Talk:Turpan

Untitled

Something is wrong with the section divisions. Two edit links show up at the end of the second section, Geography and Climate. I've tried fixing this but have been unsuccessful.

Temperature Extremes

The Hottest Temperature in Turfan Pendi Was recorded at Lüfkun, a incredible 94 degrees celsius in August 1929. The Coldest was in Januuary 1937 when it was recorded a all-time lows of -59 degrees celsius in Turfan-shan.

I think 'Fahrenheit' was intended here, not 'Celsius'!PeterMcC (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Area

Does anyone know the extent of the area of the oasis, how many acres or square metres is it?

this question would better be posed at the more relevant article. And please sign your name —— no need to be in the dark. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Turfan Khanate

Rajmaan (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Entirely useless spam of bare URLs without context commented out above. — LlywelynII 09:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Turfan fragments

I added some details from the German Wikipedia. Eio-cos (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Name

Origin of Name

Anyone out there know the origin of the name? Alexwoods (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) This entire article is more a Chinese propaganda & justification for their illegal occupation rather than any relevant history. the fact is any significant Chinese presence beyond the wall only happen during the Tang. This BS post doesn;t even mention that the Sogdian/ Tocharian culture in this region was Indic with both Hindu and Buddhist presence. WHat is this crap about Sogdian slaves? China is one of the most invaded places in the world and plenty of Chinese women have servced Hsiung nu,Kushan, Hun, Mongol and Turkic men — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.118.205 (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Title

The following discussion 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.

---

The original title of this page was Turfan (which is the most common spelling in English texts). There wasn't any consensus for moving the page to Turpan (as Rjanag did). If Rjanag insists on moving the page, he should first use the proper procedure of "Move request" and obtain the consensus. Alefbe (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(copying response from my talk page)

I did search Google books, news, and web; there are slightly more Turfans on books and web, slightly more Turpans on news. In any case, it's all relatively close, and the difference is not large enough to strongly suggest that one spelling or another is "right"; furthermore, google searching is an inexact science anyway, a google result can't be used as damning evidence one way or another unless the difference is huge. Ultimately, the trump card is that Turpan is the native name.

As for consensus... there was no consensus either way in the beginning, it just happened to be located at Turfan because that's the page that some random person created first. When I moved it, no one cared for a month. If you suddenly have an issue with it, the appropriate thing is to reach a new consensus now, before you start edit warring over it. But once again: neither spelling is vastly more common in English, and Turpan is the native name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, most English-language maps (more important results than random web hits, many of which are unrelated to this) use the spelling Turpan. In a Google image search for "Xinjiang map", the entire first page of results (removing the ones that are in Chinese or that don't show Turpan) use this spelling: [1][2][3][4][5] rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing: the English-language editions of the main PRC news organizations (Xinhua, China Daily) use Turpan. Just a couple months ago Xinhua had a photo gallery up of the Turpan grape festival. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is clear about this. Your move is not backed by consensus and has already been contested by me. You shouldn't insist on moving the page (away from its original title). Instead, you should file a move request. Alefbe (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares, we started a discussion now. Are you going to actually respond to the discussion in a constructive way, or are you just going to keep whining at AN? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why was it in the first place a month ago? Was there a consensus discussion to do so? I have written many articles that refer to this place. I do not think place names should be changed without consensus, as there are often strong feelings regarding naming. What name do most of the articles mentioning it use? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The article was first created as "Turpan"; a few months later it was changed to Turfan [6] (equally without consensus, although Alefbe doesn't mind; doing stuff without consensus is only bad if it disagrees with him, apparently). As for what the name should be, I have already given three or four arguments above for why Turpan is a more appropriate name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that the article was at Turfan for several years and you moved it without any discussion. While your first move is not that wrong, your second and third move (when you realized that the move is contested) was quite wrong and against the Wikipedia policy. Alefbe (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again: are you actually going to discuss the content issue? Or are you just interested in being unconstructive? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: a more disturbing fact is that you have systematically changed a common spelling ("Turfan") in all Wikipedia pages (without any prior discussion). Even if we agree to move this page to Turpan, this cannot be an excuse for removing another common spelling (i.e. "Turfan", which is indeed more common in English texts) from all Wikipedia pages and use scripts for doing that. Alefbe (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the third time now: are you interested in discussing the name? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both issues are important here. Alefbe (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in over half an hour you haven't conjured up a response to any of the substantive comments about naming. I can only assume you've run out of arguments to make. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you you want me to just discuss the name, without mentioning your disruptive edits (in all Wikipedia pages containing this name), first undo your recent systematic spelling changes and move back this page and then file a move request. Then we can focus on discussing about the name. Alefbe (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I already presented reasons for the move. I can't have a discussion with someone who won't respond (and who won't seek outside input). If neither version has consensus, there's no reason to revert to either one (again, your edit-warring pagemoves were just as disruptive as mine). If you're unwilling to have a discussion, then there's no reason for anyone to make edits for you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I had already mentioned that "Turfan" is the most common spelling of this name in English texts and it should be the title of this page. Alefbe (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I already gave three or four counterarguments, which you've ignored. If you're not interested in having a discussion and not ever going to bother seeking input, I'm going to mark this thread as closed. "Discussion" does not mean "I state my little opinion and then don't bother to read anyone else's but keep insisting that I'm right because I stated my little opinion." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting really ridiculous. You can always repeat your arguments and show a map here and a book there (and neglect the overall most common name in English sources). Indeed, that's exactly why you should file a move request and ask opinion of others (instead of insisting on your preferred move). Alefbe (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was a move request not filed? The consensus of others should have been taken first. warrior4321 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's have a discussion of the name with reasons pro and con for each suggestions. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Warrior, I have no idea whether you're talking to me or Alefbe. But as for me...have you ever heard of BRD? I boldly moved the article because I saw no objections; no one ever said you need to seek consensus for a move that no one has ever objected to before. I was not violating any consensus, as there was no consensus either way (as far as I can tell, the naming has never been discussed before). There's no need to file a move request for a move that is not under dispute; now, on the other hand, there is a need to seek consensus, since objections have been raised. When I made the move, there had not been any objections and there was no reason to assume there would be.

