Talk:Uyghurs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MAP PLEASE

One of the first things visitors to this page might reasonably expect is a MAP !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickCThomas (talk • contribs) 09:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop shouting. Place new WP:TALK in a new section at the bottom of the page. WP:SIGN your posts. If you are able to be WP:BOLD and add a free map image, go for it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Added East Turkestan Islamic Movement and East Turkestan Liberation Organization

In the interest of keeping things fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.187.97 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fails WP:NPOV. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Uighur activists often refer to Xinjiang as East Turkistan,an independent republic declared by Uighurs and members of other ethnic groups.

One Uighur resident of Hotan said that fliers being handed out at the market that day said that Uighurs should mobilize and follow the example of Tibetans for their right.

Chinese authorities say a 19-year-old woman with an ethnic Uighur background has 'confessed' to taking part in a failed terroristattack on an airplane traveling from Urumqi to Beijing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.21.174.209 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fails WP:V, WP:RS, since it meets WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

AD vs. CE

The manual of style doesn't say anything about not using AD, or BC instead of the more modern but less standard BCE and CE. If people object to its use could they let me know what there objections are? If they are good enough we can leave it like this, otherwise I shall change the dates back to AD and BC.--Erkin2008 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I beleive that CE is an erroneous addition to the English language. It stands for 'Common Era' but since its dating is exactly the same as AD('After the death of Christ') it basicaly preserves the Christian calander, and is merely an attempt to disguise this fact. The well known writer Charles C. Mann has pointed this out in his book 1491: new revelations of the Americas before columbus makes this point excellently. He writes "I use European terminology of B.C. and A.D. Many researchers object to them as ethnically bound. In truth, it is a little odd to be talking about 'Years before Christ' in reference to people whose cultural traditions have to do with Christianity. But no plausible substitutes are availble. Some historians use B.C.E to mean 'before the Common Era' but the Common Era calender is just a renamed Christian calender that still places events in reference to Christianity, the main objection... one could use the neutral Julian calender, used by astronomers. readers will have to translate the Julian dates back into what they know, the familiar A.D and B.C, it seems only king to save them the bother.(page 392)" I can't agree more.Seth J. Frantzman 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor nitpicking: AD means "Anno Domini" and means "In the year of our Lord", which thus has numerous theological connotations. While I understand the argument that BCE/CE is just a renaming, etc, etc, there is a difference between saying that this year - like every year since 0 in our calendar - is a year where we all "live in Christ and the mercy of God." 85.225.188.79 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Uyghur Medicine

This section:

Tartar scholar, professor Rashid Rahmeti Arat in Zur Heilkunde der Uighuren (Medical Practices of the Uygurs) published in 1930 and 1932, in Berlin, discussed the Uygur medicine. Relying on a sketch of a man with an explanation of acupuncture, he and some Western scholars suspect that acupuncture was not a Chinese, but a Uygur discovery.

has recently been deleted, does anybody know why? Is it not wikipedia quality content, or is it simply not accurate?

I'm not sure, but I added it again.--if somebody wants they can take it off--Erkin2008 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RELIGIONS omitted? Why?

I am fascinated most by Uyghur religions, how they used to believe in Manicheism, Nestorian Christainity and Buddhism, and later converted to Islam. Their illustrated scriptures were the most beautiful I've read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.223.190.214 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree ... some mysterious person draws some diagram that looks like acupuncture and immediately people from 1930 Berlin somehow believed that acupuncture came from the Uighyurs instead of maybe the Uyghurs came to know of acupuncture from the Chinese? That section should just be deleted for shoddy citation. 76.124.8.58 (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To understand the reasoning behind the conclusion about acupuncture having said originated from the Uighurs, one would need to read and study the book of the Turkish scholar. Apparently, author of the article that was "borrowed" from 'The_Uighurs" website by the way, had done his share of studying before coming to conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Uyghurs are labeled "terrorist" by the Chinese government, and since Uyghurs are increasingly involved in violent separatist activities in China, as Muslims are in many parts of the world, it is indeed curious why their Islamic faith is not a prominent part of the article. While there is a separate article on the faith of the Uyghurs, a more immediate relgious context within this article would be instructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gffmucci (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Uyghurs are not labeled terrorists by china. You can't just label a whole people as terrorists. Even china wouldn't. Some separatist groups might be, but that's not "Uyghurs". I also wonder why many separatist groups are supported by the US and some are labeled terrorists. Why do people support the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan separatist groups while the Uyghurs are called terrorists?

You are very quick to point out that Muslims are involved in violent separatist activities all over the world but you close your eyes for the misbehaving of other religious groups. For example how Christian missionaries are swarming all over Iraq like locusts. These Christians who are supposed to turn the other cheek have supported bush's unjust pre-emptive war (no wmd's after all) and are now repaid for their support by being supported themselves in their missionary work in Iraq. First the US bombarded everything to smithereens in Iraq and caused people to starve because all means of survival were destroyed and now they offer Christian humanitarian aid. Off course you have to convert to Christianity first. These Christian missionaries (Jerry Vines, Franklin Graham) have called the prophet a "demon-obsessed pedophile" and Islam a "very evil and wicked religion" [1]. Christians who first supported the pre-emptive war and afterwards give humanitarian aid to those who convert to Christianity are not humanitarian workers, they are crusaders. What's the difference between Islamic fundamentalists wanting to convert the whole world to Islam by all means and Christian fundamentalists who want to do the same with Christianity? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said anything like that. The simple question that started this string was why there's no section on religion in this article. Apart from that, I concur that Islam is not the root cause of any presumed separatist aspirations among Uyghurs, so it wouldn't be "instructive" in this context as above user has claimed. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy claims that "Uyghurs" (whole people) are labeled terrorists by China and says that Uyghurs "are increasingly involved in violent separatist activities in China", strengthening this accusation by linking global Muslim terrorism/separatism to the Uyghurs. This gives the image that Muslims are troublemakers all over the world and it harms the (in my opinion righteous) Uyghur cause for more autonomy or separation from china. I can only conclude that he wants a religion section to be made where Islam is linked to terrorism and separatism. I have no objection against a religion section where a neutral religious history of the Uyghurs is given but I do object to having either separatism or terrorism inside that section. A separate neutral section about the Uyghurs people's call for more autonomy or even separation from china would also be acceptable given the current events. But mixing religion and separatism and adding Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism into the mix is not ok. There are separatist Uyghur groups and maybe they are even linked to al Qaeda but that is not relevant to the Uyghur people as a whole and that information doesn’t belong in this article but in articles about those separatist groups. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

True. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Uygurs Able to Conquer Tang China??

I just noticed this sentence: " After the Battle of Talas, although they could have conquered the Tang Empire, they choose instead to use an exploitative trade policy to drain off the wealth of China without actually destroying it." The Uygur's having been able to conquer Tang or not is a matter of conjecture and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps something like the following would be better: "After the Battle of Talas, rather than attempting to conquer the Tang Empire, they choose, instead, to employ an exploitative trade policy to siphon off wealth from China without exhausting their own resources or risking corrupting their own culture." Whaddaya think? Doc Rock 14:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's uncofitably long, or what?--86.29.245.58 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uighur was ally of Tang, lending troops to help crackdown the Anshi revolt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.223.190.214 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

The content about the Uighurs on wikipedia originates from "The_Uighurs" website that has much more info about the Uighurs including audio samples of Uighur traditional songs, policies of Chinese government towards the Uighurs, etc. The material on the website is entirely based on in-depth research by a number of scholars and research centers that studied the Uighurs throughout decades and has proper references. The website can be easily googled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Does not meet WP:RS criteria. And we cannot directly copy text from any other website, that would be in violation of WP:COPYVIO. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Real Figure for number of Uyghurs?

The inital paragraph begins with the census figures from the PRC from 2004 and then goes on to state that some have placed the figure at 15 000 000. Following the link (to an uncreditable source) nowhere does it mention this figure.

However, some observers have questioned the claims, with exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer saying China fabricated them to justify a crackdown on the Uighurs, a Muslim central Asian people who have long chafed under Chinese control.

Matttthac 25/1/2007

Those exiled losers complain about everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is very intricate and delicate matter for the reason that the Chinese Government tries to make the official number smaller and the local Uighurs try and avoid being counted for different reasons mostly related to policies implemented by the government. The number estimated by Uighur associations abroad is in the proximity of 30 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets stay focused

I think this sentence is factually incorrect, speculative, and awkward.

