Talk:Ilham Tohti

Requested move 9 December 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. After nearly a month, we have no support for the move, as well as evidence that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language reliable sources. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Ilham Tohti → Ilham Toxti – Both "Ilham Toxti" or "Ilⱨam Tohti" are correct, but mixing up two different transliteration systems is a lay-person mistake.
P.S. If anyone would like to keep Ilham Tohti as a redirection, I've got no objection against that. Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 07:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sst✈^(discuss) 06:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• But common, English usage is "Ilham Tohti", the current tile. —  AjaxSmack  01:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. He's an Uyghur and his name is in Uyghur and he does not have an anglicised name like John Cabot or Nicolaus Copernicus do. Therefore, WP:UE does not apply here as long as the name is transliterated into Latin alphabets. Also, just because it's common does not mean it's correct.

  P.S. If you would like to stick to WP:UCN, Ilham Toxti appears to be the more-common one.Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 02:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  Is there policy (or even precedent) that WP:UE should not be followed for translaterations? If not, I don't see why that policy shouldn't be followed. 217.123.4.153 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  WP:UE states that "established systematic transliterations... are preferred". Both ULY and UYY are "established systematic transliterations" by definition but neither of them produced "Ilhan Tohti". While the next sentence calls for the use of "common English-language form of the name", Ilhan Toxhi clearly doesn't have one (though John Cabot has one). Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is clearly the most common name in English-language reliable sources. There are 578 Google Books results for the current title compared to only 6 for the proposed one. Jenks24 (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  Counter: Appealing to mere popularity is a logical fallacy. Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 22:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. We simply reflect what the majority of reliable sources do. Jenks24 (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  "Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs" is an excuse that encourages cowardness. Besides, with "reliable" being the key-word here, how many of those 578 sources are actually reliable? How many of the authors/editors of those sources even speak or have knowledge of Uyghur? Or am I not supposed to assume that all high school history classes teach students how to evaluate sources and tell which ones are reliable and which ones are not? Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 07:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, authors published by Routledge, the U.S Congress, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, University of California Press, etc. (just a sample from the first page of results) are reliable sources. I note you are yet to provide a single source to back up your assertions. I would genuinely suggest reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  There you go: A detailed explanation of the latinisation of Uyghur provided by the University of Utah.The verifiability of this source should trump that of all other lay-person sources. Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 19:01, 3 January 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilham Tohti. 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/20110725215613/http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/5419764/article-Angry-minority-finds-a-voice-on-Chinese-campus to http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/5419764/article-Angry-minority-finds-a-voice-on-Chinese-campus

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)