Talk:Ürümqi

Spelling of article title, why not Urumqi

How did we end up with the article title spelled with these diareses over the U's? I have never seen this spelling outside of this article and feel that it would be more appropriate to have the article at "Urumqi" since that is the common English-language name for the city. Where did this peculiar spelling come from? In English, we rarely use such diacritics. Occasionaly German words with preserve the umlaut (same mark), and sometimes vowel pairs are marked like this to indicate a syllable break where a single vowel sound might otherwise be assumed (although this is still very rare and the spellings without the marks is also acceptable), like "naïve". For Urumqi, the pronunciation doesn't differ with the marks and nor do they serve any apparent disambiguation purpose. I am guessing this is from the Uyghur latin alphabet. Here we use the English spelling. see WP:PLACE. I propose we move it back to "Urumqi". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of conclusive evidence, I would not mind either variant, but come to think of it, a RM here would not be any more productive than a RM over which national variety of English to use. GotR ^Talk 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

which variant of English to use is a settled question for all but some unique edge cases. The concensus boils down to don't change it unless it is clearly relevant to the article content and be consistent within an article. All else being equal I think it is clear that "Urumqi" without the marks is easier and less confusing, serving the interests of both the readers and editors. I'm not willing to die on this hill. The move is a suggestion, not a demand. Anyone curious about the English name of the city should search Google books for "Urumqi" and "Ürümqi". There are about 20 times as many occurances of the name without the marks and a good portion of the results which include the marks are actually from wikipedia. Of course searching google without diacritics will always show more results than with the diacritics. Actually looking at the results shows a pretty clear difference. Google Scholar shows an even more dramatic difference. "Ürümqi" is used in some legit English-language sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica and Library of Congress subject headings. Just thought I'd provide some actual info instead of simply declaring that "Urumqi" is the real English name. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ürümqi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article primarily needs expansion to reach higher classes. As the capital city of a region in China, it is of high importance. --Danaman5 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

I'm going to ask Lemongirl942 here exactly what is POV about the demographics of Urumqi at its foundation. I will restore it if no adequate response is given since this is totally unrelated to the other edits you complained about.Rajmaan (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean this edit where you wrote Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History at Georgetown University, James A. Millward wrote that foreigners often mistakenly think that Urumqi was originally a Uyghur city and that the Chinese destroyed its Uyghur character and culture, however, Urumqi was founded as a Chinese city by Han and Hui (Tungans), and it is the Uyghurs who are new to the city. I'm curious why we need to mention this POV. I don't see anywhere in the article it being mentioned that "Urumqi was originally a Uyghur city" and that "Chinese destroyed its Uyghur character and culture". So I don't see why we need to refute something which doesn't exist. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Professor Millward is referring to a common misconception. He has qualifications in the area and knows what is common knowledge, and what is not. He has encountered a particular misconception and deemed it notable to be written about in his book which is an RS by virtue of both the credentials of the author and the publisher. It meets WP:NOTABILITY, the fact that this misconception itself exists and it was mentioned by Millward makes it notable enough to be included. Urumqi is the capital of "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region". That alone is enough for assumption of Urumqi as a Uyghur city. The article also mentions ethnic unrest.Rajmaan (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any misconception in the article. This is like refuting something which doesn't exist. I'm not sure what relevance does WP:NOTABILITY have here - that's to decide whether we keep an article or not. You have to consider that we add viewpoints by their prominence in related literature. We don't add random facts to an article: there has to be cohesion and flow. As far as I can see, I don't see any literature which promotes the "misconception" - so this refuting of the misconception is plain unnecessary. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also the fact that the majority demographics are stated in the source- not just the misconception. The founding demographics are notable, reliably sourced content regardless of who thinks who the majority of the city is or was.Rajmaan (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this discussion finished? Is there a valid objection to including the demographics?

It is a legitimate notable topic because tourist guides propagate this misconception "This former Uighur market (Èrdàoqiáo shìchǎng) is no better than a Chinese-run tourist trap these days, but the streets to the north are still the center of Ürümqi's Uighur community. -Er Dao Qiao Bazaar: This former Uighur market is no better than a chinese run tourist trap these days, but the streets to the north are still the centre of Urumqi's Uighur community.