"The forebear of the Tura belonged to those of Hun (Xiongnu) descendants. According to Chinese Turkic scholars Ma Changshou and Cen Zhongmian, the Chinese word Tiele originates from the Turkic Türkler(Turks) which is a plural form of Türk(Turk) and the word Tujue in Chinese comes from the Turkic word Türküt which is a singular of Türk [2]."

on a factual basis I object to the trend of misclassifying Tiele as another type of Turkut: 1) the Tiele are matrilineal and the Turkut are patrilinial 2) the Tiele were in constant revolt against the Turkut since the fifth century 3) The Turkut are Hun descendents whereas the Tiele inherited the Yenisi Culture 4) In their own history the Turkut differentiate between themselves and the Tiele in the west

on a stylistic basis I think this kind of disscussion should be in an etymology section of an article about the turkut, and not in an article about the uyghurs, its really off topic. --72.54.71.57 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Uighurs in Mongolia

Hi! Does anyone have sources for Uighurs living in (Outer) Mongolia (preferably post-1930 and in english or mongolian) ? Regards, Yaan 11:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Kazaks of Western Mongolia. In: Ingvar Svanberg (ed.) Contemporary Kazaks. Cultural and Social Perspectives. London: Curzon: 103-139

Page 109: "The Uighurs live mainly in Xovd-aymag, in the sum of Xovd and Buyant and in the aymag centre, but there are also a few Uighurs living in Bayan Olgiy. Most of them are engaged in agricultural work, but there are a few pastoralists among them as well. The Uighurs are often considered part of the Kazak community, and today all of them speak Kazak as their native language."

Also of interest to you could be:

• Nyambuu, X., 1922: Mongolin ugsaatni züy: Udirtgal [Ethnography of Mongolia and the Mongols. An Introduction]. Ulaanbaatar.
• Cable, M. & French, F., 1948: George Hunter, Apostle of Turkestan, London: China Inland Mission
• Cable, M. & French, F., 1935: The Making of a Pioneer: Percy Mather of Central Asia,London:Hodder & Stoughton

Mather and Hunter travelled to Kobdo sometime around the 1930's, and I believe came across Uyghurs.

--Erkin2008 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot. Yaan 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

removed odd sentence

I removed this awkward sentence: Throughout the history of Central Asia, they left a lasting imprint on both the culture and tradition. This sounds like something that might describe an extinct people; I don't see how a "lasting imprint" manages to be "left" throughout history; on whose culture and tradition? etc etc. It could be reworded I suppose, but I don't understand the point of it other than a desire to start the article with some vague complement to the Uyghurs. It boils down to "The Uyghurs have influenced the region in which they have lived." Well, yeah. One imagines so. Bacrito 15:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

why did you remove this section? it clearly states on what region the imprint was left on and one can clearly identify who, and it is infact actually TRUE! i get the feeling that some of he guys here are just mixing their own opinions with their personal feelings...thats just completely wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.17.43 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether that sentence had to be removed. That article was written by a scholar (See The_Uighurs website) meaning that the Uighurs played an important role in the past. Alas, no more, and that role or imprint could be still traced to other ethnic groups that inhabit vast areas of Asia and Europe (Bulgarians (one of the Uighur tribes), some say Finnish ("finno-ugor" sound familiar?)).(173.33.113.108 (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This section needs redoing

Literature

The Uyghurs are known as an educated people. They have worked in chancelleries and embassies of different states, and have been teachers, military officers, and ambassadors in Rome, Istanbul, and Baghdad, scholars in Tabriz. There are hundreds of famous Uyghur scholars and the Uyghur literature is vast. Some Uyghur books have been translated into different western languages. The Uyghurs had been printing their books for hundreds of years before Gutenberg invented his printing press. In the 11th century the Uyghurs accepted the Arabic alphabet.

That reads like very sketchy notes for a junior high school term paper. More specifics (and sources) are needed. Bacrito 15:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the Uyghurs be praised for the things they've done and achieved all the things that are stated here are true, so why not let the people know? Uyghurs deserve it after all...Its just like saying chinese civilization was considered as one of the most cultured...and whats wrong with that? it's just telling the facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.17.43 (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How were the Uyghurs printing their books anyway? Is this implying they invented a printing press before Gutenberg, or were they just using wood block printing? The Wikipedia article on woodblock printing states that woodblock printing (which is not very appropriate for use with the Roman alphabet) was invented in China before 220 A.D. There is nothing impressive about using an already existing foreign technology, so this juvenile shot at Gutenberg is not very informational. It has the same opinionated air as the part about Uyghur farmers understanding legal definitions, which makes them sound like they were some superior race because they had access to literacy. If there was no upper class or clergy preventing them from becoming educated, why wouldn't they learn to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.52.158.177 (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read this section too and I hate reading this kind of unreferenced junk. I deleted it. If someone wants to put it back up please try to put a reference. Add the words by me after the word known and see how credible this sentence seems now. --Fa1512 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. If it's true (which no doubt it is), it should be easy to cite to a source and re-add. The comparison to Gutenberg is apropos for the en:wiki audience, though it too needs a source. Franamax (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this article as many others on wikipedia has been "borrowed" from "The_Uighurs" website. Apparently, someone who posted it here didn't think about posting proper references as well. You can find them on the above-mentioned website. All the articles on "The Uighurs" website are written by life-long scholars who studied the Uighurs and every aspect of their lives in the past and nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

related articles

There is an article entitled History of Xinjiang that deals with much of the history mentioned in this article, but from a different POV. It sure would be helpful if someone that had studied this history could edit both articles. At a minimum, there need to be cross references. Vontrotta 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "Uyghur"

I do not understand, some sources claim that the word "Uyghur" means "Civilized"[2] whereas this article claims that it means "Unified"; which one is correct? --Phillip J 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish word "Uygar" means "civilised" whereas the Uyghur meaning for the word is "Unified". --203.118.158.90 10:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, no one knows what the word "Uyghur" means. You can come up with all the nice derivations you like, but the verb "uy-" (to join, follow) which supposedly gives "Uyghur" = united, unified, did not exist in Old Turkish. Back then it was pronounced "ud-". I'm afraid we have to give up on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.14.221 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

well if try and translate it in Uyghur Language it self Uy(Uy=House) Ghur(Kur=to build) it translates as "housebuilder" and goes to the idea that the uyghurs were the first turkic people to actually settle and build houses...but im not completely sure about that though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.17.43 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

wow! who taught you translate like that? 1st of all "uy" is Uzbek word for 'home', 'house', not Uighur. Uighur word would sound 'öy'. Second, there's a naration by Makhmut Qashqari in 11 A.D. where he talks about origin of the word "Uighur". Third, there are two common theories about origins of the word - First one, see above. Second, the word originated from Turkic word 'uyghush' that means "unity" for the Uighurs were known for their unity as nine tribes were united and forged one people.

M.Zakiev in his extensive etymological study in Origin of Türks and Tatars suggests composite etymology of er/ir/ur = man, and uigy and yog with the meanings "quick" and "fat" (parallels in Uigur, Yogur), for a composite semantic Uigur = "Quicky People" (M.Zakiev, 2003, Origin of Türks and Tatars, pp.54, 58, ISBN 5-85840-317-4, in English). These may not be final verdicts, but some suggested etymologies should be listed. Barefact (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all silly. Firstly, uy- in "Uyghur" and o'y "house" are not the same, you can't just turn a front-vocalic word into a back-vocalic word where and when you like. Secondly, are any of Zakiev's words attested in the Old Turkic corpus? There's yoghun, but I don't find any yogh meaning fat, unless you mean yagh (> Uzbek yogh, but Uyghur yagh). As for the word "uigy" which supposedly means "quick", what is his source? Let's look at what he writes: "in composite ethnonyms Uigur, Yogur the definitions uigy and yog express, seemingly, the meanings "quick" and "fat"." So, they "seemingly" express this meaning? I'm sorry that won't wash. Give up folks, the word "Uyghur" is almost certainly not Turkic in origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.230.4 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See my post above, but 'uyghush', 'uyghumaq' are Uighur (Turkic) words that translate as 'unity', 'unite', for 9 tribes at the onset were united and formed the core of Uighur people.

Firstly are u an Uyghur? secondly the pronunciations of the word may vary with ones accents o'y as u state is actually much more closer to the uzbek as they tend to use more of a "O" than a "U" as the uyghurs do, my point is the vocal pronunciation of a word in the language is not standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.93.36 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Birth control

According to http://saveeastturk.org/en/index.php/About%20suppression Also Uyghur people are subjected to Chinese birth control of one child. Can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.71.98 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was also curious about the statement, "The Chinese government has not forced Uyghurs to adhere to the one-child policy of China, which points to some degree of autonomy and respect for their Islamic culture, which expects people to have multiple children." in the section Separatism. It seems kind of speculative and unencyclopedic. I don't know about informal enforcement of once child policy and birth control (sketchy China, 什么的, not implement its own policies) but with regards to the statement, the policy of not requiring the one child policy among minzu minority groups is a general policy, not just one with reference to Islamic culture. It appears to be more of an affirmative action policy than one of cultural accomodation (see One-child policy). --jess (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

one child policy is 'technically' abandoned by CCP: parent who is both only-child can have 2 kids with benefit, minorities are entitled to 4 kids with benefit (refering to education etc). i am still concern about this grey area logic, because if you have more than the approved numbers, you have to pay fine. what happens when you can't pay or doesn't want to pay the fine? :S Akinkhoo (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why the official census numbers differ from estimated numbers by Uighur Associations abroad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of Uyghur

A reference to "High-Wheeled People" referring to the steppe carts used to carry "yurts" (sic). Isn't this a Russian term? Would the correct Uighur word for the dwelling on the cart be more closely related to the Mongol "ger?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deopressoliber (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You added the following text:

The word [Uyghur] means "Confederation of Nine Tribes", and is synonymous with the name Tokuz-Oguz.

