Talk:East Turkestan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the East Turkestan article. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
 |
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. |
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of East Turkestan. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to post your thoughts at the Reference desk, the Village pump, or the Help desk. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
| WikiProject Central Asia | (Rated Stub-Class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| ع |
This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Arabic script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Arabic script. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). |
 |
This article lacks Uyghur text |
| WikiProject China | |
|---|---|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Cultural extent
Is the cultural extent of Xinjiang and the political boundary of autonomous region of Xinjiang the same? Like the case of Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region, and Manchuria.
Please reply at Talk:Xinjiang#Cultural_extent. Thanks . — Instantnood 08:37, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Why not mention the infuence from the Han Chinese? Do the editers of this article think that the Han Chinese contributed nothing to the culture of the so-called "East Turkestan"?--Szechwan001 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Han Chinese are occupiers that came in because the People's Republic chose to occupy the East Turkestan republic. So even though they took over the government facilities they were not elected when they came in they occupied. Should we say occupiers make up that culture? I mean then we would have to say Iraqi culture is based on US culture since US is still in Iraq. The only difference here is US no longer occupies the civilian government facilities as the Chinese government does in East Turkestan and also Tibet.--220.127.51.66 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Xingjiang/ET has had long cultural intercourse with China and various other nation/cultures stretching back thousands of years. in addition Uyghurs were not the original occupants of Xingiang region having arrived later. any discussion of culture therefore needs to also include earlier peoples rather than this singular islamic nationalist narrative thats currently being portrayed on this page. Xingjiang region was under Chinese control from the Qing dynasty and the PRC involvement would be at most a reoccupation based on this historical claim. not sure what you are trying to do by forcing a awkward comparison with the US occupation of Iraq. thats like comparing orange to apples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.223.29 (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
My point was we can not suggest that Han Chinese made the area's culture when there clearly were indigineous people in the areas. Plus the Chinese came way after other people were living there even before the Qing dynasty. What is was pointing out is America went into Iraq occupied the country and set up a Coalitional Provisional Authority government basically controlling Iraq, since we did that could we say that their culture is ours because we occupied the land? I think not because Iraqis like the people in Turkestan (before the Chinese occupied it) already set up a culture there.--220.127.51.66 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Im afraid its not the case here, the modern Uighurs ARE the original occupants of the land, as the recent DNA research has proven that the intermingling of European 60% and East Asian 40% (Hunnic) that's found in the modern Uighur people has occurred NOT as the historians claim 1200 years ago but at LEAST 2,500 years ago, which is long before the Han Chinese even stepped foot into the region...This also explains the welcoming and giving up power to the so called "refugees" Uighurs of "Mongolia" by the local European population... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.73.131 (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is about 'Eastern Turkestan'. There is no evidence that Uighurs called themselves Turkestanis 2500 years ago. Indeed there was no such thing as Muslims 2500 years ago, so the modern Uighurs and the people 2500 years ago are by definition of different ethnicity. 86.166.123.12 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This bullsht about Uyghur's being a different ethnicity 2500 years ago should have to with the awkward chinese definition of ethnicity, that is to define ethnicities based on religion and other cultural traits. What exactly does "muslim ethnicity" or "han chinese" mean? These are made up definitions that serve chinese propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation?
I realize this may be treading onto sensitive political ground, but would it make more sense to split this entry into 1) the historical First and Second East Turkistan Republics, which while not recognized by Chinese authorities were real governing bodies for at least a time, and which feed into the 2) broader concept of East Turkistan as a homeland for the Uyghur people (i.e., an expansion of what's in stub form at Uyghuristan), which in turn influences 3) separatist/independence politics in what is currently the Chinese-administered territory of Xinjiang (which has barely any mention of the political situation there at all right now, perhaps reflecting the geographical orientation of the article)?
