Talk:East Turkestan/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 March 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree. -- ran (talk) 23:50, 24 March 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 March 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, 25 March 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 March 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

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 April 2005 (UTC)

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)

Flag of East Turkestan

Is this a real separatist and/or historical flag of East Turkestan? -- Himasaram 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

2021

• It's a separaist flag. -- 07:42, 16 June 2021 Turtle-bienhoa

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)

remove weasel?

There's a "weasel words" remark sitting there since nov. 2009. I wonder if it's time to remove this. Although I cannot comment on the contents of the section marked, I can say the language, even if it's a bit story-telling style, is all "factual statements", not ".. famous historians say.." kind of weasel talk.

Ofcourse, the "machiavellian and clever politics" remark, is not factual/neutral and shouldn't be in here unless backed up by some external source (and marked as such). But this is already marked diretcly on the sentence in question. And a lot of the "factual statements" lack proper citing. But that doesn't make them "weasel words", right? I think we should use proper markings that indicate if something's wrong, but "weasel" doesn't seem to apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endorf (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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
  • Vote for the Merger--88.105.18.105 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge pre-1949 history from Xinjiang to this article
  • Fork post-1948 history to Xinjiang and history of Xinjiang article. Dogru144 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Having separate articles for different time periods under different names or different claims isn't that uncommon, so I don't see this as particularly aberrant or contrary to policy. See, e.g., Constantinople, Königsberg, Northern Epirus, etc. --Delirium (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Bias

This article is very bias and obviously is written from a Chinese perspective. It should be at least mentioned that East Turkestan and its native Turk and Kazak people enjoyed a measure of independence prior to the 1949 Chinese invasion of their land. USSR attempted to give the area independence in exchange for access to its uranium deposits. China's claim to the area should at least be challenged somewhat in the Wiki article due to the fact there were no Chinese people in the area before 1949, and China and local Turk, Ueygar, and Kazak people have completely different cultures from the Han Chinese. Please also consider the unknown deaths (est. 50,000 - 100,000) and imprisonment of anyone who denied China's "historical right" to the land--about 500,000. There was also CIA activity in the Thiwa area (now know as another name: U...). This, and the Russia mining, may have precipitated the Chinese invasion. The Chinese Communist Party wanted to secure resources and land (as China did with Inner Mongolia and Tibet). –KAZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantkillthedrifter (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro, but do you have a source for that? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Native = "invaded 800 years after current population settled, flood from Siberia/Soviet Central Asia in 1860 and kill millions of civilians, have Soviets invent your ethnic nationalist movement". Be sure to edit the corresponding wiki article to suit your Uyghur nationalist claims. Huaxia (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely very biased one is clearly able to see the Chinese influence on the article, needs urgent reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.70.196 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Too many made-up, emotional terms. Stokastik (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information

The native "uyghur" name is not Qurighar. Thats the Uyghur translation of the Chinese name "xiyu" (which dates back to the Han dynasty. The native "uyghur" name is Moghulistan, because the Uyghurs were ruled over by the Chagatai muslim Mongols, hence the name "land of the mongols" aka Moghulistan.

As for the name eastern turkestan, it was invented by westerners in the 18th century, another bame for the region was "little Bokhara", vis a vis the Emirate of Bukhara in "western" turkestan. The uyghurs then took that name from the west and politicized it.Rajmaan (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Russian sinologist N. Bichurin created the name East Turkestan in 1829

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA33&dq=The+Russians+researched+not+only+medieval+Uyghur+history,+but+also+the+recent+past+of+today's+Xinjiang.+It+was+Russian+scholarship,+for+instance,+that+introduced+for+the+first+time+the+terms+'West+Turkestan'+and+'East+Turkestan'.+In+1829,+the+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1YhYU_OgK87JsQT04ILYDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA34&dq=Turkestan'+and+'East+Turkestan'.+In+1829,+the+Russian+sinologist+N.+Bichurin+stated:+'it+would+be+better+here+to+call+Bukhara's+Turkestan+the+Western+one,+and+Chinese+Turkestan+the+Eastern+%5B+.+...+(+1+829,+12).+Nevertheless,+the+name+'East+Turkestan'+acquired+a+wide+usage+in+academic+literature+only+in+the+second+half+of+the+twentieth+century.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3IdYU9jWC4PMsQSj7ICYCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

Milktaco (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Invasion in Wikipedia