Are you sure this is a correct rendering of the cited source by Lev Nikolaevich Gumilov? Somehow this doesn't make sense. Tokuz means "nine", and Oguz means of course the same as Oghuz, whatever that may mean. You appear to be saying that "uy" and "ghur" mean "nine" and "tribe", in some order. What language is that supposed to be? What would make more sense is something like "The Uyghar are equated [by whom?] with the Tokuz-Oghuz, which means Nine Tribes".  --Lambiam 20:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam, thank you for making your comment. I am quite sure about rendering of the citation from Gumilev, and the reference provided allows to verify it. The reason for expanded phrasing that I included is that Gumilev gives a semantic equivalent, without identifying the language or providing a detailed linguistical research (he is not a linguist). His phrasing provides semantical equivalent, conveying the meaning of the term. The part "uz/ur" stands for "people, man, men" in two dialectal branches, -s branch vs. -r branch, and within each branch the s/r substitution is stable and consistent. That -s in our (and our sources') rendering is quite conditional, i.e. it must have been akin to voiced and voiceless interdental th, and depending on the ear of the listner, it was rendered s, z, d, t, creating a slew of testimonies like uz, ud, maybe Chinese -t. From what Gumilev is saying, the ui part must be equivalent to 9, and it would be nice if it was a direct equivalent, but it may also be indirect, via an intermediate equivalent like location, river, particular direction etc. If you would want me to cite here the original paragraph in Russian, I will do that. Barefact (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please translate that sentence for me; Google translate somehow got confused with the character encoding, in particular for the capital letters and the lower-case letter я. If Gumilov was not a linguist, does he have any justification (like some other source) for this equivalence, in particular the contention that ui means "nine", directly or indirectly (although I don't understand how it would mean "nine" via an intermediate equivalent like location, river, particular direction etc., since none of these mean "nine")?  --Lambiam 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will find and copy a text and a translation, it may take a little time, sorry. Gumilov not a linguist, => justification: Gumilev, as any good historian, followed original researchers, and that included archeologists, linguists, etc. (metallurgy, textile methods, you name it). Thus, the coding of the phonetical names in Chinese characters gives a graphical illustration(s) of the semantics, in addition to its phonetical value, and that is a task of Sinologists. And an example (not a real situation) is when Tokuz Oguzes were to the north of the writer, and he called them "northern tribes", instead of Tokuz Oguzes. Barefact (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• May I offer the editors another concept on the Uigur etymology, form Yu.Zuev, "Early Türks: Sketches of history and ideology", Almaty, Daik-Press, 2002, p. 45, ISBN 9985-441-52-9:

"...the term Uigur has a basis Ui/Ud "bull", ascending to the appellation of the rising (bicorn) Moon. Western-Tocharian name of the bull okso survived in the name oγuz (~okuz) and confederation of Turks-Oguzes. About their "lunar" origin tells the Uigur variant of the "Oguz-name": "Once had lit up the eyes of Ay-Kagan (Turk. for Moon-Kagan), and she gave birth to a son (follows an image of a bull)". He was called Oguz, and he became a king of Uigurs.

Is well-known the myth about a birth of Buku (Turkic "Bull"), an ancestor of the Uigurs, in a hollow of a tree. The cosmic tree is a Milky Way, in the "hollow" (fork) of which is born a new moon. The "royal" tribe of the ancient Uigurs was Yaglakar. Its basis ya?la "oil" ascends to the to the most ancient ritual to oil the horns of the bull, or to string on their tips balls of oil before plowing the land or mating, in hope for a plentiful crop and good offsprings."

This etymology from a Sinologist is based on the semantical reading of the Chinese hieroglyphs depicting phonetical name, and it implies 1) that initially Uigurs were non-Turkic-lingual, 2) that Uigur is a partially Chinese term, used first as exoethnonym, and then adopted as endoethnonym. 3) that Uigur is a Chinese-Turkic compound, -gur/-ur being a Turkic basic ethnonym. Because adoption of Chinese-Turkic compound foreign exoethnonym as endoethnonym is a long stretch, change of endoethnonym without traces for previous endoethnonyms is a long stretch, compounding of words from unrelated languages is a long stretch, the whole etymological construction seems to be too far-fetched, but in analyzing the meaning of Chinese renditions, Zuev is definitely up to something very valuable. Also note that Zuev's "Western-Tochars" are a Turkic tribe of Togars=Tag-ars=Montain-people. Barefact (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See my post above, but 'uyghush', 'uyghumaq' are Uighur (Turkic) words that translate as 'unity', 'unite', for 9 tribes at the onset were united and formed the core of Uighur people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uyghur, Alans, and Scythians/Sarmatians?

The article mentions Alans as one of the Uyghur (Gaoche) tribes, but does not give a link to an article about that tribe. Does it refer to the Alans (as in the Sarmatian tribe possibly descended from the earlier Scythians)? It also mentions the Tocharians as possible ancestors of the Uyghur. It also names the Tuvans as a part of the Gaoche, but their article here on wikipedia describes them as a seperate people who were ruled by the Uyghur, not part of the Uyghur. The article isn't very clear about how these earlier peoples all came together to form the Uyghur. Could someone who knows more about this topic add some more information and/or sources? KrisWood (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uyghur and Tocharians

I want to clarify some confusion between Uyghur and Tocharians. Tocharians are considered to be "original white inhabitans" of modern xinjiang. Old Uyghur was the name of ancient Turkic(hun) confederation. Historical facts showed Turkic(Huns) and Tocharian people started their interaction more than 2 thousand years ago. Huns conquered Tarim region and settled in tocharian oasis homeland and mixed with Indo-European population.According to Tuoba Wei history in the 4th century AD, The Ephthalites or "White Huns" (Ye tai in chinese) were descibed to have blood relation with Yue chi (Rou zhi or Toharians), though together with Uyghur tribes, they were included in the Tiele tribes . About 6th century, during the Gokturk empire,turkic language started to become the prodominant language of the region (East Turkistan or Xinjiang). Slowly local tocharians mixed with Turkic people and the name "Uyghur" or "Turk" became the common name of this populaton.The recent findingis of ancient Xinjiang mummies with mixed origin also proves this point.the chinese monk Xuanzang described in 7th century described Kashgarians with green eyes. The mongolians called Uyghurs "colored eyed people" . During 13th century, Turkistan was incorporated into mongol empire. During this period, large number of Mongolians accepted islam and assimilated into local Uyghurs. that further increased east asian origin of modern Uyghurs. Today kashgarian and khotenese Uyghurs mostly look caucasion (see these extreme examples with so called white features: http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4778/2314836332e36b2ac7b8bpv5.jpg , http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3121/22430775076281cb598bcg6.jpg) So called 8-9th century tocharian paintings(cental asian monk) were originally from Kucha and Turfan city in Turkistan(Xinjiang). Modern genetic testing also proved this point: Modern Uyghurs and europians share pretty have high propertion of R1a Rib genes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FACT NEEDED (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

you are right and the recent genetic research has shown that Uighurs have 60% European and 40% East Asian(Tukric-Hun) mixture which occured about 2,500 years ago, so the assimilation of the tocharians began much earlier and the Uighur did NOT as the historians claim, migrated into the unknown and became the kings of the Tocharian land (i.e UYGHURSTAN and i say Uyghurstan because east Turkistan is only a geographical name of the south of the region that the Uighur Muslim Karahaninds controlled plus they called the region Turkistan because the Karahan Uyghurs controlled not only their territory but also some territories of other Turkic people so to not create an uprising from other Tukric tibes it was called as such, but it does not include the northern part that the UYGHURS controlled) , instead they internally migrated and changed the centres of the political power from mongolia to central asia after the barbaric Kyrgyz drove them out of there...The legend says that the one who controls the Otuken mountain is the khakan(emperor) of all Turkic people, but when the kyrgyz captured it, none of the Turkic tribes recognized them as the divine rulers because the kyrgyz at that time were not classed as being Turkic but more mongoloid...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilivay (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on, all Uyghurs I saw look Caucasian. There is nothing Mongoloid on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.190 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

-- Well, you just haven't seen enough Uyghurs yet. Most Uyghurs that I met look mixed East Asian with European-Iranian, and the further west you go the more Caucasian the Uyghurs lookm and the further east you go the more Mongoloid they look. The original Uyghurs most certainly look like the Hui Muslim people, whose ancestors were Hui-E (Uyghurs) who first settled in North-western China (Xinjing, Gansu) during Tang (Xianbei) Dynasty as military, and then throughout China during Mongol Yuan Dynasty as military personnels.

