being extremely civilized ..."). There is no question that the article is a mess, hugely bloated and need of a massive rewrite, but this is not the way to go about it. If Alexkyoung wishes to pursue the matter, I would request that he/she breaks edits into small pieces so that other editors have an opportunity to address them individually, instead of these large chunks which contain some positive contributions but mixed with the faults set out above; certainly, there are numerous grammatical defects in the article now and some of those were remedied by the subject edits. By making smaller edits, those may not be lost in objections to POV, etc., that may rise again. sirlanz 08:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my 'substantial' efforts. I will take that as a compliment. Regarding your specific complaints:

1. Facts are facts. According to research on the Tarim mummies Uyghurs only arrived in the 10th century. Meanwhile, one of the first major Chinese dynasties to control Xinjiang was the Han dynasty established in 200 BC. These facts are not up for dispute until further scientific evidence proves otherwise.

2. Read the original Scientific American article on Takada. He was not allowed into China to do the research. And he did research on US nuclear samples, as well as Soviet and French, so the current corresponding wikipedia prose accounts for these facts.

3. The aboriginals had maternal lineage with Iranians (aka Persians).

4. That is not commentary or hyperbole; it is cited from others.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 22 may 2019 (UTC)

Sirlanz's specific feedback has been addressed and the appropriates edits made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 22 may 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to be bringing this up late, but this is really inappropriate. I cannot find anything on this talk page that indicates that consensus has been reached other than the proclamation here. Darthkayak (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The primary dispute was with Sirlanz, and it was about something different from what you are bringing up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 20 june 2019 (UTC)

Why was my comment above deleted? That's not really ok, unless it's established to not be in accordance with WP:TPO, and even then, standard practice is to leave it up as documentation of my errors for potential dispute resolution. An unsigned comment declaring consensus achieved without summary, particularly considering that there was no closure of the discussion, reads like a statement of article ownership, and in that sense, I felt it was inappropriate. Darthkayak (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The main dispute was with Sirlanz, and his points were addressed, and that ended weeks ago. Sirlanz stopped reverting after I addressed his specific critiques, and that was taken as a sign of consensus. Since then the wiki has enjoyed several weeks of peaceful editing. That is the whole point: the case is closed. Please do not start another edit war. Move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 20 june 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on claning-up and correcting this article; sirlanz is right, Alexkyoung's edits are violating WP:NPOV and misrepresenting sources. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, my not resurfacing was not consensus. It was my conceding defeat to the general blindness of WP to obviously undesirable editing activities, systemic blindness, that is, not that of hardworking genuine administrators and editors personally. The amount of time and effort required to disable these attacks is quite enormous and more than I am prepared to offer at times. In this particular instance, the expertise of the offending editor made the task all the more daunting. sirlanz 03:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Xinjiang is Chinese name , but Turkestan is the name of the native people who belong Turkestan

The name East Turkestan was given by Russian specialist Historian of the region Nikita Bichurin who might have authority.

The most probably Han Chinese are not native of this region but PRC Government's policy of forced displacement of Han people to be the dominant race in the region. Therefore there are no concrete historical facts to support calling Xinjiang or other names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by စရကား (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Spelling

Who are the "Mancu," and what does "their style og go ernance" mean? Is there no quality control? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Addition of the Yugur Peoples

the addition/mention of the Yugur People, who are descendants of the Old Uyghur, is probably necessary for the article, if anyone can find any resources that would be appreciated, thanks! 98.59.80.64 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)