The article doesn't seem to have a balance at all. It seems as if written by chinese interior minister. How far can you go? Maybe you will be happy for your conquest on wikipedia for a few days. Think about this: There are some people, a minority, in your country who feel oppressed by chinese policies. You understand that? oppressed. They can't express religion, culture, language and they are not happy. Separatists? This is your term, than I call you occupant, expansionist and invader. Separatist is not the right term. They are uyghur people. If you don't want to be called invader, than don't call them separatists. It was china which invaded the territory not long ago anyway. When we are talking about china, we are talking about a country in which facebook is forbidden. No matter how you try to reflect a twisted fact, it won't impress anyone. This article is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.104.30.234 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not here for you to tell your noble cause. Wikipedia is built on verifiability, and the term "separatist" is used in the references and sources cited within the article. You have something you don't agree with the article? Then feel free to improve it, provided that you have reliable sources to back up your actions. Moaning and bitching about how you think people might be oppressed isn't a proper argument, it's an appeal to emotion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You must obey to the Noble Cause rule yourself first. As mentioned by several people above this article is heavily chinese dominated, and reflects the chinese noble cause. You can find resources and links to prove the earth is flat as well. But you must allow the other people say it is not. I simply sense that this article is biased, and want people take an action on it. I return the word "bitching" to yourself. This wording reflects the socio-cultural level that you belong to. And it indicates you have psychological reasons to discriminate people and have hatred for them. I don't have time to deal on this issue. But it doesn't mean that I shouldn't notice the strong bias in it. Just think a second, how you would feel when you were discriminated in australia for being chinese, how would you react if you were restricted to practice your religion there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.104.30.234 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a forum, talk pages are not intended to be used that way. I attempted to explain to you how Wikipedia policy works, whether you wish to listen to that is up to you.
>You can find resources and links to prove the earth is flat as well.
They don't qualify under Wikipedia's policies, due to undue weight, however. You're comparing apples (undue sources) with oranges (complaining on a talk page because referenced vocabulary is used).
>I simply sense that this article is biased, and want people take an action on it.
We encourage all editors to be bold, providing that they adhere to the policies, mentioned above and elsewhere. Why should it be someone else, when it could be you?
>I return the word "bitching" to yourself.
Thank you.
>This wording reflects the socio-cultural level that you belong to. And it indicates you have psychological reasons to discriminate people and have hatred for them.
Whoa, step back, we got a psychology Ph.D here! Great assumptions you got there - I bet you can see a gunman from far away as well, right? And it's also quite pot calling the kettle black coming from someone that uses strange grammar and capitalisation.
>Just think a second, how you would feel when you were discriminated in australia for being chinese, how would you react if you were restricted to practice your religion there?
But I am. I'm currently studying university in a fairly conservative, middle-income and predominantly "white neighbourhood" town. This is a state where we've had politicians claim that Asians are swamping the country, do not assimilate, form ghettoes, and steal hardworking Australian jobs. Do you think I give any fucks for it though? I take a nice warm cup of cement and harden the fuck up every morning, and I'm pretty sure everyone else does that too. Not that I understand what your question has anything to do with the topic at hand at all. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why there is not even a single word about how human rights are being destroyed in Uyghurstan. Basically, people are not allowed to go to mosques and pray. If you use an Islamic song as a ringtone, you are considered terrorist by law of China. Tell me how that is not an interesting topic about human rights violations? Tell me how that does not have a single word in a Wikipedia article? Tell me you use Wikipedia for the right information and not for the information which you have and think is right. Please be justful. You will regret this hypocrisy one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.238.109 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should support freedom

Wikipedia is for everyone, therefore it should not be one sided, support freedom of Uighurstan movement!--Korsentry 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Pfft. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I support East Turkestan, freedom, and self-determination personally, but we shouldn't allow personal feelings to interfere with writing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is neutral. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I admire your Ideas about feelings, but I have different ideas about Uighurs and the socalled ETR with you guys. Although CCCP made the two Republics(1933/34)(1946/49) puppet, they re not recognised by the Chinese government, no matter RoC or PRoC. And there is no more room for the dream of so-called ETR. Nowadays Uighur people ENJOYED the autonomous region. But they are "represented" by the freedom fighters in your opinion. UK and US smeared about HK,TW and Tibet,now they come for Xinjiang? By the way, the government don't support the so-called invasion. We are randomly chinese people.Sigh,why do I tell you that? I myself am a senior school student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 天津小外杨连洲 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Turkestan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042941/http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/TM_008_04.pdf to http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/TM_008_04.pdf