Karolus 20090116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.252.140 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, I've met them certainly enough to make a professional opinion. The fact is you don't have any prooves-nobody has-how the original Uyghurs looked like. But the thing is, the people that are nowadays commonly reffered to as 'Uyghurs' did at least up to the 1900's refer to themselfes by many other ethnonyms. At the beginning of the 1900's there was a conference where was accepted to all these diverse people be refered to as 'Uyghurs'. Therefore who were the ancestors of original Uyghurs doesn't mean much when refering to present-day 'Uyghurs' who have with original Uyghurs in common almost nothing but name. As I previously wrote, anthropologycally great majority of them looks Caucasian.

As for the Hui people, most of them are the descendants of Han Chinese, anthropology and genetics did proove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.46 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Well, prior to the Communists Takeover of China, the word ethnic group Uyghurs refered not only to Mandarin speaking Muslim living in Northern China, but also Turkic speaking Muslim living west to these Mandarin speaking Muslim. In Ming China and Qing China there was NO ethnic classification as it did in Europe and America, as the population was ruled by a series of rulers who claimed descendants from Genghis Khan and identified themselves as Mongols, even though they were Muslim. Hui people are descendants of Uyghurs who moved to Gansu and Shaanxi at the end of Tang Dynasty. They set up kingdoms after the fall of Tang Empire in Northern China. Historically Gansu and Shaanxi were one province and was called ShaanGan. Prior to the Hui Rebellion in the 1860's half of the population in Gansu and 1/4 of the population in Shaanxi was Hui. Arabs, Persians and other Turkic people were simply assimilated into Hui population. There is a contiuation of Uyghur/Hui from early Tang until today. Your claim of genetic study is as good as your knowledge of Chinese history. Keep on learning!

KArolus 2010/2/24

I've seen a lot of Uighurs in my life and I can say that they can be easily mixed up with some Spaniards and even more with Latin Americans, namely Mexicans and Peruvians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uyghurs are mostly european race

According to the article below Uyghurs are 60% "europian" origin. http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297%2808%2900166-3

Copyright 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved. The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 82, Issue 4, 883-894, 20 March 2008

doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.01.017

Article Analysis of Genomic Admixture in Uyghur and Its Implication in Mapping Strategy

Shuhua Xu1,2,Wei Huang3,Ji Qian2andLi Jin1,2,Go To Corresponding Author,

1 Chinese Academy of Sciences and Max Planck Society (CAS-MPG) Partner Institute for Computational Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China 2 Ministry of Education (MOE) Key Laboratory of Contemporary Anthropology and Center for Evolutionary Biology, School of Life Sciences and Institutes of Biomedical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China 3 Chinese National Human Genome Center at Shanghai, Shanghai 201203, China Corresponding author

The Uyghur (UIG) population, settled in Xinjiang, China, is a population presenting a typical admixture of Eastern and Western anthropometric traits. We dissected its genomic structure at population level, individual level, and chromosome level by using 20,177 SNPs spanning nearly the entire chromosome 21. Our results showed that UIG was formed by two-way admixture, with 60% European ancestry and 40% East Asian ancestry. Overall linkage disequilibrium (LD) in UIG was similar to that in its parental populations represented in East Asia and Europe with regard to common alleles, and UIG manifested elevation of LD only within 500 kb and at a level of 0.1 < r2< 0.8 when ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) were used. The size of chromosomal segments that were derived from East Asian and European ancestries averaged 2.4 cM and 4.1 cM, respectively. Both the magnitude of LD and fragmentary ancestral chromosome segments indicated a long history of Uyghur. Under the assumption of a hybrid isolation (HI) model, we estimated that the admixture event of UIG occurred about 126 [107146] generations ago, or 2520 [21402920] years ago assuming 20 years per generation. In spite of the long history and short LD of Uyghur compared with recent admixture populations such as the African-American population, we suggest that mapping by admixture LD (MALD) is still applicable in the Uyghur population but 10-fold AIMs are necessary fora whole-genome scan.

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297%2808%2900166-3 FACT NEEDED (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is well known that present-day Uyghurs are descendants of Tocharians and not of historical Uyghurs. Thats why they look Caucasian. In fact they have nothing to do with old Uyghurs. Before the 19. century they didnt call themselves Uyghurs at all. This name was accepted on a congress and given to them by force. So the name Uyghur is not appropriate for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.190 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Uighurs didn't call themselves Uighurs by the same reason why French didn't call themselves French, or Germans, or Italians. They called themselves 'citizens of such and such city' as it normally goes in feudal society, which is characterized by elevated division by cities that were in fact independent states more often than not or could be part of a bigger state when warranted. Take a look at French history where people called themselves 'citizens of such and such province/city', or Germans or any other highly evolved society of the times of feudalism. (173.33.113.108 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 

Your example is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. The thing is, the people nowadays refered to as 'Uyghurs' until the early 1900's didn't use an ethnonym-exonym Uyghur for themselwes. On the conference there was accepted that these people will be from then on refered to as 'Uyghurs'. So that is obviously a reason why present-day Uyghurs (who are overwhelmingly Caucasian) don't resemble the original Uyghurs (who were overwhelmingly Mongoloid).

The original Uyghurs were mostly assimilated by the Mongols and Oirats, and probably their descendants can also be found among Yugur people (those who speak a Mongolic wariant of Yugur language, not among the ones who speak a Turkic wariant ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.46 (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

According to some shit they are %83 Nigerian.--hnnvansier (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't make them European. The idea is that they share a genetic base with Europeans. Can you see the difference? If Uighurs shared ancestors with, say, Germans, they will share genetic material, but that doesn't make the Uighurs Germans, in the same way that my shared genetic material with my distant Irish family makes me Irish. Grace Note (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Script

The article states that a Turkish scholar places the origin of the Uyghur Script as Before Common Era. Could we add an illustration of this script?? Dogru144 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be extremely complicated. Access to those scripts is restricted and no reproduction in any form including photography or scanning is allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

The recent back-and-forth reverting here is getting tiresome to watch. Could all "sides" please explain here what their preferred version is, and why they feel it's the "right" one? Maybe there can be a compromise, rather than just changing back and forth. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what's going on (the political subtext to these not so innocent discussions)

Just back from Beijing and catching up. I like your funny question and undoubtedly many sincere, non-political scholars wonder why the political types here are willing to go round and round, like wrestlers locked together standing up, looking for a foothold before attempting a take-down. In the next section watch Ibrahim and the other gentleman wrestle for paragraphs over whether a picture of a blonde Uyghur girl is appropriate. Imagine a battle over whether the Protestants in Northern Ireland are, by now, an "indigenous" "Northern Irish" people with a right to claim their part of Ireland as a "homeland"; or whether-- since they're the historic remnant of a bloody Protestant invasion hundreds of years ago-- the Irish Catholics have an better claim. Do the North Irish Protestants deserve to call themselves a "minority" (with all the overtones of oppression that move Americans to sympathy) when they were foreign invaders? Or is it so long ago it makes no difference by now? What's their real "homeland," Ireland or England? Why all the battling over including here a picture of a very White Uyghur girl? Because the real question is, are the people(s) currently using the name "Uyghur" just a bunch of White Moslem Turks, the historic remnant of the Turkish Empire's imperial expansion into China? They called themselves Turks, pure and simple, until 1921. Are they the equivalent of the Northern Irish, or, even worse, of the White British in Hong Kong? The Brits built Hong Kong from a swampy little place. That didn't make Hong Kong the British homeland. Or, do the "Uyghurs" have some mystic connection with the ancient nomadic Whites who traveled through there thousands of years ago? (Hence the change of name?) Look at all the energetic arguments in this section tracing the roots of their language, or their customs. Finally, do they now have so much Asian blood in them (about 40%, according to one study) that they're not really White imperialists anymore? But if that's the case, and they are in some sense genuine Chinese now, it's odd that they want to secede from China and become a separate country. Though citizens, they have sided with China's invaders, every time. They don't just "prefer" the term East Turkestan, as the newspapers put it. That's a separate Moslem country they've carved out of China from time to time-- most recently, when the Japanese invaded China during WW2. They also sought help from the Soviets. Don't take my word for it, their main international organization affirms that's still their goal. For a sympathetic portrait, try Peter Hessler's last book Oracle Bones, which discusses those secessionist dreams at length (he's the New Yorker and the National Geographic's main China source. Hessler's best friend in China was an affable Uyghur who prided himself on his resemblance to Robert De Niro, and whom Hessler helped immigrate to the USA. ) Most Chinese I know consider the East Turkestan dream just the White conquest of their territory, revived. That, in a nutshell, "quick and dirty," as the techies say, is why so much ink is being spilled over a simple photograph, or a linguistic link to an ancient tongue. Both sides are trying to build a case. Details here may be fuzzy for the sake of brevity, but I hope you get the general idea. Was this helpful?Profhum (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

I have tagged this article, because I think that certain parts of the article are inaccurate:

• The history section is actually only the etymological history of the word "Uyghur" and not that of its people. It totally leaves out the important Non-Uyghur component, such as the pre-Turkic Khotanese, Tokharian, or Chinese elements in Uyghur history and origin.
• The language section claims that the Uyghurs first used the Orkhon script and then switched to Sogdian, while no sources are given. However, we know that the Göktürks used to Sogdian language and script before they switched to Orkhon. The Bugut inscriptions in Inner Mongilia, the oldest known inscription of the Göktürk Empire, is written in Sogdian, not in Old Turkic.

