Talk:Turkic settlement of the Tarim Basin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhale2018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamicisation and Turkicisation[edit]

I think the title is a big mess, apparently it is "part of a series on violence against Buddhists" however the first Turkic Khaganate was Buddhist in belief and in this case Turkicisation partly sounds contradictary to the topic. It is not clear what is meant with Turkicisation either. Mixing with local people or wiping them out? The article constantly mentions native Buddhist "Europoid" "Indo European" people in the region. Were they wiped out by the Turkic buddhist kingdom? Then this must be crime by Buddhists. Indo European is not a race nor there is a consistency or integrity among people that could be considered Indo European. And then you get the impression that "mainstream Indo European" native Buddhist idea = good, not harmful; "Turkic" buddhist = not important, bad... Because Turks later convert to Islam and still speak Turkic? what instead if they spoke Tocharian or some Iranian language? Race, nationality, language and religion ideas are all messed up here.

Turkicisation must be a mixing between the "native" and the Turkic speaking "Mongoloid" peoples. The article also mentions the modern Uyghurs being a hybrid as an unnecessary proof of existence of Caucasoid people in the region, again trying to prove an "Indo European" identity which is actually even more messy than Turkic. This would mean that native "Indo Europeans" shifted to a Turkic language, so it is a linguistic change. Language shifts always occur but this is presented as a start of chains of bad things that damaged Buddhism rather than the nationality that spoke their native language, especially combined with "the new" Turks later converting to Islam by force or will. Because the natives were Buddhist apparently and when they shifted to Turkic they were not anymore. So it is the fault of Turkicisation? Sorry I am not a historian or a muslim, but the article is really messy. It is like trying to gather everything up in a topic that contains both "Turk and Islam" in Xinjiang. --Anylai (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anylai: I concur. The so called "turkicisation" is practically non-existent in the article and the respective sources. Seems like original research rather. This article is mainly about an "islamicisation", if that's what you call the people taking on Islam as their religion. Akocsg (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes it pretty clear what happened. There were two Turkic Kingdoms which Turkified the area. The Buddhist Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho and the Muslim Kara-Khanid Khanate. The Turkic Muslims later conquered the Turkic Buddhists and Islamified them.Rajmaan (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkicisation[edit]

Probably the most obnoxious word here is "Turkicisation." If a such aterm should exist, then there should be a corresponding article. Every Wikipedian has a bias but this article sole intent seems to be maligning Uyghur nationalism by advocating cultural denialism and demonification.[1]Messiaindarain (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Seytoff, Alim A (2 June 2014). "China's Uighurs claim cultural 'genocide': Why the Uighur people will continue to reject China's colonial and apartheid rule". Aljazeera. Aljazeera. Retrieved 6 January 2016.

Format[edit]

The article requires regular cleanup to meet Wikipedia standards. Use of frequent terms such as jihad and "holy war" interchangeably greatly downplay the neutrality of the article. Please see the links of the of how not sound like propaganda article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiaindarain (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article Turkification already exists, describing the Turkicisation and Islamification of non-Turkish, non-Muslims in Anatolia. Is that defamatory and maligning against Turkey? The term "Turkicisation" was used by Professor James Millward in his book to describe what happened in the Tarim Basin. Secondly, the sources themselves use the term "jihad" and "ghazat". Except in the lede which is a summary of the entire article, every other sentence which uses the word "jihad" and "ghazat" uses it because that word is found in the source cited- Sources: "jihad" "jihad" "jihad" "holy war (ghazat)" By the way, Jiangping Wang, who is a practicing Hui Muslim, used terms like "Jihad" against Uighur Buddhists and and "forcibly converted to Islam" to describe what happened in Xinjiang at the hands of the Kara-Khanids.[1][2] He is a Muslim and was blunt in describing what happened. Likewise, the sources describing the violence and battles were equally blunt and to the point. Wikipedia is not censored and not politically correct. If sources use terms like Jihad then it will be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmaan (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamicisation and Turkicisation 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup[edit]

