Talk:Xinjiang
More actions
Discussion for: Xinjiang • View • Links • Related changes
Use this page for verification notes, disputes, and action items. Keep narrative content on the article.
Discussion
Sources
Two Chinese journal articles, Hu, Zhang and Hao (2015) and Zhou (2015), both in the Chinese Journal of Drug Dependence, were read in their republication on 杜新忠戒毒网 (jhak.com). The republished text has not been compared with the printed issues, so passages taken from them rest on the republication. The Xinhua account of the 2007 Ürümqi seizure was also read in a republication on the same site.
The 1991 Xinjiang regulations are cited from the Wikisource transcription, which gives the text as amended on 11 December 1997. The national law database lists them as repealed, so the article describes them in the past tense. The 2015 language regulations are cited from a copy on the website of the Kizilsu Kyrgyz Autonomous Prefecture government.
The British trade sources (Forsyth 1871, Aitchison 1874, Bellew 1875, the 1881 Ladakh report in the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's report and the consular reports quoted by Kreutzmann) are administrative sources of the period. Their characterisations are attributed to them.
Population figures are the 2020 census as published by the regional statistics bureau. The bureau's release does not break out the Kazakh or Hui population of the region, so no figure for either is given. Cotton output is from the regional statistical communiqué for 2025, read in its printing in the Xinjiang Daily.
Details of the herbarium sheets come from the holders' catalogue records on GBIF and, for the Moscow sheets, from the label images on the Moscow Digital Herbarium.
Where the sources disagree
- End of the charas export. The United Nations Secretariat (1953) concludes that the Sinkiang provincial government prohibited the export of charas in 1934. Kreutzmann (2026) describes an export duty raised in 1936 and a prohibition announced in Kashgar in January 1936. I. C. and R. N. Chopra (1957) date the end of Indian imports to about 1934–35. The article gives all three.
- The 1928 cut in the Indian import duty. Kreutzmann gives the reduction from 60 to 20 rupees "for one maund"; India's annual report, as quoted by the United Nations Secretariat, gives it "per seer". The article reports both.
- Date of the Yanghai burial. Jiang and colleagues (2006) date the plant remains to about 2500 years before present; Russo and colleagues (2008) describe the grave as 2700 years old. Both appear in the article.
- Bole clearance of June 2016. The headline of the report says ten thousand plants; its text says more than 100,000. The article uses the figure in the text.
- Collection month of Pelliot 121. The sheet's label reads "Oct 06"; the GBIF record dates the gathering to June 1906. The article gives the year only.
- Yakub Beg's policy on hemp. Aitchison (1874) reports that the ruler had prohibited its cultivation in regular fields; Bellew (1875) reports opium and hemp "set under no restrictions". The article gives both.
- Arrival of cannabis smoking. Hu, Zhang and Hao date it to the 16th and 17th centuries; Zhou dates it from the late 16th to the mid-17th century. The article gives the first with both sources.
Not used, and why
- Ethnic percentages from surveys of drug use. Hu, Zhang and Hao cite surveys, one of them from 1994, giving rates of cannabis use by nationality in the Ili, Tacheng and Altay areas. The surveys themselves were not read. The article does not repeat their figures.
- A statement of 1858 attributed to Chokan Valikhanov about the quality of Yengisar cannabis and its use is quoted by Zhou (2015) without a source for the passage. It is not used.
- A phrase from the Republican period that "Uyghurs and Kazakhs love to smoke máyān", quoted by Zhou without a source, is not used.
- The 1932 annual report of China, which describes the smokers of Sinkiang hemp as "aboriginal tribes", is not quoted; the article reports the 1933 and 1935 statements on the control of Indian hemp.
- Provincial measures of 1936 and a statement of 1944 found only in a popular repost of an archive file and in a secondary quotation are not used.
- A claim of 2,500 years of cannabis cultivation at Ürümqi appears in one copy of the 2026 Midong clearance report and in no source read; it is not used.
- An online copy of the Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae calls the plant common in the wild in Xinjiang; the copy was not checked against the printed flora. The article cites the Flora of China.
- Seed-vendor claims of a "Xinjiang landrace" name no collector, site or generation inside China and are not used.
Open content questions
- Whether the wild stands cleared in northern Xinjiang are relics of old cultivation, escapes from later fields or both is not settled by the clearance reports, which describe plants growing without sign of planting but give no history of the sites.
- Whether every one of the five 1928 Bogda Shan sheets catalogued under Cannabis shows cannabis is not settled by a published determination. The page Hummel 679 (1928) identifies its plant as a hemp-leaved nettle, Urtica cannabina.