Tājik (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting material. How about you make these adjustments? Or do you not have the sources at hand? Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have sources:

• Peter B. Golden "An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples", p. 121-122 - this is dealing with origin of the Ashina, the leading clan of the Göktürk Empire, as well as the Bugut inscriptions of Inner Mongolia
• Carter Vaughn Findley in "The Turks in World History", p. 19/39; Findley writes: "... The linguistically non-Turkic name A-shih-na probably comes from of the Iranian languages of Central Asia and means blue [...] The founders of the Türk Empire, Istemi and Bumin, both had non-Turkish names (...). Far from leading to a pure national essence, the search for Turkic origins leads to a multiethnic and multilingual steppe milieu. ..."

Of course, this is only about the Göktürks ... but they were the leaders of the first Turkic Empire and gave their name ("Türk") to many other, linguistically related peoples. Tājik (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does the US press keep promoting "wEEger"?

The latest example: [3]--Section8pidgeon (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really unfortunate as this kind of pronunciation is Chinese, the language with specific phonetics that can only remotely reflect true pronunciation of a foreign word. That is why sometimes it's really hard to rely on Chinese historical sources as more often than not the proper name of their foreign neighbors would be distorted to such extent that it would be impossible to draw a parallel of any kind while doing a research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.113.108 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

YAH XI MU SI LAR, MAN SARKI TURKIS TAN LIK.SILA NIG RADEYOL DA AG LAT KAN "HITAYLA BIZ NI BO ZAK AT KAN NE " AG LAP RAS LI KI NI BUL DOK.MAN EXKER DE KI BIR SO DI GAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.149.167.174 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"The legend says that the one who controls the Otuken mountain is the khakan(emperor) of all Turkic people, but when the kyrgyz captured it, none of the Turkic tribes recognized them as the divine rulers because the kyrgyz at that time were not classed as being Turkic but more mongoloid" The Kyrgyz peoples were known as tall and blonde. they were most Caucassian like peoples in Central Asia. Ref. JEAN-PAUL ROUX Histoire des Turcs (Fayard, 1984, réédit. 2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.173.58 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They pronounce it that way because they speak English, not Turkic. HTH.Grace Note (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Blonde Uyghur Girl with Blue Eyes

I don't think the picture with the blonde uyghur girl is appropriate for this article. Although blonde with blue eyes do occur among the uyghur and the picture is definitely interesting, it doesn't represent the majority of the uygur people whose looks range between Asian and Middle Eastern. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia should give accurate information on the uyghur people and this picture makes it seem like uyghurs are some kind of Russians. The picture with the three little uyghur girls is much more representative of how uyghurs look like. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Trying to be looking like white people isn't cool these days, and sometimes offensive and racist. We need some other example pictures look like normal Uighurs. --Sqchen (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. As Ibrahim4048 notes, Uyghur people with blonde hair and blue eyes do exist (I personally have met several), and it seems racist to me to remove a perfectly valid picture of a Uighur girl because of the colour of her hair and eyes. I think everyone is aware that not all Uyghurs look like that (as is shown in other illustrations on the page). It is akin to removing a picture of a fair-haired, blue-eyed Italian girl from the page on Italy because a majority of Italians have darker eyes and hair. So, I will restore the photo. In any case, if you click on and enlarge the new photo of the three Uyghur girls that has been added, you can see that the girl on the right has grey or light-coloured eyes and could well have blonde hair, but it can't be seen because it is covered. Please, let's stop this sort of racist censorship. John Hill (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Uyghur people with blonde hair and blue eyes do exist (although a very small minority), just like blonde people exist in almost every society (Afghanistan, middle east, India etc) but that doesn't mean they are representative of the uyghur people. It is not comparable with an Italian with fair hair and blue eyes because that is much more common in Italy, especially in northern Italy. People who look things up in an encyclopedia generally do this because they don't have knowledge on the subject so it's not so certain that they will know that the blonde uyghur girl is an exception. If you are so keen to keep the picture of the blonde uyghur girl then at least say that blonde is an exception among uyghurs in the description of the picture. About your accusation of racist censorship I can only laugh. The blonde uyghur girl is in no way harmed or disadvantaged by my removing her picture from the article because she simply is not a good example of how uyghurs look like. What's racist about that? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uyghur with blond hair is fairly common. Ibrahim4048, what base you say "it is an exception". Uyghur is still racially closer to Europians and central asians than Asians. Wikipedia has to represent the reality, we got couple pictures here, this is the only one that show Uyghur look coucasion. History asia (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's turn that around. On what base are you saying that blonde hair is fairly common among the uyghur? I really wonder. Are you an uyghur? Have you been in Xinjiang to see for yourself? Do you have any contact with uyghur people? Have you asked these uyghurs whether blonde is common among them? I know some uyghur people (none of them are blond) and asked them this question. They told me that it's an exception. A few children do have a sort of reddish/blondish glow to their hair but when they get older it darkens. Only a small minority of people really has blonde hair. The girl in the picture is not only blonde but also has blue eyes which does make her a rare exception. She clearly has some germanic/slavic admixture in her ancestry. Like you said, wikipedia has to represent reality and the reality is that blonde with blue eyes is rare and not representative of the uyghur. Uyghurs have features that range between caucasian (persian, middle eastern) and mongoloid.

I don't know what your notion of caucasian is, but there are plenty of pictures around of uyghurs with caucasian features since most are more caucasoid than mongoloid [4] [5] [6] [7]. Just search on google images and you will find hundreds. All you have to do is find someone willing to give you permission to use their image on wikipedia. There are also quite a lot on wikimedia Commons. There is absolutely no shortage of uyghur pictures.

If you think caucasian means western european features and doesn't include persian and middle eastern features, then I suggest you do some reading [8]. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to claim this girl has " germanic/slavic admixture in her ancestry". Uyghur are decended from Tarim basin tocharians who looked europian. That is why blond hair is not that rare. Since Uyghurs are muslim, wearing various head dresses, it is not easy to see. If you comb the web, you can see it is not that uncommon.

History asia (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

More pictures and more information at here: [9]. History asia (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tocharians were an ancient indo-iranian people, not a turkic people. It might be true that they were (partially) assimilated by the uyghurs but that doesn't mean they are the ancestors of the uyghur people, and it doesn't make the uyghurs indo-european. You are taking exceptions to the rule as the rule. Yes, there might be some tocharian and other admixtures to uyghur ancestry but the uyghurs as a whole are still a turkic people. I don't know where you get this info from but it is completely wrong.

As I said before, I don't deny that blonde uyghurs exist. I just say that they are rare and are most likely the result of non uyghur admixture such as with the Tajiks of Xinjiang, russian/slavic people or other indo-europeans. Even among the indo-iranian peoples blonde is not that common. Most have dark hair and brown eyes. Maybe our definitions of rare and common are not the same. To me rare and small minority means 1 blonde uyghur in every thousand or even 1 in every hundred. Let's be extremely generous and say that 1 in every hundred uyghurs is blonde (more like 1/1000), that means that if there are 20 million uyghurs there would be a maximum of 200.000 blonde uyghurs. The pictures in the link [10] you gave are mostly not of uyghurs but of Tajiks of Xinjiang by the way. It even says tajik under a number of pictures and also the clothes and headgear are tajik style. Probably the blonde uyghur girl [11], whose photo is in the list of potographs in your link [12] and who you keep reinserting in this article, is one of those Tajiks of Xinjiang. She could be the sister of the blonde tajik girl whose picture is on top of hers.