The above is the POV which Professor Millward addressed in his book. It can be added to the article with Millward's source used after to illustrate the opposite POV for balance.Rajmaan (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? None of that states "Urumqi was originally a Uyghur city" and that "Chinese destroyed its Uyghur character and culture". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Millward is a source for both points- he talks about both the misconception and the facts about the demographics. Both points of view come from his book and there is no rule saying that a single book isn't allowed to source both a misconception and its refutation.Rajmaan (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And that precisely is the problem. The relevant policy is WP:UNDUE. We give prominence to views in the proportion to which they have appeared in reliable sources. Millward's view over here doesn't seem to be shared by others: I can't find other sources either propagating the "misconception" or even trying to refute it. If it is a fringe view, we simply exclude it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Millward is a Professor of Central Asian History and his book was published by a reputable university. Calling his views fringe is YOUDONTLIKEIT. His book is peer reviewed by scholars and he can't include random junk and speculation for no reason. Examples of the misconception abound, this author claims Han are destroying Uyghur culture in Urumqi and that Uyghur architecture there is "ancient" another one about Erdaoqiao Bazaar being flooded by Han people Another claiming that cities are being swamped by Han.

And a blatant example over here : Urumqi, an ancient Uyghur city in Xinjiang is being transformed by waves of Han Chinese colonization. Traditional neighborhoods are being levels to make way for high-rise apartment buildings, mainly inhabited by ... This is exactly what Millward was addressing.Rajmaan (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You have absolutely no understanding of WP:UNDUE. You keep adding of a bunch of coatrack to articles. The examples you gave above do not mention anything about "Han Chinese" destroying "Urumqi", much less a blatant example. UNDUE is based on the proportion of sources. The sources are talking about development by the Chinese government. That is different from "Han Chinese destroying Uyghur culture". You also fail to realise that we go by the proportion of sources. We do not give undue weight to sources having a minority or fringe opinion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are refusing to answer one of the main points I brought up. Millward talks about demographics in addition to people's misconceptions. He plainly stated that Urumchi's first inhabitants were Han and Hui people and not Uyghurs, which is a fact and not anyone's point of view. The last source I posted is exactly what he is refuting.

Urumqi, an ancient Uyghur city in Xinjiang is being transformed by waves of Han Chinese colonization. Traditional neighborhoods are being levels to make way for high-rise apartment buildings, mainly inhabited by Chinese immigrants. This source accuses the policy of leveling "traditional neighborhoods" as being part of "Han Chinese colonization", and claims Urumqi is an "ancient Uyghur city".

Millward's source is about foreigners mistakenly thinking Han immigrants and architecture erased the alleged Uyghur characer of the city: Foreign tourists in Urumqchi today sometimes complain that the city is "too Chinese" in comparison with the Central Asian atmosphere of southern Xinjiang; many believe Urumchi's East Turkestani culture has been erased by Han immigration and architecture. In fact, the Uyghur population and culture in the city today is a relatively recent feature, for Urumchi in its first decades in most respects rsembled a north Chinese town, populated primarily by Tungan from Gansu and Shaanxi and Han from many Chinese provinces, in addition to the bannermen. This is an exact rebuttal to the above.