So much of this article is useless and/or exessive material that has noting to do with the subject matter. This article should be revamped. Also the numerous translations and picture galleries should be removed because the vast majority of it adds very little to the article, instead making it a congested mess. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the last three sections in particular have been copied from other articles and tacked on here. But, as noted by User:Anylai and User:Messiaindarain above, the problems are deeper. There is a general POV slant to the language, illustrated by "came under Chinese rule" vs "invading Turkic Muslims" in the lead. The basic concept of the article, as illustrated by the title, is a conflation of the switch to Turkic language in the 7th to 9th centuries with the later Islamic invasion from the west, seeking to portray them as a single massive crime. There is an {{Infobox military conflict}} for "Turkification of the Tarim Basin", when it was nothing of the sort. It speaks of "extinction of Indo-European peoples in the Tarim Basin", when what actually happened was that their languages became extinct as they switched to the Turkic language over many generations. The Uyghurs are said to be Buddhist when they moved to the Tarim, but at that time they were Manichean. And so on. Kanguole 00:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Buddhist Sakas spoke an Indo-European Iranic language and were Turkified by the Turkic Muslim Kara-Khanid conquest in thre 10th-11th centuries. They did not switch to Turkic during the 7th-9th centuries. The rule of Manichean/Buddhist Uyghur over Tocharians is a different event and its made clear by the separate sections they are found in. The Turkic Muslims did their own Turkification which is entirely separate from the Manichean/Buddhist Uyghurs Turkification. Tocharians were not the only Indo-Europeans in the Tarim Basin. I moved the infobox to the section on the Turkic Muslims. And the Turkic Muslim conquest was the last event in the Turkification of the Tarim Basin as made clear by the Professor James Millward reference which calls it a "watershed" event. The Buddhist Uyghurs Turkified the Tocharians in the eastern Tarim, while the Turkic Muslims finished it with their conquest of Khotan and both Turkified and Islamified the remaining Indo-European Saka Buddhists. The Turkic Muslims then declared Ghazat against the Turkic Buddhists and conquered them.Rajmaan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Millward's Eurasian Crossroads, which you mention above, presents a completely different picture of the spread of Turkic language (and the Uyghurs' move from Manichaeism to Buddhism):
  • "centuries of intermarriage with local peoples of eastern Iranian stock" (p43)
  • "The Uyghur state initially resembled the paradigmatic form we have already noted in Xinjiang's history: a Turko-Mongolian nomadic power ruling Indo-European oasis agriculturalists indirectly from across the Tianshan. Yet the Uyghurs reached south far enough to maintain an administrative capital (Qocho) in the Turfan Basin. Over time, moreover, the populations and cultures of nomad ruler and oasis ruled blended; religious, political and cultural influences from Soghdia, India and China were incorporated as well." (p48)
  • "Both Qocho Uyghur and Qarakhanid regimes were established by outside conquest elites who ruled over and intermarried with a local population with its Tokhanan, Iranian, possibly Indian and, in Qocho, Chinese elements." (p53)
This also implies that it is inappropriate to apply simplistic ethnic labels like Turk to the resulting populations, a point Millward makes several times. Kanguole 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is different. I said that the Kara-Khanid Muslim Turks invaded the Saka Kingdom of Khotan. How does that conflict with them being "conquest elites"? A conquest elite is a foreign people who invaded and now rule over the locals. The Qarakhanid conquest of the Sakas was the watershed event in Turkicising the area. See Turkification for how they dealt with it.Rajmaan (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Millward's description of the populations and cultures of the conquest elite and the local people blending through centuries of interaction and intermarriage presents a very different picture from this article's "extincation (sic) of the Tocharians", the casting of "Turkicising" as a military event, saying "the area was subjected to Turkification", or that one group "Turkified" another. Kanguole 20:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Uyghur rule over Tocharians is not presented as overly violent. It says Turkic immigrants from the collapsing Uyghur Khaganate of modern-day Mongolia began to absorb the Tocharians to form the modern-day Uyghur ethnic group Extinction does not mean a violent assimilation. See Phrygians. Extinction means that the identity and language ceased to exist. The (sourced) passages on violence deal with the Kara-Khanids conquest of the Sakas and its made very clear that it was a military conquest and that they proceeded to attack the Uyghur Buddhists as well. And later the Chagatais finished the Islamification by conquering all the Uyghur Buddhists. Uyghur rule over Tocharians and Qara khanid rule over Sakas are each explained in seperate sections which elaborates what exactly happened in each case.Rajmaan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016[edit]