I also don't know why you are so keen to have a picture of a blonde uyghur in this article. It is an interesting picture and might be relevant in an article about traces of Tocharians among the Uyghurs and the Tajiks of Xinjiang but not in an article which describes the uyghur people. Especially since it's not sure whether she really is an Uyghur or a Pamir Tajik. I also don't understand this, "Uyghur is still racially closer to Europians and central asians than Asians" and "Uyghur are decended from Tarim basin tocharians who looked europian". Uyghurs have nothing to do with europe, they are central asians and live in CHINA for crying out loud, so that makes them asians. They do have indo-iranian admixture but they are mostly turkic/mongolian. They also don't look like europEans but more like a mixture between persians/afghans etc and mongolians/kazakhs etc which is how most turkic peoples look. Why this desire to link the uyghurs to europeans/indo-europeans/aryan race? This kind of aryan propaganda and aryanization has been out of fashion since the nazi's. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

we need to respect the reality, This girl is simply not Tajik. Your assumption of "blond looking people in xinjiang could/must be Tajik" is wrong. Ancient Uyghurs and Kashgarians were described as "green eyed people". We are not talking about racism, just talking about how the Uyghurs would look.please read my previous reference, some people are tajik, most of them are uyghur. History asia (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply saying “this is the reality” doesn’t make it reality.

What proof do you have that this girl is really an Uyghur? Did you look on the internet who the owner is of this picture? Did you contact the uploader User:FACT_NEEDED for more information about the girl? Did he take the picture himself? If no, who did? If yes, did he actually ask about the ethnic background of the girl or did he just assume she must be Uyghur because the picture was taken in Xinjiang and since she didn’t look Chinese she had to be Uyghur (not knowing that there were also Tajiks of Xinjiang. It is really possible that she is not an Uyghur but a Tajik of Xinjiang or Uyghur/Tajik of Xinjiang mix. Among the Tajiks of Xinjiang blonde hair with blue/green eyes is much more common than with Uyghurs. Even if we confirm that she really is Uyghur, she still is not representative of how Uyghurs look since less than 1% of Uyghurs have blonde hair and blue eyes.

Apart from the uncertainty of the girls’ origin, you also make some claims that are really ridiculous. What do you mean by ancient Uyghurs were described as "green eyed people". Described by whom? When, where? You just make claims without references. How can it be that a people who according to you were blonde with green eyes are now dark haired with brown eyes? How can it be that if they were Tocharians (indo-Iranian) the Uyghurs now speak a Turkic language? And let’s assume your claims of Ancient Uyghurs being Tocharians/Indo-Europeans with blonde hair and blue eyes are true then STILL this girl is not representative of the modern Turkic Uyghur people who have dark hair and brown eyes and speak a Turkic language.

Let’s make things clear please? Your claims are so strange that I want to be sure what you are actually claiming and on what basis you insist on keeping the picture of the blonde girl with blue eyes. Are you saying Uyghurs are not a Turkic people but Tocharian/Indo-European? Are you saying they don’t speak a Turkic language? Are you saying that Uyghurs are blonde with blue/green eyes or have a significant minority (more than 5%) with blonde hair and blue/green eyes? If you make any of these claims please provide references. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Several of your points above seem a little shaky to me. It isn't at all unusual for a people to be partly or largely descended from ancient group A but to speak a language derived from ancient group B. Nobody denies, for example, that the Irish are largely descended from the ancient Gaels, though nowadays they nearly all speak English. Heck, even the English are turning out (based on recent DNA studies) to be largely descended from ancient Britons, not just from the ancient Germanic peoples from whose language the English language evolved.

Secondly, you're arguing against the inclusion of the blond-Uighur picture--even arguing that that picture doesn't depict a Uighur--on the basis of the claim that the Uighurs aren't blond. That strikes me as a bit circular. I don't think anyone was suggesting that blond hair is predominant or even especially common among Uighurs, but that isn't a reason to throw out the picture. (Red hair occurs in only 4% of Europeans, but I don't think we'd consciously avoid showing a redhead in our article on Europe.) It just means we shouldn't give the impression that the girl in question is typical of the Uighurs in that regard. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right that speaking a certain language and ethnically belonging to another group is not uncommon. Most modern Turks from turkey for example speak a Turkic language and identify themselves as Turks while most of them are ethnically indo-European (Persian, Kurdish, Greek, Albanian, Macedonian etc) or Semitic (Arabs and Assyrians). Maybe the Uyghurs also have some indo-Iranian (Tocharian) contribution to their ancestry. I didn't deny that possibility. That still doesn't make the Uyghurs "Europeans" and also doesn't change the fact that almost all modern Uyghurs have dark hair and eyes.

The problem here is the political agenda that some users try to push. Their agenda is betrayed by how they keep talking about Caucasian features (blonde with blue eyes) and about Europeans instead of indo-Europeans, which is the correct term and is a much wider group because it includes indo-Iranian and Indian people. When historians talk about indo-Europeans in central Asia they are not talking about Europeans from Europe but about the indo-Iranian peoples such as ancient Scythians, sarmatians and Tocharians which inhabited central Asia prior to the Turkic and Mongolian domination of central Asia. Talking about Europeans instead of indo-Europeans and putting disproportionate emphasis on blonde hair and blue eyes reminds me of Nazi Aryanism. European historians/travelers have throughout history always made these claims of white superiority by describing the leaders and successful people of other races as having more European Caucasian features then the others of their race. For example Genghis khan has often been described as having had green eyes and a blondish glow to his hair. The same was done with Africans and Native Americans. Always the leaders and protagonists have more Caucasian features than the others.

Sometimes also the lack of knowledge makes the historians/travelers confuse things. User John Hill wrote for example that Albert von Le Coq described the natives of eastern Turkistan as having three types. 1. The European type with light colored hair and eyes. 2. The persianate type and 3. The Asiatic type. Just like the tourist who took the picture of the blonde Uyghur girl, Albert von Le Coq probably didn't know that besides the Uyghurs there were also Tajik of Xinjiang living in the same region, both speaking the Uyghur language. Maybe Albert wasn't even claiming to be describing one particular people but just described whatever he saw (three types of inhabitants) regardless of race.

The way I see it, the tarim Tajik are persianate looking with some blondes and the Uyghurs are a mix of Persian and Asiatic features. All the Uyghurs I know (in Holland and turkey) have black hair and in all the graphic material (youtube, news, documentaries) I have seen, I have never seen a blonde Uyghur. I have asked the Uyghurs I know whether they knew blonde Uyghurs or had relatives who were blond and the answer was negative. So all the evidence and experiences I have shows that Uyghurs are not blonde and I also doubt that the blonde Uyghur girl is really Uyghur. I have contacted the uploader of the picture User:FACT_NEEDED for more info but got no response. He or she probably isn't even the owner of the picture but just got it from the internet. We could also ask the Uyghurs on meshrep.com if they have info about the picture and whether blonde is common among the Uyghur. Then you can see it for yourselves if you don't believe me. I have

Oh yeah. The accusation of my doubt about the Uyghur girl being circular reasoning is a bit silly don't you think? With that accusation you can discredit anything. Even what you see with your own eyes. I base my doubt on the fact that I have never seen a blonde Uyghur in my life. I base it on the fact that the site [13] where history Asia linked to contained the picture of the blonde Uyghur girl and a lot of pictures Tajiks of Xinjiang and some of the Tajik were mislabeled as Uyghurs. You can see from their traditional clothes which are the tajiks. I think that this site is probably the source for the picture User:FACT_NEEDED uploaded. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I share your irritation with people who use "European" where "Indo-European" would be more accurate. And I'll definitely acknowledge that the majority of Uyghurs I've seen pictures of (I haven't had the pleasure of meeting any in person) have a mix of Indo-European, Turkic, and East Asian features. The girl in the disputed picture is certainly atypical in that regard. But HOW atypical? The girl currently depicted at http://www.uygur.org/wunn09/01_26.htm is quite blonde too, though a somewhat darker blonde and with less "European" features. And that's from a Uyghur organization's website, so it's unlikely to be mistakenly depicting a Tajik. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@ 65.213.77.129

I don't know how much you have read of my previous texts, but I never denied that blonde Uyghurs existed. I agreed that Indo-European peoples (with a percentage of blondes among them) inhabited parts of Central Asia and that they probably have mixed with the Turkic Uyghurs. I also don't have anything against blonde Uyghurs or blonde people in general. So my motif for deleting or at least saying in the description of the picture that blondes are uncommon among the Uyghur is not a racist motif. As for the picture of the blonde girl on the Uyghur site [14], take in mind that the article is about the right to speak their own language and is directed against Europeans Americans (written in English) for support of their cause. Using a picture of a blonde Uyghur girl is a good tactic to generate sympathy for their cause. In commercials for tourism, countries also use more "European" looking people and good looking people. You just feel more sympathetic towards people who look like you/familiar or just look good. Using this tactic is just sensible.