Just an idea. --MC MasterChef 23:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ok. Is this the kind of thing that needs a vote, or should I just wait a few days to see if there's any objections before making the changes? --MC MasterChef 00:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think you need a vote. Articles on the two historical republics would be welcome in any case. So would an article on the independence movement. -- ran (talk) 00:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've started in on First East Turkistan Republic, primarily working with Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland (ISBN 0765613182) as my source. I've also created a WikiProject on the WikiProject Uyghurs of Western China (which is basically just a rough outline idea right now) for coordinating information on Xinjiang, Uyghurs, and the area's politics and history, if anyone would be interested in taking part. --MC MasterChef 14:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed the reference to http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/1999/10/12/0000006151, because in this article, according to Erkin Ekrem, 5 leaders of this government were died in a plane crash and were kidnapped and executed in Moscow. It is rediculous. Skyflier
[edit] Article split
As there have been no objections, I've split this article into five separate concepts. The archive of the original material, which should be migrated over to the new articles shortly, is located here. --MC MasterChef 16:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Flag of East Turkestan
Is this a real separatist and/or historical flag of East Turkestan? -- Himasaram 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's a separaist flag.
[edit] National Flag of East Turkistan
Hello,
No, it's not the national flag of East Turkistan, what you show. I, Uyghur native, put the right national flag on the page. It has only one crescent.
Greetings, Kemal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.112.85 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This flag used by Ottoman, each crescent present three continent Africa, Asia and Europe with red background. I don't now who put this flag here but he/she/they playing with peoples mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.155.7 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] About the external links
The link 'East Turkestan - Arabic' no longer seems to work. Can someone find out what happened to it if possible at all? I wonder if the operators of the web site in question have been arrested for 'subversion'? The English text on the home page of the web site (as it stood four months ago) in question seems to have a rather aggressive tone. 122.109.121.8 (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Xinjiang debate
"Xinjiang" offends my moral sense.
It shouldn't be in Wikipedia.
- Sure it should. Salsa Shark 22:08 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe we should say that it is it's own republic--occupied by the Peoples Republic of China, who call it Xinjiang! Dawit
- Maybe we should say something that doesn't totally destroy the NPOV policy? Scurra 17:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- East Turkestan is a "republic"? In present tense?
- According to this page, there was two East Turkestan, the first was declared in 1932, then it was destroyed and dissolved in 1934. The second one was declared in 1944, but PRC destroyed it in 1949.
- Now East Turkestan is merely a name used by those separationists. The whole area is controlled by PRC which called it Xinjiang Autonomous Region. --Lorenzarius 12:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also on that page it says that the leaders "crashed" as they were going to visit the communist leaders of the People's Republic, the way it sounds the People's Republic did an assasination then occupied East Turkestan not to mention made sure Chinese people loyal to the People's Republic take over the government facilities giving virtually no automony. China has a problem of just walking into countries and occupying not allowing self government--Tibet is another one that comes to mind.--220.127.51.66 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
(to village pump audience:) Does anyone know much about East Turkestan/Xinjiang? I can't say I do, but the article doesn't look very NPOV, and it keeps getting added to lists of countries, List of national flags, that sort of thing when it appears to just be a Chinese province. Scurra 17:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The matter is definitely a controversial one. While the area is certainly recognised internationally as part of China, it has a fairly strong independence movement - not nearly as well known in the West as the Tibetan one is, but of a similar background. Even the name "Xinjiang" is regarded as objectionable by many of the independence-seekers, as it's a Chinese (not Uighur) term, and means something like "new borderland", "new province", or "new frontier". So I would anticipate disputes over how to describe it. I imagine that the eventual solution will resemble that for Tibet (whatever that might be). As for the current situation - I agree that the East Turkestan article could probably use some work, yes. And the Xinjiang article should probably talk a bit more about the separatist movements. -- Vardion 23:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This article is flagged for merger with Xinjiang.
This is not the first territory to be occupied by an external people, and to experience a name change.
Looking at the precedence of other territories that have shifted hands, we should have the geographic discussion and the history of Turkestan in the present article. And history from 1949 onward should be in the History of Xinjiang article.
Grounds for preserving the East Turkestan article: the people (language, appearance, religion, history) are specific to this area. See the situation with the Assyria and Assyrians article as parallel and precedence of wikipedia practice.
