Talk:History of Xinjiang

POV

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)

{Main|Western Regions}

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)

Sweeping changes

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)

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

Is this the excuse

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

History editing should not be politically motivated

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.

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)

@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)

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)

@@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)

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)

@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)