The reason why I object to the picture is not so much that the girl is blonde but the politics behind it. Like I said, I wouldn't object if the description of the picture said that it was not how Uyghurs generally looked. I just saw how certain users tried to push their views that "Uyghurs are mostly European race" [15], that "Uyghurs are descendants of Tocharians and not of historical Uyghurs" or "all Uyghurs that I saw looked Caucasian. There is nothing Mongoloid on them" [16]. This is absolute bullshit. Uyghurs have nothing to do with Europe or Europeans. Europeans are the inhabitants of this region [17]. Uyghurs are a mixture of Indo-Iranian, Tocharian and Asian Altaic peoples like most Turkic peoples are.

The person who wrote this nonsense bases his ideas on this article [18] from The American Journal of Human Genetics. This article also speaks about "Europeans" and even "Europe" instead of Indo-Europeans (strange, academics generally use Indo-European) and it says that Uyghurs have "60% European ancestry and 40% East Asian ancestry". Seeing that 60% European and 40% East Asian ancestry leaves no room for other ancestries, I must conclude that in this article Indo-Iranian (Persian, Indian, afghan, Tajik etc), Tocharian, Semitic (Arabs etc) and Turkic peoples are not among the ancestors of the Uyghurs or perhaps were counted as Europeans in this research. The article gives these percentages of European (it literally says Europe) and East Asian ancestries and goes straight into technical talk (note that it doesn't actually say anything, just mumbo jumbo) without even mentioning Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups or Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups. Most ethnicity related genetic studies use these haplogroups to determine who belongs to which ethnic group. See Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) for example is found in percentages ranging between 10% and 25% among the Uyghurs in several studies. It probably entered central Asia during the islamification of central Asia and by merchants from the Middle East settling and intermarrying with local women in central Asia. Since Haplogroup J originated in Saudi Arabia and is most common among Semitic peoples (Arabs, Jews etc) this haplogroup neither belongs to the European group nor the East Asian group. Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) is also found in high percentage (approx 20%) among the Uyghurs and it occurs most frequently among North Indians, various Persian and Slavic peoples. This does not mean that Uyghurs are partially European but that (Eastern) Europeans have common ancestors with the Indo-Iranian (Persians and Indians) and Tocharian peoples with whom the Uyghurs have mixed over the centuries. This totally contradicts the article on the American Journal of Human Genetics website which leaves no room for Semitic or other non European or non East Asian ancestry for the Uyghurs.

All this does not even matter. What matters is that

• 1. We don't know where this picture came from. I have good reasons to think that this picture violates copyright. The uploader of the picture User:FACT NEEDED didn't reply on my questions about the source of this picture [19]. I also noticed that User:FACT NEEDED and User:History asia both write europian instead of European and share the same idea that Uyghurs are not Turkic but Tocharian and that they are "europian". They also refer to the same sources. One might be the sockpuppet of the other. User:History asia has a long history of copyright violation and was permanently banned for this and for general misbehaving against other users. I might be wrong and maybe it's just coincidence that they make the same mistake (europian instead European) or they both come from countries where this mistake is common. All I'm saying is that somebody should check their ip's. If it's different, no harm done. If it's the same (or from the same city), they should further investigate (same city) or perm ban (same ip). I don't know where I can ask for this to be done, maybe somebody can help me out.
• 2. We don't know for sure whether this girl really is an Uyghur (if the person who took this picture tells me that he asked whether she was Uyghur that’s enough proof for me). I think she might be a Tajik of Xinjiang. She certainly looks more like a Tajik or Slav than an Uyghur. Again I might be wrong but it is not unreasonable to want to verify whether she is Uyghur and whether we are not violating copyright if we are going to use her picture. All we have until now is a user who uploaded a picture without information and who only pursued one goal, which is to prove that Uyghurs are descended from Tocharians, during his/her presence on wikipedia.
• 3. Even if the picture turns out ok, it still isn't representative of Uyghurs in general. Your example of redheads making up only 4% of Britain (is it really that low?) isn't really relevant here. Redheads occur just as frequent among Persians and southern Europeans as in Britain (ok, slightly more in Britain). But the point is that nowhere in the world redheads are a majority. They are not associated with a specific race different than the British race, so showing the picture of a redhead in the Britain article wouldn't be much of a problem. Everybody also knows how the brits look like, so the picture of a redhead wouldn't alter their image that much. With the Uyghurs things are different. People don't know much about Uyghurs. If they see a picture of a blonde Uyghur girl, they might think that that's how Uyghurs look like. They might think that Uyghurs are a Germanic or Slavic people, and that would be misinformation. Do you understand what I mean? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no such thing as 'Turkic features' because 'Turkic' is not an anthropological term, but rather a linguistic one. And secondly, Uyghurs are genetically Tocharian, this was already proven by anthropology and genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.106 (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that strictly speaking you only have negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid etc features, but turkish, persian or other facial feature descriptions by nationality/ethnicity are used by anthropologists and historians. Look for example in the Photo of blonde Uighur girl restored again section. You will see that Albert von Le Coq used persian, turkish and european to describe the features of the uyghurs. I used turkic instead of turkish to differentiate central asian turks from anatolian turks.

Your assertion that "Uyghurs are genetically Tocharian" and the assertions of other editors that "all Uyghurs I saw look Caucasian. There is nothing Mongoloid on them", "It is well known that present-day Uyghurs are descendants of Tocharians and not of historical Uyghurs" denying turkic/uyghur ancestry for modern uyghurs and saying that "the original Uyghurs were mostly assimilated by the Mongols and Oirats, and probably their descendants can also be found among Yugur people (those who speak a Mongolic wariant of Yugur language, not among the ones who speak a Turkic wariant" is false. These assertions are not based on facts. How can you ignore the fact that modern uyghurs speak a turkic language, that the majority of uyghurs have some degree of mongoloid facial features, that they have approximately the same mixture of haplogroups as other turkic groups such as uzbeks, khirgyz and kazakhs? Isn't it strange that so much emphasis is put on the rare blonde and light colored eyed uyghur while the much, much, much more common mixed mongoloid/caucasoid (simply turkic) uyghur is denied to exist. I would like to see these studies which prove that uyghurs are genetically tocharian. I don't even believe that such a thing can be proven. People forget that these genetic studies are only a bunch of different genetic sequences which don't mean anything by itself. It is not so that each nationality/ethnicity has its own haplogroup/SNP cluster. In ancestry/ethnicity genetics there are no nationalities/ethincities but only haplogroups. These haplgroups are then connected to geographical regions,historical events and then give an indication of ethnicity based on these connections. The study that you are probably referring to which proves tocharian ancestry for the uyghurs (the one saying 60% European and 40% East Asian ancestry) doesn't prove this at all. If you read the Genetics Section you will see what I mean. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To Ibrahim4048: Hi, I've read what you wrote and I'd like to correct you on a couple of statements that you claimed to be 'facts', first of all the tocharians are in noway indo-IRANIAN as they have migrated to tarim basin from eastern europe/northern caucasus, and are consiidering as being of EUROPEAN type or Indo-EUROPEAN in a genral term as you might find on the hundreds of mummies that have been unearthed in the last few decades, they've all(Tocharian mummies) posses European features i.e coloured hair and physical appearance, their weaving style and a big chunk of their remains have been identified as being closest to the CELTIC tribes, which is why the study clearly states 60% is identical to the WESTERN European population, and if you read the article a little more thoroughly you would've noticed that the admixture occured at about 2500 years ago, which excludes the possibility of the chinese when refering to east asian population (according to the historical sources the chinese haven't stepped foot on the region at that time). Another thing I'd like to express my concern about is you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the Tajiks, which puts me in doubt as to whether you yourselve is somehow persian and might have a biased opinion on the matter (pardon me if I'm wrong of course), though the recent influx of tajiks into the region was the result of the russian persucution of the tajiks of tajikistan, same would go for other central asian population residing in the region such as kazakhs and kyrgyz they were mostly driven out of their land and seeked refuge in the region, and if you do some research you would find that a LOT if not majority of tajiks have traces of east asian i.e turkic admixture, you might even see it in the slight slant in their eyes, just like the blonde girl she CLEARLY has east asian like shape of the eyes AND the rounded shape of her face indicates the admixture. I also would like to stress that the appearance might be deceiving one might posses the mixture of DNA but might tend to get more of the physical appearence from one side than another, infact you will see this in mixed race families e.g. black and white parents produce two offsprings, one looks more white than black, the other more black than white, its an everyday scenrario...So by the way you judge the situation seems very biased because you don't tend to look at different possiblities and tend to stick to one conclusion that you assumed is right. More over you have a limited access to the Uyghurs themselves, I for instants knew quite a few blonde, coloured eyed Uighurs, you might also look at the situation in the region present day, fact that a lot of uyghurs are denied passports, and (very controversial, i know) china could have a hidden agenda to portray Uyghurs as more east asian and have an institutional racism in place, such as if you're more east asian looking you have more chances in life including going abroad, which explains why dont really meet as many abroad (this could be supported by the basic human psychology of trust instict, one would be more likely to trust a strange person if he had more of some kind of resemblance rather than non at all)...For you to truly see the real picture you should travel ACROSS the region, notice i've highlighted across and not just one place in the region. And to understand Albert van La Coq you again need to refer back to the mixing process that ive explained above, one does not look identical if he has types of races flowing in his genes...And as for you're claim that he might have mistaken the ethnicties of the people than i think you will find that there are virutally no tajiks nor any other indo-iranian group residing in turpan, and the only place where the tajiks live is tashkurghan which borders tajikistan which i think is self explanatory that the tajiks have actually moved accrossed the border in order to escape the persecution forn the russians. And one last thing its not misrepresnative to show a blonde, blue eyed uighur girl from turpan, infact its represntative of those uyghurs who have been left aside just like her, one reads encyclopedia to gain knowledge about a subject, so why not start with details that would fascinate and encourage one to find out more and expand his or her intellect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.63.233 (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Pro-China Bias?