2607:FE50:0:810C:2DE6:3A70:C48B:89FB (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC) This article needs more objective wording and more nuanced sources The logic of this article is contradictory, and indicates a derogatory bias and/or intention to degrade another group of people in this case Uighurs and Turkic Muslims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FE50:0:810C:6D91:7661:9211:4B5 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tazkirahs written by Turkic Muslims on the wars, celebrate the conquest against the Buddhists and describe them in all gory detail. So Turkic Muslim sources are degrading Turkic Muslims? Kashghari's poem uses name calling, religious abuse and insults, Tazkiratu'l-Bughra calls the Buddhists infidels and celebrates the conquest and Taẕkirah of the Four Sacrificed Imams celebrates the fighting and conquest of the Buddhists. All written by Turkic Muslims. Modern day locals visit and pray at the shrines of those who fought against the Buddhists. In addition, the secondary sources use terms like "jihad" to describe the conflict. Was Kashgari trying to degrade his own people? Is Turkification, Martyrs of Otranto, and Ottoman wars in Europe degrading to Turkey? Martyrs of Otranto is about Turkish Muslims executing Italian Catholics for refusing to change religion. Getting offended about it will do nothing. Is Spanish conquest of the Americas degrading to Spain? If a Spanish person felt offended by A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies it would not be removed. Modern day Turkish Muslims still celebrate the the Turkish conquest of Constantinople and even made a movie about it- Fetih 1453. What is offensive then?Rajmaan (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 03:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: We need more information before we can do anything. KgosarMyth (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality copyvio[edit]

I have suppressed a bulky blatant mechanical copyvio of very large parts of [3], with all the misprints (such as "Extbact" or "EXTEAT" or "ExTBACT" for "Extract") and numerous parasitical characters. Obviously, and once again, User: Rajmaan hasn't even read any part of the whole thing before stapling it to the article. Sapphorain (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphorain Public domain material is not copyvio. Look at the date of the source. It was published in 1877 and its text is not in copyright anymore. I read the source material in its scanned form where there weren't any errors. The mechanical errors in the writing were due to Optical character recognition in the plain text form. Optical character recognition is not 100% accurate. It makes some mistakes in hard to read symbols and due to diacritics in the text such as á.Rajmaan (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rajmaan So you read the thing elsewhere. So it should not be called copyvio. So what? This is ridiculous. You don't seem to be aware that you are contributing to an encyclopedia, not to some blog. The question is not whether you are allowed by copyright law to reproduce mechanically a whole book in an article, but whether you should actually do it. First, if you cite verbatim from a book, you are supposed to indicate it clearly, with quotation marks, and provide the precise pagination. Second, the citations should be of reasonable length: a single citation is not supposed to contain 17'000 characters! And finally, misprints should be corrected: it is not sufficient just to explain why they are here. This is sloppy. Sapphorain (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writings of Mahmud al-Kashgari[edit]

I am guessing I stepped into a very controversial article, but as a simple article reader I really wonder why there is need for the numerous non-English translations of the writings/poems of Mahmud al-Kashgari. They add nothing to the article, take up lots of space and most importantly on an English language article, one may assume them to be simply unreadable to the target audience. 84.87.204.78 (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is problematic to use this primary source at all, let alone one with all those non-English versions. Kanguole 14:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamification, Islamization, Islamicisation[edit]

Is it really necessary to use three different words for the same thing (in one article)? Seraphim System (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Used Islamization variant. --MarioGom (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamicisation and Turkicisation 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) 10:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page created by sock-puppeteer[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan/Archive. User:Milktaco = User:Rajmaan. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang is wrong and article takes mostly a Chinese POV[edit]

Although the topic is worth writing about there are very good sources on the processes of Islamization that are not being cited here. It is pointless to have Turkification in the same article, just as it is to repeatedly refer to Sakas and Tocharians as the Buddhists. Uyghurs were Buddhists, and Nestorians, and Manicheans. As Millward points out, Uyghurs were heavily connected to Sogdians. And finally, Tang China was not anti-Uyghur and allied with Kirghiz in 840. My suggestion is provide article on Islamization of Central Asia, including East Turkistan, Tarim Basin, Mongol Empire, etc. Ethnic history of the region now known as Xinjiang, which includes very different processes in north (Altai) and South (Tarim) should be put into relevant geographically identified articles. Nlight2 (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is anachronistic to apply the 18th-century concept of Xinjiang to events that occurred centuries earlier, and that it would make sense to split the article between the different areas. Kanguole 09:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is entirely anachronistic, Xinjiang simply refers to an area, and it is possible to look at the history in that area, and in this case, as a sub-topic of History of Xinjiang. For example, you can look at Buddhism in Afghanistan even though Buddhism was only significant in Afghanistan before the country came into existence. The title can be simply changed to "Islamization and Turkification in Xinjiang". I also would not object to an article Sinicization of Xinjiang that may cover current events as well as events before Xinjiang was created.
The main issue I see with the current article is the pushing of POV by the person who created the article (Rajmaan) who has been a problematic editor (he may well still be hiding somewhere under a different alias), and I strongly suspect that he created this article so as to suggest that Islam and Turkic people are not indigenous to the region. It does not necessarily make the article wrong, but it does mean it needs cleaning up to comply with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It also means that it may be worth looking at other possibilities to see if the issues can be examined in a better way, maybe Islam in Xinjiang, Islamization of the Tarim Basin, etc. and in that I would agree with Nlight2. I should note that the association of Uyghurs with Sogdians dated back to the Uyghur Khaganate, which was in Mongolia and the Uyghurs were not in the Turfan area in significant numbers until after the destruction of the Khaganate. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