As for "let's have a discussion"... well, did you bother to read any of the 20 messages right above here where I tried repeatedly to have a discussion and Alefbe repeatedly refused to respond to any of the comments? If he wants the article to be moved to some place or another, he needs to actually participate in teh discussion—not just say "I think it should be like this" and then walk away, thinking that his opinion is right just because it's his opinion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

About BRD, I have already explained to you that your first move was not that wrong, but your second and third move (after you already realized that your move is contested) was quite wrong and you should move the page back to its previous title and file a move request, if you want to move the page to your preferred spelling. Also, I mentioned that "Turfan" is the most common name of this city in English sources and it should be the title of this page. You can indefinitely repeat your argument and show a map here or a new agency there and neglect the spelling which is most common overall. This is exactly why you should file a move request and ask opinion of others, instead of insisting on unilaterally moving the page and repeating your arguments indefinitely. Alefbe (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, all you're doing is repeating your same argument, too. The difference is I have responded to yours, you have not responded to mine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's yet another attempt to get discussion rolling. For the sake of readers who apparently didn't see any of my comments above, I'll condense my arguments into bullet points.

1. Google test alone is not a reliable indicator of real-life usage. This is documented at WP:GOOGLE. For this article, Google Web and Books searches return more Turfan hits, Google News returns more Turpan. In all cases, the difference is not enormous. Furthermore, some things skew the results artificially. "Turfan" also appears to be a personal name—when browsing the Turfan hits you can find pages where the match was some person's last name, not the city. On top of that, a large number of Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors, and Wikipedia mirrors are often outdated; thus, many of the hits on Google are just old copies of this very article, from when it was still named Turfan. For all those reasons, Google search results alone cannot be taken as damning evidence in favor of either name.
2. The sources that matter the most use Turpan. Like I explained above, all maps I've found so far use the Turpan spelling (the entire first page of results from Google is these [7][8][9][10][11], all Turpan). This is not just "a map here and there"; every English-language map in the first page of Google results uses Turpan, not Turfan. This is also true for the second and third pages of results [12][13][14][15][16][17][18], although by now I'm probably starting to get repeats. Note that these maps are mostly Chinese POV (for instance, for the city of Kumul they use the Chinese name Hami instead), but they still use Turpan, even though Turfan is the more 'Chinese' of the two (note that the Chinese pronunciation of Turpan is Tulufan). English-language editions of major Chinese news organizations (Xinhua [19], China Daily [20]), as well as Radio Free Asia (see, for example, [21]), use Turpan. On the other hand, some sources that use "Turfan" are clearly poorly informed and not worth the paper they're written on; for instance, Britannica's article is so poorly-researched that it claims "Turpan" is a pinyin spelling, which is is not (the pinyin spelling would be Tulupan, "Turpan" is Uyghur Latin script).
3. Turpan is the native name. I speak Uyghur and can vouch for this. In cases where there is no compelling evidence in favor of some other name, it's of course nice to keep to the native one, all things being equal. (And this case is not even 'all things equal'; as I explained in the above point, there are several reasons why Turpan is better.)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1-Opposite to what you claim, searching "Turfan" in Google Books returns more results [22] (compared to "Turpan" [23]). I checked the first couple of pages of the Google results for "Turfan" and almost all of them are exactly related to this topic. Alefbe (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2-You try to neglect the common English usage and instead rely on your own selection of sources (and dismissing sources like Britannica) and instead focusing on maps (which usually follow the local name/spelling rather than the common established English name/spelling).

