Talk:Hami

Interwiki ug

Please don't add links to the article with the title "قۇمۇل" in the Uyghur version of Wikipedia as long as that article doesn't have any contents. It doesn't make sense. —Babelfisch 01:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a stub, I guees... Eskimo ☼ 14:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at it, it's not even a stub, it just contains the name of the place, nothing else! The whole project of that Uyghur Wikipedia is a stub. —Babelfisch 01:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Grrr ... stop that bot! Do I have to delete the article in the Uyghur version completely? —Babelfisch 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Hami City per the agreement in the discussion below. Hami City is an existing redirect to this city's article. Contact me if this is not the best result. EdJohnston (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Kumul, Xinjiang → Kumul City – The current name is ambiguous, as the Kumul Prefecture is also in Xinjiang. What distinguishes the two is that one is a city, and the other is a prefecture. Zanhe (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per nom, making the current title a disambiguation link redirecting to Kumul -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Actually, I think "Hami" is the correct name in English. It's the official name as promulgated by Xinhua, as it appears on Atlases, and on similarly authoritative sources like Encyclopedia Britannica. Shrigley (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're probably right. When I submitted the move request, my immediate concern was proper disambiguation of the two titles. It didn't occur to me that Hami is probably a more common name than Kumul. -Zanhe (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename the page to Qumul

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: not moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Requested move 17 September 2023

Hami → Qumul – the native name of the city is not Hami. To decolonize the discussion on Uyghurs, we should employ the native Uyghur name of the city which is Qumul. Also consult: https://uhrp.org/report/decolonizing-the-discussion-of-uyghurs-recommendations-for-journalists-and-researchers/ Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

From the report:

Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP), given the increased prominence and frequency of writing on Uyghurs, requests journalists, academics, as well as governmental and non-governmental researchers to use Uyghur versions of names.

Use of Uyghur and Turkic versions for geographical locations recognizes the language and owners of the land before the imposition of the Chinese Communist Party administration in 1949. For example, regular use of the Chinese name “Hami” for the city of “Qumul” has similar colonial associations for Uyghurs. Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Against: Reasoning is obviously based on a POVPUSH that is against WP:COMMONNAME as well as official name. This user has been tendentiously changing common names and name order to fit their narrow interests. Qiushufang (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to use Wikipedia’s rules to your advantage. You should remember WP:5P5, namely, that: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The premise of the move and your name changes are both against policy and false. Hami and Kumul and both native names. Qiushufang (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Against: According to Wikipedia:Article titles, the commonly used English name should be used as the article title, regardless of name usages in other (non-English) languages. Indeed, the most commonly used English name is "Hami", and also neutral point of view (NPOV) is a core principle of Wikipedia (without POVPUSH in WP). --Wengier (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In my experience "Hami" is more common than "Qumul" in English, and search results bear this out: on Google Scholar, "Hami, Xinjiang" gets 2050 hits while "Qumul, Xinjiang" gets only 7. "Hami Prefecture" gets 148 hits while "Qumul Prefecture" gets 5. On Google Ngrams, "Qumul Prefecture" doesn't even show up. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear attempt at POV, which nom seems to admit has no basis in policy (or "rules" as they call them). They accuse others of using these rules to push the opposite POV. Interesting. While I strongly support this cause, this is not the place to promote it. Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

Yi... qu(?)

In the 19th century, the historical name I-chu, I-chou, I-cheu, &c. is also frequently encountered. It's probably a mangled form of Yizhou but it should be clarified and noted. — LlywelynII 19:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)