insufficient English level should not be allowed here. What does it mean "Xinjiang is wrong"?? Xinjiang is a region, it is impossible to be wrong or right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.233.60.87 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization and Turkification of Xinjiang → Turkic settlement of the Tarim Basin – I believe it is highly important to change the title article of this article. 'Turkification of Xinjiang' appears on search engines. The article, as currently structured, lends to the interpretation that Xinjiang is a historical territory of China that was a victim of cultural genocide and forced conversions (especially the words Turkification & Islamization). This is highly misleading since (1) Xinjiang is modern geographic entity, (2) many historians believe it was a process of cultural assimilation, and (3) Turkish tribes only converted to Islam after the conquest. While the rest of the article is in desperate needs of changes, it is most important to change this title to avoid the title from coloring readings of the article and remove its appearance from search engines. This is especially important given the current Uyghur genocide. I believe a title like 'Turkic conquest of the Tarim Basin' appropriately captures existing content in good faith with a more neutral position. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point (1) argues for a split of the article between the Tarim Basin and Dzungaria. I agree that that would avoid anachronistically projecting the current province back into history. Then again, the Dzungaria part is about the Qing conquest and covers the same ground as Dzungar genocide, so it could be merged there. Point (2) rather argues against "conquest", though, but "Turkification" is ugly. Also, Islam (with a negative slant) is a major focus of the current content. Kanguole 14:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you properly noted, it might be better to merge the discussion of Uyghur migration following the Dzungar genocide into the article on the Dzungar genocide. I believe it is outside of the scope of this article since the rest of the content is pre-Modern history and neatly fits into categories like "the migration of Turkic-speaking peoples in the Eurasian steppe" and "Islamization". On your note about Islamization, you are correct that "Islam" plays a critical role in much of the article. However, I would argue that it is not essential to the article since Islamization better describes a socio-political process. I only see two discussions where the term "Islamization" is of relevance: (1) discussion of the Karakhanid conquest on Khotan and (2) the Chagatai attack on Turfan. Regarding the Karakhanic conquest, while the article extensively discusses conquests, jihad, and religious discrimination that came from the conquest, it does not describe the process of the native population converting. Moreover, one source the article mentions makes it absolutely clear that the influence of Karakhanid policy on the native population is unknown. [1] The information on the Chagatai attack is not enough to merit the inclusion of "Islamization" in the title since rest of the article mostly discusses conquests and not the sociological process of religious conversion. For these reasons, I do not believe "Islamization" to be a necessary part of the title.Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turkification should be kept because it's an accurate term to describe what happened; the migration and settler colonization of the Tarim Basin by outsiders (Turkics). Turks are historically not the indigenous population of the region, the Sogdians and Tocharians (Indo-Europeans) are, and the turkic invasions and colonization led to those indigenous groups' extinction and replacement with modern Uyghurs. It also keeps the article in line with other examples of Turkification that happened in a similar way, such as in Anatolia and in Iran. --Qahramani44 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two English articles on Turkification, this one and the one describing the term. It may be best to include a section on the migration to the Tarim Basin in the Turkification artcile until a more robust series of articles is created. Additionally, I would argue that Turkification is an imperfect term since it has multiple valences. For some people it brings to mind modern Turkish nationalism; for others, the straightforward definition of becoming more "Turkic". Using the term to describe pre-Modern history can be problematic since we know that many Turkic groups adopted the languages and cultures of other people... for instance, Persian became the court language of many polities (see Persianate society) and Tengriism isn't exactly around these days. Regardless, Turkification is a socio-political process. There is nothing in the article that describes the process of assimilating the native population (forcibly or not). The application of the term Turkification is something that should be used in the context of citing a historian or something left to the reader to infer, but I do not believe it is not our place to make these claims. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Onelook indexes thirty online dictionaries, but only Wikipedia has "Turkification."[4] I'm no neologophobic, but two in the same title is a little much. Perhaps a little paleologification is appropriate here. 99to99 (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I find the new suggested title a lot clearer and certainly factual, while the old one smacks of some idealogy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support the new suggested title: "Turkic settlement of the Tarim basin". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if moved, the new title should probably be Turkic conquest of the Tarim Basin (i.e. lowercase conquest) per WP:NCCAPS. Lennart97 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Will amend to reflect that. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still object to the "conquest" part – as you noted in point (2) above, it is incompatible with the description of this process by most historians. How about "assimilation"? Kanguole 13:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conquest" is fine but "Settlement" would be better, it would fall in line with articles like Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. The turks certainly settled in that land from the outside much like the Anglo-Saxons did in Britain. --Qahramani44 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "settlement" could work. When was this "conquest"? Kanguole 22:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: It appears that there is presently consensus for the article to move, however consensus is yet to emerge in relation to the preferred title ("Turkic conquest of the Tarim Basin" or "Turkic settlement of the Tarim Basin"). Further discussion on this point would be helpful. --Jack Frost (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "Turkic settlement of the Tarim Basin". "Settlement" does a better job at capturing the content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomuchcuriosity (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Turkic settlement of the Tarim Basin. Settlement works much better for description of migrations of peoples. “Conquest” implies the article focuses on battles. “Islamization” seems misleading, as in implying religious conversion of peoples, not migration of peoples with their religion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Turkic settlement of the Tarim Basin". As above, this is a more accurate description of the process. Kanguole 10:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @99to99 and Kautilya3: You commented in favour of "Turkic conquest of the Tarim Basin", but the target has since been changed to "Turkic settlement of the Tarim Basin". Do you have a view on the new target? Kanguole 14:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780195159318/page/228/mode/2up