3-The important thing here is the common name in English sources, not the native name or whether you know Uyghur language or not. Alefbe (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, did you read a word of what I wrote? I explained why the google searches are unreliable. And by the way, I did say Google books has more hits for Turfan, so I'm not sure why you say that's "opposite what I claim".

As for dismissing sources like Britannica...did you not notice where I explained why I dismissed it? And did you not notice where I explained why certain other sources matter? Or do you not know how to read? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As for "exactly related to this topic"... I'm sure Amanda Turfan and Kevin Turfan [24] are the names of cities. And then Anxiety attacks - Turfan depression... oh wait, that's not the Turpan Depression, that's a made-up kind of major depressive disorder! Doc, I need some pills, I'm really in a slump, I've got a bad case of the Turfan Depression! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the results from Google Books. You can check the first couple of pages yourself [25]. Alefbe (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Google Books also has more hits for Nanking than Nanjing. Does that mean we should change that article to the outdated spelling? How about changing Fuzhou to Foochow? Or Jiangxi to Kiangsi?rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For modern Chinese cities, it might be good to also consider the Pinyin transliteration standard (when both versions are common). However, this is not the case here (Pinyin is quite irrelevant here). Also, the importance of this city is mostly because of its historical importance, not its contemporary position as an insignificant city in China. Alefbe (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: It's somehow like Bukhara/Buxoro. While Buxoro is the current spelling of the name in Uzbek publications, Bukhara is the common English spelling of the name and it should be the title of its page in English Wikipedia. Alefbe (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Contemporary position as an insignificant city in China"? Not true; here you go demonstrating your lack of familiarity with the subject. While Turpan was a major city along the silk road back in the day, true, it's still an important city today for Uyghurs, it's well-known among them and is considered one of their major cultural centers (along with Kashgar and Xoten). The fact that you've never heard of it other than an 'insignificant city', and that this article is so undeveloped, is a reflection of systemic bias (not just on Wikipedia, but all over)—China's point of view is better-represented, and gets much more attention, than the Uyghurs' point of view. That doesn't mean this city is insignificant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, whether the spelling change is due to Pinyin promulgation or something else is irrelevant. The point that I'm illustrating with this examples is, like I explained above, that a Google Test does not necessarily reflect real-life usage today and we're not necessarily bound by it. WP:GOOGLE says as much (since apparently you didn't bother reading it the first time I linked it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is a policy on Wikipedia to respect the original author's use of conventions, whether it be date format, British vs. American spelling etc. unless there is a clear consensus to change it. —mattisse (Talk) 11:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

To choose the title of the page:

Turfan

1. Support. It is its common name in English sources (compare Turfan with Turpan). Also you can check other major English encyclopedias (like Britannica). Alefbe (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Turpan