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) 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Turkestan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106141633/http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/May_2006/Guang.pdf to http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/May_2006/Guang.pdf

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) 16:34, 7 December 2017 (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 Balochistan.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

No such a thing as cultural extent of Xinjiang. 31.53.28.9 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2020 (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)

Obviously they are not Chinese people, they should be free from China's ruthless occupation. It's funny how Chinese condemn American in Iraq and Afghanistan but doesn't condemn China's occupation in Tibet and Uighurstan. --Korsentry 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

But China does not occupy Tibet or Xinjiang, these areas are a part of today's China (ie The People's Republic of China), and the Chinese rule it. Europeans rule North America now, is anyone going to ask European Americans and Canadians to return to Europe? 31.53.28.9 (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Xinjiang Vs. East Turkestan, my two cents on the terminology

Equating Xinjiang with "East Turkestan" is like calling San Diego "Northern Mexico". It's just too much of a stretch on several levels. In the case of Xinjiang vs. East Turkestan ...

1. Have a lot of people been living there? No, since most of Xinjiang (I've read at least 95%) is uninhabitable for any life-style. Settlements were mostly oases and/or trading posts along the Silk Road(s). Even taking into consideration nomads and use for travel, it leaves the vast majority of the area not a territory of any people before the 1800s.

2. Has there been a persistent nation or political state? No, only invasions, migrations, genocides, warlordism, and sometimes partially as a part of larger civilizations (Chinese dynasties, Tibet, the Mongol empire and khanates, maybe modern-day Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Russia/Russian Turkestan), none of which historically associated the majority of Xinjiang as a territory of their nation). In fact, the peoples (may it be the Turks who ended up in modern-day Turkey, the original Uyghurs, the Mongols, the Chinese, the Tibetans, nomads, settlers, invaders, etc.) regularly displaced and killed one another along tribal, clannish, national, and other lines of demarcation. This is not to say that people can't just all get up today and decide to self-determine their own nation, but it does mean that the argument for "East Turkestan" over Xinjiang has no historical basis.

3. "Xinjiang" is actually the Mandarin pronunciation of the characters meaning "new border", reflecting the fact that the area was a relatively new addition to the Qing dynasty and constituted a part of its & its neighbors' borders. Therefore, the written characters may actually be one of the better candidates we have towards a neutral, accurate term for the Entire Geographical Area; the alternatives being related to Turkestan (which never reflected the entire area, nor is it endorsed by any actual Turkic nations) or Uyghur (but not everyone in Xinjiang were Uyghurs, and neither are the present-day Uyghurs exactly the same as the very first ones where the name probably originates). Unfortunately, it may be more difficult to reach a consensus on the pronunciation.

DXDanl (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to rename New Mexico then? 31.53.28.9 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2020 (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 South Azerbaijan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Usage of infobox country

@Geographyinitiative: You restored the Template:Infobox country in this edit, but this article is about a term for a region with varying definitions. The use of Template:Infobox country is inappropriate here because this article is not about a current country, former country (besides those already covered at First East Turkestan Republic and Second East Turkestan Republic), nor a government in exile (which is covered at East Turkistan Government-in-Exile). The hypothetical modern independent state is covered in the article East Turkestan independence movement. This implementation of infobox country does not correspond to any of its propoer uses. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim you present is that this artcle is ONLY about a 'region'. The lead of this article includes the statement, “East Turkestan is a founding member state of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), which was formed in 1991.” That shows that there is some merit to the argument that this article may not only be about a region, but also about a country associated with the region, albeit one that is being actively denied self governance and self determination. To show the weakness of the analogies presented above, France is an article about a region that is also about a country, and that is not changed because we have articles for the First French Republic, Second French Republic, and the Free France exile government. East Turkistan was sometimes referred to by this name in English during the fifteen years of freedom in southern East Turkistan in the mid 1900s, (see East Turkistan on Wiktionary for some quotes from that period, including a sentence saying that 'East Turkistan' had again fallen under the Empire of China). This actually is a country, even if China does not want us to believe that East Turkistan is a country, having actively worked to assimilate it and being charged with Uyghur genocide. The open and shut case you present here falls apart when you realize that this area is being oppressed by a regime that, in 2020, scored negative one out of 100 for political freedom, according to the Freedom House report. It is clear East Turkistan is a conquered people with an exile government, like the Baltic states and thr USSR. However, my main argument is that the infobox has useful content for the readers and that this utility should not be ignored in the attempt to make some kind of political point that this term should only be about a region and not both a region concept and a country concept. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any political point. You are bringing up a lot of the politics of China, making much more of a political point than anything that I said.