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger Proposal Before Move (Talk:Islamization and Turkification of Xinjiang § Requested move 23 June 2021)[edit]

@Kautilya3, Kanguole, Qahramani44, and Jack Frost: Please comment below on the merger proposal that the article title move depends on. Thanks! Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before the move, I propose merging Islamization and Turkification of Xinjiang § Dzungaria to Migration to Xinjiang § Dzungar Genocide. The sections contain duplicate content.


Original comments from Talk:Islamization and Turkification of Xinjiang § Requested move 23 June 2021:

I want to figure out what to do about the section on Islamization and Turkification of Xinjiang § Dzungaria. It contains duplicate content from sections in the following articles:
Dzungar genocide § Consequences of the genocide
Migration to Xinjiang § Dzungar Genocide
Can some of the content on this page be trimmed and the references to those pages kept? How can this be done? (I'm new to Wikipedia, so my apologies that I'm aware of the procedure for doing this. Thanks for the help and the warm welcome!) Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the title is changed to being about the Tarim Basin, then Dzungaria will clearly be offtopic. I would say merge any content of that section that is not in Xinjiang or Dzungar genocide to the appropriate article, and then (after the move) that section can be removed. Kanguole 13:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is perfectly reasonable to treat the Tarim Basin and Dzungaria in separate pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move and replacement of content[edit]

I have reverted the move of this article to "Islamization of the Tarim Basin" and corresponding replacement of the content. This article has many flaws, but that's just not how we operate here. Besides, the current title was the result of an RM last year. Any change of title should go through a new WP:RM. Kanguole 22:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzungaria still focused on too much[edit]

The section on Dzungaria is bloated, painfully repetitive, and doesn't entirely belong in this article, since Xinjiang as a single entity is a Chinese invention and this article is explicitly about the Tarim Basin. The section needs to be significantly cut down in size. I will do it if I find the time, others are also requested to help. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 10:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also substantial content overlap with Dzungar genocide Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the text in the Dzungaria section is duplicated from Dzungar genocide, Dzungar people, Xinjiang under Qing rule and Migration to Xinjiang. As pointed out above, it is also off topic. The whole thing should go. Kanguole 09:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Taẕkirah Literature is bloated[edit]

I feel like the Taẕkirah Literature section goes against WP:TOOMUCH. It might be worth trimming down. I'm happy to volunteer to do this, however, I want to do this sensitively since removing this content could raise issues of censorship given its content. Any advice from more experienced editors or watchers of this page? I also welcome input on content that you believe should be maintained, summarized, or removed. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made my edits today. too_much curiosity (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this page is such a mess...[edit]

No goal for this addition to the talk page... just complaining. Like damn, it's painful to read through and edit. too_much curiosity (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkic_settlement_of_the_Tarim_Basin&oldid=1204840784"