1. Support But I see no reason to start a silly poll already, the discussion has only just begun, why cheapen it by turning it into a vote right away? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support After Rjanag told me about this debate, I talked with some of the people who are in Xinjiang studies at Indiana University, including Gardner Bovingdon, and was consistently told that "Turpan" is the preferred transliteration among modern academics. Apparently Uyghurs have a hard time saying "f", so even though some outsiders may transliterate the name of the city as "Turfan" (and frequently did in earlier times), people trying to be accurate now use "Turpan", which matches the Uyghur pronunciation. Also, this argument is not over which name of the city is more commonly used in English (that would be more like an argument between "Turpan" and "Tulufan"), but over the correct way to transliterate one letter (پ) in the most commonly-used name. Based on both all the Uyghur textbooks I have checked and the opinion of people who study the region at CEUS, there is a unanimous agreement for "p". Otebig (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   Yep, you often see f -> p in borrowings, such as putbol (football), and my personal favorite, propesor (profesor). :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   @Otebig: First of all, this discussion is not about how Uyghurs pronounce it, but about the most common name/spelling in English texts. Secondly, unlike what you say, "Tulufan" is not common in English texts (466 compared to 3320 for Turfan, in Google Books). Alefbe (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know where you get this idea that google books searches are the only way to determine what's common. And if you noticed, Otebig was not just commenting on how Uyghurs spelled it: he said, "Turpan" is the preferred transliteration among modern academics. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   Otebig hasn't shown any evidence that Turpan is getting more common than Turfan in English texts. Some Academics who work on Uyghur-related topics may prefer Turpan, but it's not a reason to assume that this spelling is becoming more common in all English texts. Also, the importance of Turfan in not limited to Uyghur studdies. Alefbe (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   And you haven't shown any reliable evidence to the contrary, either. Have you read WP:GOOGLE yet? I've only linked to it 3 times now.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   "Secondly, unlike what you say, "Tulufan" is not common in English texts" - Alefbe, that's not what I said at all. It's really hard to take you seriously when it's so clear you're not carefully reading the discussion. And Google Books doesn't show you what's most common in English, but only what's most common in the books which Google has currently scanned. In such a specialized subject as the name of a town in a remote corner of China, there's a lot of English-language material not included on Google Books (or Google Scholar) - sadly. And you're right, Turpan is not limited to Uyghur studies - just like Moscow is not limited to Russian studies. But if I wanted to know the most common/accurate English term for Moscow, I think asking people involved in Russian studies would be a good place to start. Otebig (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Support I find that my sources use "Turpan", including NASA and my books on Chinese architecture. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

   Do you also support mass spelling change in all Wikipedia pages (as Rjanag has done) and edits like [26] and [27]? Alefbe (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

   That's not what you started this survey about: "To choose the title of the page:". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been 10 days and no one has commented, so I'm archiving this. The result of the survey was 1 for Turfan and 3 for Turpan, so I'll take that as 'consensus' (for now) to maintain the current title. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:10, 20 October 2009 (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.

Naming

Dispute over whether to name this article Turpan or Turfan; please offer suggestions (rather than votes) on how to proceed. Refer to the discussion in the above two sections. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to summarize the background... this naming issue was discussed in October 2009, with User:Alefbe supporting "Turfan" and myself, User:Mattisse, and User:Otebig supporting "Turpan". You can find my main points in posts made on 21:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC) and 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC) . Eventually Alefbe left the discussion and I moved the page to "Turpan", the title which had garnered the most support. Now, 11 months later, User:Pmanderson, who has numerous blocks for edit warring violations, has revived the issue without prior discussion and began pagemove edit-warring, so I've opened an RFC to solicit outside opinion, since personally I have already said my piece on this issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's another impropriety. This was not a vote; voting is evil. I can understand why Alefbe left, after being presented with no relevant answer to his evidence.

Rjanag's deletion of Turpan in order to conduct a move war is crowned by his appeal to CSD G6, which is expressly restricted to uncontroversial moves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not the person who asked to have a vote. And I opened this RFC looking for constructive remarks on how to proceed, not for continued arguing over who was mean and not mean in the past; if you have a problem with my behavior a year ago then report me in the appropriate forums, rather than wasting space in what is supposed to be a constructive discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You will find two proposals at the bottom of this section.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The above move discussion is a history of misconduct. One user presented argument and evidence; others presented declamation and irrelevance. To crown this abuse, User:Rjanag closed a decision in which he was the chief advocate, and has abused admin tools to enforce this decision.

