Talk:Ürümqi

message: How did we end up with the article title spelled with these diareses over the U's? I have never seen this spelling outside of this article and feel that it would be more appropriate to have the article at "Urumqi" since that is the common English-language name for the city. Where did this peculiar spelling come from? In English, we rarely use such diacritics. Occasionaly German words with preserve the umlaut (same mark), and sometimes vowel pairs are marked like this to indicate a syllable break where a single vowel sound might otherwise be assumed (although this is still very rare and the spellings without the marks is also acceptable), like "naïve". For Urumqi, the pronunciation doesn't differ with the marks and nor do they serve any apparent disambiguation purpose. I am guessing this is from the Uyghur latin alphabet. Here we use the English spelling. see WP:PLACE. I propose we move it back to "Urumqi". - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of conclusive evidence, I would not mind either variant, but come to think of it, a RM here would not be any more productive than a RM over which national variety of English to use. GotR Talk 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: which variant of English to use is a settled question for all but some unique edge cases. The concensus boils down to don't change it unless it is clearly relevant to the article content and be consistent within an article. All else being equal I think it is clear that "Urumqi" without the marks is easier and less confusing, serving the interests of both the readers and editors. I'm not willing to die on this hill. The move is a suggestion, not a demand. Anyone curious about the English name of the city should search Google books for "Urumqi" and "Ürümqi". There are about 20 times as many occurances of the name without the marks and a good portion of the results which include the marks are actually from wikipedia. Of course searching google without diacritics will always show more results than with the diacritics. Actually looking at the results shows a pretty clear difference. Google Scholar shows an even more dramatic difference. "Ürümqi" is used in some legit English-language sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica and Library of Congress subject headings. Just thought I'd provide some actual info instead of simply declaring that "Urumqi" is the real English name. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of article title, why not Urumqi 

message: Substituted at 11:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This deleted line was recently restored. I've tagged it with  as I can't do a source review for either of the paywalled sources. Who specifically disputed the statement? ETIM? ETNFC? TIP? Some random Uighur shopkeeper that the NYT asked? The source of this statement will have a direct impact on whether it's WP:DUE here. So please clarify. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  since they restored the line in question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure why this article is on my watchlist. I just saw the IP edit that at first sight seemed like possible POV pushing, so I took the trouble of checking the source. I can't read Financial Times, but Edward Wong for NYT writes clearly "The government said at least 184 people were killed and 1,100 injured in the violence, with most of the dead being Han, a statement that Uighurs dispute." Hence my revert. Since we have an article on the NYT journalist, I'd AGF and assume he did his research. Additionally, a cursory look at July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Casualties and damage, linked in that section of the Ürümqi article, gives a few claims disputing that Han Chinese were the majority of the dead. FWIW I didn't add the line, just reverted the edit. You might want to talk to  who added the NYT source or track down whoever added the original line (WikiBlame fails here for me). Daß Wölf 22:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to insert an attribution in the case of the NYT article. I hope that's sufficient. I was not aware of this qualification being inserted otherwise. Because the issue is that there are a lot of various Uyghur activist groups out there and the most extreme of them certainly would not constitute reliable sources for anything while some of the more moderate ones would, at very least be WP:DUE inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A figure disputed by Uighurs? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why is there no mention made here of the persecution of the Uyghur people by the Chinese authorities? This is the capital of the Uyghur région, where reeducation camps or gulags imprison, oppress and brainwash people whose culture and religion is seen as a threat by the centralised China state. This page should include a chapter about the reality of life here for many people. LoloWik63 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete and sanitised description