This is much more similar to Tibet and Kurdistan, historical regions which are not recognized modern countries but have independence movements, than it is to France. You could add a manual region infobox like the one in Kurdistan, but this article shouldn't have a country or government-in-exile infobox as it does now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Okay, I will try to make this infobox into a box like the Tibet and Kurdistan boxes. But come on dude, don't delete infoxes wholesale when they provide readers useful info. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I just added a basic one mimicking the one at Kurdistan. I didn’t include data that only makes sense when applied to the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (e.g. capital, time zone) or the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile (e.g. flag, motto, President). — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I can understand what has been done with the infobox given the nature of this situation. I was making a similar edit while you were making it. This is a little-understood topic, and I myself may make mistakes of judgment from time to time. In the end, I am glad there is a helpful infobox. I hope we can get Wikipedia and Wiktionary up to speed on the sum knowledge that exists in the literature on this area so we can be a really reliable, neutral reference source for people to use. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries! I'm glad this was resolved. I agree that infoboxes generally improve accessibility for most readers and are generally useful. It's important to get it right though, as a infobox can be worse than no infobox at all. In this case, the end result is definitely useful and suitable for the article subject.

There's certainly a lack of well-referenced coverage in this area. Your continued efforts to improve it are much appreciated! — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Protect page

I think that we need to protect this page in this edit war.--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur East Turkestan

Maybe we should start a new page about the country East Turkestan with a gouvernment in excile. This page is about the region, and I think if you want to write something about the region you need to go to the page about Xinjiang. This page is about the Uyghur East Turkestan and not the region East Turkestan in general. Or we need to make a new page about the Uyghur country East Turkestan. I also think that this page is wrote with a Chinese point of view and not a neutral point of view.--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That is what the article East Turkistan Government-in-Exile is about. This article has always been about the term and region, which even the current prose reflects. The article Xinjiang is about the administrative division, not the term "East Turkestan" nor the various regions which the term has encompassed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No, East Turkistan Government-in-Exile is about the government not the country. If you think that East Turkestan is about the region, we need to make a new page about the country East Turkestan, not the region and not the gouvernment.--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are free to try to create such an article, if there are independent published reliable sources that say that such a country exists (beyond the sovereignty claims by the government in exile). If there are no such sources though, then there wouldn't be anything to write about besides what is already at East Turkistan Government-in-Exile.

You can, for example, try drafting one at Draft:East Turkestan (country) or something with a similar name. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but the "if there are independent published reliable sources that say that such a country exists", there aren't countries that say East Turkestan is a country. The gouvernment declared independence. This is a situation like: Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Catalonia. It isn't actually a country but the gouvernment want to make it a country. I think that this page should named: East Turkestan (region), and the future new page should named: East Turkestan.--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And once again, East Turkistan Government-in-Exile isn't about the 'country' East Turkestan, but about the gouvernment.--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So if everyone agrees I'll name this page East Turkestan (region) and the future page: East Turkestan.--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The article Catalonia is about the autonomous community of Spain, not a claimed independent state. If there is no country, then the article about the government in exile covers the claimed independent state. You can't write an article about a country if there are no reliable sources saying that it is a country.

No, you should first create or draft the new article if there are reliable sources for it, and you would then need to gain consensus for a move / swap via requested moves. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't say that it is a country, the gouvernment has declared indepence. And I don't want to make an article about the country, self proclaimed state East Turkestan. It's a (proclaimed) breakway state, the same as the Republic of Artsakh, which has well the control about his country (now since november 2020 not). And Catalonia declared their independence.--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And what did you mean by "reliable sources"? Do you mean about countries that regonize it or internet sources?--ROXANNE9090 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary source on origin

@CentralAsiaEnthuist: You cited the 11th century text Kutadgu Bilig as a claim for The term was first mentioned in the 5th Century in Persian texts. This claim needs to be substantiated in secondary reliable sources, e.g. academic books or papers, rather than cited directly to old primary sources (also the link you included is a dead link, but that's not the main issue). Same with the claim for the 16th century book. It is already well-referenced in the article that "Turkestan" for the broader region had such origins, but not "East Turkestan" for this region.

The other claims, such as Due to the city-state oasises and independent kingdoms and khanates across East Turkistan, the term East Turkistan wasn't used as a political term until the late 19th century are also not cited to any reliable sources in the lead nor in the article, and should be included unless you can find references for them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)