On the merits: we do not title articles on the basis of Uighur pronunciations or spelling; those are for the Uighur wikipedia. We use what English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Uyghur spelling is only one of several reasons that were given for this naming. Do you care to respond to all the reasons, or do you prefer to stick to the straw man thing? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The proper course, therefore, is to discuss the merits, on the basis of WP:AT, and the guidelines to which it links. This can be conveniently done by a new move request to Turpan, but we can also use this RFC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm here to provide a third opinion on the disagreement about the name of the article. I have read the discussions above and I understand that the disagreement concerns whether the article should be titled "Turpan" or "Turfan". I'm just a regular editor like yourselves, and I have no special authority here. If you disagree with what I'm about to say, you are entirely welcome to ignore it :) I think it's clear that this is a situation where there is no "correct" answer. There is real-world uncertainty about how this name should be spelled in English, and about how (and if) it should be transliterated. In researching this I found that the number of uses of "Turfan" in English was "lots" and the number of uses of "Turpan" was also "lots"! There may be slight preferences for one name or another in different contexts, but clearly neither is wrong. Given this, I would like to propose a few points to consider. The title of the article doesn't really matter. The article will probably always note that both "Turfan" and "Turpan" are legitimate alternate spellings, and whichever name is not the article title will always redirect to the one that is. Most users won't even notice the actual title of the article changing, if they searched for the other spelling. We do have to pick one name, because articles need one canonical name in the wikipedia software. Picking one doesn't mean that we officially endorse one name at the expense of the other; it just means that we had to pick one! It would probably benefit both of you to recognize that the other person's preferred name is actually legitimate, and that anyway it doesn't matter much. Compromising with a name you slightly disfavor is more noble than arguing endlessly over it. So having said all that, let me say that I find the arguments made in the October 2009 discussion quite informative. I do think that there is a slightly stronger argument in favour of "Turpan" based on the preferred academic transliteration. I think there was also a small-but-real consensus in favour of that name when this was discussed. Whether you accept my opinion in favour of "Turpan" or not, I would urge both of you to be prepared to compromise. If you can both agree on which name should be used, you can perform any page moves and redirects needed without going through the page move request process. I'll be happy to help with that if necessary.—Thparkth (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't care if it is Turpan or Turfan, both are valid names. But the current situation with Turfan in the title and Turpan everywhere else in the text is ridiculous, this should be fixed as soon as possible. I suggest to revert the title back to Turpan, simply because it is less work. Also, in the local Uyghur dialects, the name sounded more like Turpan to me. Shenhemu (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would second Thparkth's and Shenhemu's opinons above. I think that both names are acceptable, and are widely used in present-day English. Until a couple years ago the traditional spelling "Turfan" was the only spelling I was aware of - I guess because I don't read a lot of news from there. Now, though, Google search seems to indicate that while the traditional spelling, "Turfan" still strongly predominates in global books (since, after all, we have 200+ years worth of books) or older news reports, "Turpan" has become the more common spelling in recent (last 5-10 years) news (since, after all, most of the news item about that place, comes from China, and apparently they do spell it with a "p" when writing in English), and probably in new books as well. As far as the news history is concerned, you can compare the histograms in http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=turpan&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=turfan&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a ). It's probably not unlike the Wade-Giles/Pinyin switchover with Chinese place names that happened over the 1980s-1990s. I suspect that, as with WG/Pinyin, there may be some relatively higher preference for "Turpan" among the authors who have actually been to the place and/or been exposed to local usage, as opposed to those (like me) who mostly encounter it in older books.
  So it seems to me, if we want to use the name that has been used the most in English over the entire history of writing about the place, it should be Turfan; if we want to use the name that is most commonly used in English texts being written now, Turpan may be a better match.
  What I do think is unacceptable, or at least deplorable, is that contributors waste their efforts in a silly rename war instead of actually writing useful content. I usually would not even think about renaming a pre-existing article from one valid name to another unless the new name is overwhelmingly more common - I reckon it's better to defer to the contributors who actually wrote the article. -- Vmenkov (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone care to judge the consensus here? Discussion has died down, and it looks to me like everyone here other than Pmanderson has weighed in in favor of changing it back to "Turpan". rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Regrettable that there has been no actual consideration of this by a netural admin. I stand by my position: we should move when - and if - Turpan becomes the normal form, generally understood - as Beijing and Mumbai are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Everyone other than you who commented in the RfC recommended moving back to Turpan. I left a message on 6 September asking for further comment and waited 20 days before taking any action. For 20 days no one commented. Suddenly you care again? Ridiculous. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC) And, for what it's worth, as for the content issue: in the above discussion you yourself didn't provide any evidence that Turfan is the "normal form"—you commented only on my supposed misconduct, not on the article content. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, since edit warring is pointless, I'm going to file a request at WP:MC. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is is: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Turpan. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Three weeks ago this was also quiescent; only the first of these fairly neutral opinions was posted. If this had been moved by a neutral admin, I might disagree; but I would not object as I do to this history of abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