- Vote: No merger
-
- Question of lexicon in historical references:
Historical sources [prior to 1949] for the area use the term, "Turkestan." They do not use the term, Xinjiang. We should be consistent with the lexicon and historical practice that is already established. Furthermore, to do so would confuse people that encounter Turkestan in the literature and then find it absent in Wikipedia and instead find reference to Xinjiang. Dogru144 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The East Turkestan article deals with the proposed country, and should contain only the details regarding its nationalistic/secessionist points. The article Xinjiang is about the actual region in existance, and only that article should deal with its people, culture, geography, society, history, etc. "Xinjiang" is the most commonly used English-language term for the region. --Joowwww (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The proposed country is only one feature of the article. Note that this is only mentioned when the agitation for the country arises in one part addressing the area today.
Again, note that the area had a documented history as a sovereign area, dating several hundreds of years Before Christ. The region was separate from China for all of its history until 1759. The area was an independent country twice in the first half of the 20th Century. In each instance, the name, Turkestan, not Xinjiang was used. Xinjiang is only in use in English because China has applied a Chinese name to this Central Asian, Muslim land / culture.Dogru144 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't independent for all of its history, it was part of China on and off quite a few times well before 1759. I'm not sure where you're getting your history from. Also, it was never a sovereign area, as it was part of the Uyghur Empire, then various Khanates up until the 13th Century, then part of the Mongol Empire then the Chinese Empire. The two 20th Century Republics were never sovereign as they never received international recognition. Nevertheless, the main focus of what the article is about is what the situation is now, in the present. The area is presently part of China and its present English-language name is Xinjiang. The article East Turkestan can go into some detail about the past but should always return to reflect the present reality. --Joowwww (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jowww, it is only part of China because they chose to occupy the land. As for the past there has to be a history of the region including what it was recorded as. Taiwan is not totally internationally recognized neither is it totally recognized under it's legal name "Republic of China." Only a mere twenty countries recognize it, so you can't say it is internationally recognized--if you want to define internationally recognized in this term. The two Republics were its given legal name when they were considered independent.--220.127.51.66 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say it I think Joww is a Chinese national that wants China to take all the credit for East Turkestan. Face it Joww it was independent from China and had its own culture before China occupied it. --220.127.51.66 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- We're not talking about Taiwan here, we're talking about Xinjiang. Taiwan isn't internationally recognised, it is partially recognised. The two East Turkestan republics weren't even partially recognised, they weren't recognised at all, by anyone. As for me being Chinese, one look at my user page will prove you wrong. I don't edit China-related pages based on nationalism or opinion, if I see POV affecting the credibility of Wikipedia articles I will rectify it on sight. --Joowwww (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
East Turkestan can still be a republic but not be internationally recognized. The two republics discussed no one had control of them but the ones who established the Republics and also before occupiers even came they had full control. We can not say Turkestan was always part of China and we can not say China made their culture. I think if you did that then you would slanting your point of view. --220.127.51.66 (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I could declare my house an independent republic. I would have full control of it, but it wouldn't be sovereign because it wouldn't be recognised. I have never said Xinjiang has always been part of China. --Joowwww (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Consequently you still call it Xinjiang, I can honestly say it should be referred to Eastern Turkestan because it WAS whether you like or not referred to that before even the first Chinese occupation. Xinjiang was a name given when China occupied the land.--Truthfulchat (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, it doesn't matter what you think it should be called, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states it should be referred to by its current most commonly-used name. English-language media currently call the region "Xinjiang", for both its past and its present, and the English-language Wikipedia reflects that. --Joowwww (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect..also by wikipedia policy a vote was taken for a merger into the "Xinjiang" article, which the vote was that it was not to be. There is a current Xinjiang article already and you can click on the link. Second, East Turkestan is recognized as common in some documents. So your goal to change the name has no basis. I do want to know with a name like Jowww, you must be Chinese, which could make your opinion bias. I am neither Chinese nor Uighyr.--220.127.51.66 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- There was and is no country called Turkestan, East or West. If some people of African origin hammer a sign in the middle of Hyde Park in London, or Central Park in New York and claimed the land is now called Africastan East and West, because there are so many Black people in London and New York, nobody sensible is going to accept it. If Uighurs say they are Turks, then they should go back to Turkey. 86.166.123.12 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