You haven't clearly read UNDUE. Its talking about how to give balance conflicting viewpoints by using proportion to determinte which one outranks the other, in case one viewpoint clashes with each other. If one viewpoint appeared in one RS journal, and another conflicting viewpoint appeared in seven RS journals, the first viewpoint is considered fringe, so one sentence would be devoted to the first viewpoint while an entire paragraph would be devoted to the second view point on a Wikipedia article. It is not saying that you need 100 plus sources on a certain point of view in order to include it in the article which is what you seem to be insinuating. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources..........In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint Rajmaan (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have sourced a major part of the history to one particular author. If you are very keen on including Milliward, then the phrasing needs to be appropriate considering that his view is a fringe view. For example, "Urumqi was originally a Uyghur city and the Chinese destroyed its Uyghur character and culture. However, Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History at Georgetown University, James A. Millward, think otherwise." --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems you have no idea what the definition of fringe is or what UNDUE is about. Millward's views are not fringe among scholars. Millward's work is peer reviewed. I suggest you look up what peer reviewed means. The claim that Urumqi was a Uyghur city comes from agenda based advocacy groups, tourists, tourist guidebooks and individuals with no credentials in history. Millward explicitly named tourists as propagators of this view. Fringe views are when scholars views conflict with each other and the majority of scholars condemn a certain view and ostracize and relegate that view to the domain of non peer reviewed publications such as Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, Gavin Menzies and Ancient Aliens. Millwards work has been peer reviewed and his statement on Urumqi has not been challenged by fellow scholars and historians. No reputable scholar has written otherwise, no other historian has claimed Urumqi is a Uyghur city and Han migrants destroyed its Uyghur character. Millward's views are the mainstream as they are published in a peer reviewed book from a university press and he has degrees and credentials in history.Rajmaan (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies proportionally to conflicting views when it comes to scholarly RS sources. Since Millward wrote this and there is no other scholar or historian who holds a view opposing to him, Millard's view makes up 100% of academia's position on this topic. His view is the dominant majority since he is a well known historian in this field, is work was peer reviewed by fellow scholars and nobody challenged or contradicted what he said about Urumqi.

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.

Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own. Opponents to reliable sources will often argue that their opponents reliable sources are FRINGE because they spread false information or have a viewpoint which is not mainstream. This sounds exactly like what is occurring here. Accusing Millward of being fringe because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Millward's views are published in an RS and makes up the prevailing views. And you are again refusing to address the point that the demographics of early Urumqi are a fact and separate from people's misconceptions on the topic.Rajmaan (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYERING --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hzh Is this considered a fact based statement? - Urumqi was a Han and Hui majority city in the early Qing period. Urumqi had very little Uyghurs while it had many Hui and Han in 1787. There were 76,496 Uyghurs and 477,321 Han in 1960 Urumqi.Rajmaan (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Simple statistics is fine, but I would ask that you don't turn it into a Uyghurs vs Han Chinese narrative (therefore don't write line such as "Urumqi had very little Uyghurs while it had many Hui and Han in 1787"). Rather, try to present it in a dispassionate manner, simply giving information on the demographics of the place, not stressing on any particular aspect. It is best to just state that it had a mainly Han and Tungan (as per source) population in its early years. You should also make clear that this is the new Urumqi established after the Zunghar genocide. Millward noted that various people were previously imported by the Zunghars into the area (pp.92-93, Eurasian Crossroads). Also please give correct page range in the reference (therefore it's pp. 306–307, p. 260) Hzh (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the source. Nowhere does it say it was Han and Hui majority city. I'm not sure what Rajmaan is trying to prove here. Millward mentions that the city looked like a "North Chinese" town in its early decades, based primarily on the narrative of the exiled poet. That is far from coming to a simplistic conclusion that "it was a Han and Hui majority city". I'm also a bit uncomfortable at solely using one single source for most of the history. I'm looking for alternative sources now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Urumchi in its first decades in most respects resembled a north Chinese town, populated primarily by Tungans from Gansu and Shaanxi an Han from many Chinese provinces.

Definitions of "primarily".

1 the bishop was primarily a leader of the local community first and foremost, first, firstly, essentially, in essence, fundamentally, principally, predominantly, basically 2 such work is undertaken primarily for large institutions mostly, for the most part, chiefly, mainly, in the main, on the whole, largely, to a large extent, especially, generally, usually, typically, commonly, as a rule

for the most part; mainly.

1: for the most part : chiefly <has now become primarily a residential town — S. P. B. Mais

chieflystar mainlystar principallystar above allstar basicallystar especiallystar essentiallystar fundamentallystar generallystar largelystar mostlystar on the wholestar overallstar predominantly

mainly:

Rajmaan (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh! Do calm down and dial back a little. Maybe refrain from editing until the discussion is over? To Lemongirl942I, have no issue with the book, you can read that it relies on many other sources (some of them Chinese, including official statistics), and there is nothing that suggests it is unreliable. I also think you misread the sentence, it did not come primarily from the Ji Yun (it seems like Millward use his account largely for detailed information to add local colour in that period). Personally, I would move the information on demographics to the demographics section, and in the history section, give only a broad view. The establishment of Manchu, Mongol and Han Chinese garrisons should be mentioned in the history section. Hzh (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I waited for a response before as indicated by the timestamps between August 23 and 26. I did not edit the article until the 26th and my response was there since the 23rd but Lemongirl942 walked off and ignored the conversation assuming that the article would stay at the status quo until the 26th. Is there a mechanism to make people respond to the discussion?Rajmaan (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really walk off. I just move away temporarily when stuff generates more heat than light. Anyway, I'm going to bring others sources soon. Looking for alternative sources is the best solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You made your views very clear here Milliward, then the phrasing needs to be appropriate considering that his view is a fringe view. For example, Urumqi was originally a Uyghur city and the Chinese destroyed its Uyghur character and culture. So you decided how to edit the article and which POV you wanted to take before finding sources and attacked the author as fringe in order to justify entirely reversing what he said without finding any sources to justify it.Rajmaan (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Instead of arguing over the old edits, it would be better to try to move forward to find acceptable wording and content. It should be noted that an author like Millward has greater freedom to air views and opinions than us editors, where we are required to present facts and indeed the words of authors like Millward that would be in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. This is not saying that Millward had expressed anything that is a POV, but rather we should present what he wrote in such a way that would not be read as a POV. I've already mentioned things like avoiding presenting facts that could be read as a Uyghur vs Han Chinese narrative, or that any ethnic group has a better claim on a city than another. Keep things as neutral as possible. Hzh (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a better way to phrase it so that it is close to what Millward is saying. Millward makes it clear that after the Qing established the "new" Urumqi, it was populated primarily by Han from various provinces and Tungans mainly from Gansu and Shaanxi. This is different from saying it was a "Han and Hui city". The former talks about the population of the city, the latter claims that the city belongs to a population. This is a nuanced position and hence the differentiation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to tidy up the section when I have the time and get the disputed tag removed. Hzh (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks OK now, although if anyone objects to any particular edit or have questions about them, do let me know. I've moved the information on demographics into its appropriate section, as it would be useful to have some historical information on the demographics of the city in that section. It should be noted that historically the composition of the population had been fluid, a snapshot of the region at a particular time may look different. After the Qing dynasty collapsed, many people left the region, although I haven't been able to find the population statistics of the city in that period yet. Hzh (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A figure disputed by Uighurs?

This deleted line was recently restored. I've tagged it with as I can't do a source review for either of the paywalled sources. Who specifically disputed the statement? ETIM? ETNFC? TIP? Some random Uighur shopkeeper that the NYT asked? The source of this statement will have a direct impact on whether it's WP:DUE here. So please clarify. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Daß Wölf: since they restored the line in question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why this article is on my watchlist. I just saw the IP edit that at first sight seemed like possible POV pushing, so I took the trouble of checking the source. I can't read Financial Times, but Edward Wong for NYT writes clearly "The government said at least 184 people were killed and 1,100 injured in the violence, with most of the dead being Han, a statement that Uighurs dispute." Hence my revert. Since we have an article on the NYT journalist, I'd AGF and assume he did his research. Additionally, a cursory look at July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Casualties and damage, linked in that section of the Ürümqi article, gives a few claims disputing that Han Chinese were the majority of the dead. FWIW I didn't add the line, just reverted the edit. You might want to talk to Muzzleflash who added the NYT source or track down whoever added the original line (WikiBlame fails here for me). Daß Wölf 22:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I would be willing to insert an attribution in the case of the NYT article. I hope that's sufficient. I was not aware of this qualification being inserted otherwise. Because the issue is that there are a lot of various Uyghur activist groups out there and the most extreme of them certainly would not constitute reliable sources for anything while some of the more moderate ones would, at very least be WP:DUE inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 26 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:

• Flag of Gyeonggi Province (2006–2021).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete and sanitised description

Why is there no mention made here of the persecution of the Uyghur people by the Chinese authorities? This is the capital of the Uyghur région, where reeducation camps or gulags imprison, oppress and brainwash people whose culture and religion is seen as a threat by the centralised China state. This page should include a chapter about the reality of life here for many people. LoloWik63 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)