WP:NCGN recommends six means of determining the widespread English usage of a geographical name, in no particular order.\

• Google Books (since 1990, to allow for recent changes) shows 29,000 nits for Turfan to 8000 for Turpan. This alone is over the three to one that NCGN uses as a rule of thumb.
• So does the Britannica Article on Turfan, subscription required. Since the Britannica is generally more given to local and official names than Wikipedia is, this is fairly strong evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Google argument has been discussed at length above. First of all, google tests are not a conclusive indicator of usage; secondly, they can be tweaked to support whatever argument you want (the searches you are showing are web searches with books listed at the front; a books-only search turns up almost equal results for Turfan and Turpan, and in fact the hits for Turpan have risen substantially since Alefbe did those same searches a year ago to argue that Turfan was more common—google results change because they're always in the process of scanning new sources; plus, in the books searches I just linked, many of the "Turfan" hits are archaic books from the 1930s or 1880s, whereas all the Turpan ones are 1990s and 2000s...so all in all, you can see how google books searches alone can support either side of the argument, depending on how you look at them).

Brittanica, on the other hand, is one source, and certainly not the definitive last word on English usage. They themselves have articles riddled with errors (a year ago I had to send them a correction because their article claimed that "Turpan" was a "pinyin spelling").

Aside from google searches, many other arguments were raised in the survey and the RfC above; do you care to respond to any of them? It's pretty irresponsible of you to wait a month without addressing any of these arguments, and only suddenly do it now to try and keep yourself from getting blocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NCGN. Raw Google has problems; Google Books can have problems, but they must be demonstrated. I see none here; and I see no evidence whatever. The "arguments" consist of Rjanag repeated himself ad nauseam. It may be that Turpan will overtake Turfan some time in the future; and it may not, as Torino has not replaced Turin. We are not a crystal ball -- still less are we a place for irresponsible admins to impose WP:Official names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm "repeating myself" any more than you. You still have not provided any evidence that there is a single "widely accepted English name", you have only provided evidence that one particular big number is bigger than another big number (using cherry-picked Google results; I've already shown other Google results that lead to a different conclusion), and you have not addressed the numerous other arguments put forth above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(left) To claim I have provided no evidence of wide usage is an irresponsible falsehood. To quote WP:NCGN:

Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.

Google Books (since 1990, to allow for recent changes) shows 29,000 nits for Turfan to 8000 for Turpan. The Britannica (a work of general reference) also uses Turfan; and WP:NCGN recommends consulting it.

As for the rest of this, I have looked through this page and see two arguments: \

• that Turpan is becoming more common than it was (which will matter when it becomes more common that Turfan)
• That Turpan is the Uighur name; which matters to the Uighur Wikipedia, not to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 30 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Turpan → Turfan — Neutrally opening a formal requested move discussion per an WP:ANEW thread. Given the history, it is requested an admin who has had no contact with this page close this discussion. Courcelles 02:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose My reasons are listed at length above, in the discussion at #Title and the RfC at #Naming; I do not want to repeat them at length here. For a summary, search the page for my edit dated 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC). Also see the RfC, during which four editors (Thparkth, Shenhemu, Vmenkov, and myself) commented in favor of moving back to "Turpan", and only Pmanderson was in favor of keeping it at "Turfan"; another editor, while correctly pointing out that I was wrong to judge the RfC myself, did agree that its consensus was in favor of "Turpan". rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just an extra comment...it's probably a little late now, but I should note that the spelling "Turfan" is not wrong or anything, I just believe "Turpan" is better for this article, for the reasons presented above. My arguments in the first discussion linked above are harshly worded in some places and may give the false impression that I think anyone who uses "Turfan" is an idiot. Quite to the contrary; for instance, Arienne Dwyer, one of the top experts on Uyghur studies in general and an ethnolinguist to boot, has a monograph which prefers "Turfan". So clearly this spelling is used even by experts sometimes; my arguments above should only be taken as arguments for the titling of the Wikipedia article, and not as a general argument that anyone who uses "Turfan" should be shot (although as for me, I use "Turpan" in real life as well, unless the conversation is in Chinese, in which case I use "Tǔlǔfān"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly support and desysop Rjanag See #Evidence above for actual data; the only reason this page is here, instead of the name at which it was originally created, is Rjanag's continual abuse of his tools; so it should be moved back unless he can demonstrate actual consensus to move it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh-oh, your support was "strong" so I guess you win. As for "demonstrating actual consensus", have you read the RfC, or any of my messages? I will say it again: four out of five editors there presented reasons for moving it to Turpan. How is that not consensus? (Oh, right, because you don't like those reasons.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Another falsehood by a enthusiast. Most of them are fairly neutral and pacific; and I would have heeded them if not for Rjanag's persistent misconduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I originally gave above - there is a preference in academic circles for "Turpan" over "Turfan" and we should reflect that. Also the article is currently written as if it were titled "Turpan" and would need some rework if it was titled "Turfan" instead. Since the choice of name really doesn't matter, why not just keep it as Turpan? Thparkth (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons Rjanag and Thparkth have already given. —Angr (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons already given. Shenhemu (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, concurring with the above reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macwhiz (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 October 2010

Discussion

To quote WP:NCGN:

Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.

Google Books (since 1990, to allow for recent changes) shows 29,000 nits for Turfan to 8000 for Turpan. The Britannica (a work of general reference) also uses Turfan; and WP:NCGN recommends consulting it.

As for the rest of this, I have looked through this page and see two arguments: \

• that Turpan is becoming more common than it was (which will matter when it becomes more common that Turfan)
• That Turpan is the Uighur name; which matters to the Uighur Wikipedia, not to us.

If Rjanag has any more "arguments" that will bear the light of day, i will answer them too; but I con't see them in the confusion of his posts.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 30 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Turpan, Turfan, Tulufan

Just for information, here is a link to google trends showing global search volume for the three possibilities: Google Trends: Turpan, Turfan, Tulufan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenhemu (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And an even cooler tool: Google Ngrams, which shows the stats on the historical usage of the terms: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Turpan%2CTurfan&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the body text use the preferred spelling, 'Turpan' instead of 'Turfan'? At the moment, in this article I count 8 or 9 uses of the latter alternative spelling (in addition to its use in the intro and 3 times in references). I'm asking here because I havent edited this article before and am only somewhat familiar with the merge history. I ran across the name ('Turfan') in Theroux's travel writings, which also includes spelling the nearby ruins of Gaochang as 'Gaocheng' -- so I added a disambig link to the latter and notes on both of those article talkpages. El duderino ^(abides) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The preferred spelling is the WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISHNAME, which as was just pointed out, is by far Turfan. You're quite right that the article name should reflect that preferred spelling, but see the discussion above. — LlywelynII 09:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. ASDFGH (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

---

• Turpan → Gaochang District
• Turpan Prefecture → Turpan

– On 12 April 2015, Turpan Prefecture was ungraded into a prefecture-level city and the former Turpan (county-level city) was upgraded into a district and renamed as Gaochang District.(source: news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2015-04/13/c_127680850.htm These moves reflect the changes in the administrative divisions in Xinjiang. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 12:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article focuses on history going back to the Tang dynasty, not the modern district. Turpan Prefecture is a separate article. The initializer (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see what you saying maybe it would be better to merged Turpan Prefecture and Turpan together and create an article for Gaochang District. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I suppose it would easy enough to cut-and-paste the history over to the new Turpan article, regardless of whether it's created by a merge or a rename. The initializer (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Move

Add another request and yet another vote to move this to the actual WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISHNAME Turfan, as copiously documented above. There appears to be a hard core of editors who keep the page at Turpan, apparently owing primarily to "China suXXorZ", "the rEaL ChInEez SpeLinG WuD b Tu'erlufanudesu", and "I can't hear you", but—at some point—that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS will have to give way to the fact that by far the common English spelling is and continues to be Turfan (including at Google Scholar). Unless there's a WP:MOS-ZH consensus that we ignore general policy to always prefer Uyghur names for political reasons—which from the cheap seats seems like a Bad Idea even if it comes from a good place—this page remains at the wrong place and, pending a move, should note that Turfan is by far more common. We shouldn't mislead WP:READERS by presenting it as an archaic, periodic, or uncommon alt name in parentheses. — LlywelynII 09:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously incomplete

What happened in the area during the Dungan Revolts and the collapse of Qing power in the 19th and early 20th centuries? — LlywelynII 11:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)