I just added a mention of the Uyghur prisoners' release from Guantanamo Bay after seeing a story on CNN. When I read the existing section on "Separatists", I noticed a couple things that bothered me and I felt ultimately needed fixing. Basically, there seemed to be a rather blatant pro-Chinese Government tone to the last several paragraphs, almost as if it was written by them. The term "peaceful" was put in quotes for no stated reason. What's more, there was a list of several terrorist attacks that occured in China, mostly surrounding the recent Beijing Olympic Games.

None of these were sourced, though each paragraph did contain a link to an external news story on the topic. When I went to these news articles, not a SINGLE ONE made ANY mention of a connection with the Uyghur separatist movement; in fact, none of them even contained the word "Uyghur". I couldn't find any other news article forming any connection between the two. And even in the Wikipedia text, it didn't say there was any link between these attacks and the Uyghur people. Instead, it just listed these attacks right after a paragraph about how the Uyghur movement claims to be "peaceful" (quotes theirs). Furthermore, some of the information in these paragraphs are credited to (though without links) the Chinese state-run news agency.

It's obvious the intent was to imply that these terrorist attacks were mentioned there to imply that they were carried out by the Uyghur separatists, even though there is no source reporting any evidence of a connection. I believe this is obvious bias by whomever put that there, though I suppose we'll never know for sure. In any event, after being unable to find any external source to justify those paragraphs, I decided to remove them. If you're the one who put them there or you just think they should be put back, please respond here so we can discuss rather than getting mired in an edit war (I see there has already been some of that on this article in the past).67.183.129.249 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To maintain consistency with the sister Wikipedia article, I added some text to the peaceful/terrorist paragraph of the Chinese state-run news agency reporting a connection between these attacks and the Uyghur separatists, but that this hasn't been independently confirmed by external news sources. I figure that way we should be safe either way. Thoughts? 67.183.129.249 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

About five days after I did the fix and posted this section to talk, someone (IP 71.112.47.63) changed the wording to reinstate the pro-Chinese Government stance. The change was very subtle and went unnoticed until I saw it just now. The individual added "Until the terrorist attacks in 2009," to the sentence talking about the "most prominent" attack from 1997. This was a rather clever edit, as it changed the meaning to suggest that the 2009 Beijing attacks were carried out by Uyghur separatists.

This individual has no other Wikipedia edits. S/he left no comments and did not choose to participate in this discussion on talk. Given all these factors, I believe this qualifies as vandalism, so I have reversed the edit. For the sake of accuracy and fairness, however, I added "independently confirmed" to the sentence, so we're accounting for prominent instances since then with alleged Uyghur ties that we cannot independently confirm.

To 71.112.47.63, if you would like to discuss this, please post your thoughts here first so we can reach consensus on the best wording without falling into an edit war. Since there are concerns that the Chinese Government has allegedly been actively modifying Wikipedia articles for the purpose of domestic propaganda, I'm sure you can appreciate the added precaution and the need to avoid making stealth edits of this scope. Thanks! 67.183.129.249 (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The terrist attacks mentioned were all over Chinese news at the time they took place. It was the very biased western media, as they have always been and will always be, blacked people out in the western countries. I believe I do not have the knowledge to judge if any particular part of this article is right or wrong. However, people should feel shameful to leave out the ETR led brutal attacks which happened every year against the Han Chinese and other eithnic groups in the Uygher living area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.24.170 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence to support your allegation that the "very biased western media" conspired to black-out what you describe as the Uyghurs persecuting the Chinese?

It's ironic that the only source you cite is "Chinese news", which is state-run and widely known to censor any stories that could damage the regime's image (i.e. any coverage of Tiananmen Square). Western media has its problems, but a secretive agenda to besmirch the Han Chinese? Come on. Do you honestly expect anybody here to buy that?

I think it's interesting that, thus far, the only edits to the article or discussion attempting to assert a pro-Chinese government stance into the article seem to be coming from IP addresses that have absolutely NO other edits. This doesn't prove any wrongdoing, but it certainly raises a few eyebrows, as this was the same sort of activity that got the Scientology folks into trouble recently.

Simply put, we cannot rely upon state-run news media as the sole source for information, particularly when that information is being disputed outside of the state-run media. Wikipedia is meant to be a non-biased source of information, not a propaganda sounding board for oppressive governments. Find INDEPENDENT sources to verify this conspiracy you're alleging-- sources that do NOT rely upon Chinese state-run news media. Until then, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 67.183.129.249 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If Uighur is "more common", why is article spelt "Uyghur"?

Has a move to Uighur people already been discussed? — PhilHibbs | talk 10:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that... Is Uyghur a US, or perhaps more correct spelling? I am from UK and here it is always spelt Uighur, I believe. 80.195.195.119 (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, such a move would not be appropriate. Uyghur is a more correct spelling, and the one preferred by most Uyghurs (see the bottom of [20]. Plus, on a regular Arabic keyboard with Uyghur input installed, you type Uyghur as / – U – Shift-G – Y – U – R . rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The French wikipedia article on London is titled "Londres". The English preference for spelling is irrelevent there, as is the Uighur preference for how we should spell that here. — PhilHibbs | talk 19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All English spellings which are transcriptions or transliterations from characters other than Latin are inconsistent - and we just have to get used to it, that there may be other versions. Tschaikowsky is the German version and that is mostly used because be was published by a German publisher, Russia not having copyright in his time. Stalin is Staline in French and so forth. There is not even a need for the h in Uyghur, as the g is followed by a dark vowel. Logic does not always come into it - English spelling is equally interesting. 121.209.48.3 (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

@121.209.48.3: there still is a need for an h, because the underlying phoneme is غ (typically represented "gh" in the Latin alphabet); vowel and consonant harmony in Uyghur have many exceptions (in fact, the number of words that don't follow the harmony words is about equal to the number that do) so you can't automatically assume that every "g" followed by a back vowel is going to automatically be "gh". Plus, it's standard in most alphabets to represent the underlying phonemes, not the surface ones (although this varies to an extent; in all the Uyghur alphabets, for example, كە گە قا غا are written separately even though they come from the same underlying morpheme "GA").

@ everyone else: http://www.meshrep.com/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=13450 .rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but not relevant, see my point about fr:Londres. We don't define usage or accept statements from authority, we document actual contemporary usage, and for now that (in the English speaking world) is Uighur. I— PhilHibbs | talk 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Who says that what several poorly-informed newspapers happen to have in their style guides is "actual contemporary usage"? You're also ignoring academic and other sources in favor of "popular" media, which doesn't make sense since the word is used much more in academia than in mainstream news. NYT and other news sources might have spurts of talking about Uyghurs when there is a significant event like the July riots, and in times like that maybe everyday people use the term once or twice. But in books and journal articles about this, those are the people who are using the word nonstop in their daily lives, so sources like that are much more representative of "contemporary usage" than random newspaper articles that everyday people don't even talk about after a day or two. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And since you are interested in using French examples.... here is another for you: Grande École (film) (same on fr-wiki). In actual contemporary usage in France, people don't put the accent on a capital letter like that; it would be "Grande Ecole" or "Grande école". That usage is common everyday usage, but it's not "correct", and as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Accents & ligatures Wikipedia uses the correct one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to be corrected on the detail, I was just taking the article's own statement that Uighur is more common usage at face value. If that is the "opinion" of the Wikipedia article, then surely that should be the title. It no longer says that, though, so my point is no longer valid. — PhilHibbs | talk 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I removed a "quote"

I removed the following "quote" today which was insufficiently referenced: Albert von Le Coq: "The Uyghur language and script contributed to the enrichment of civilizations of the other peoples in Central Asia. Compared to the Europeans of that time, the Uyghurs were far more advanced. Documents discovered in Uyghur Region prove that an Uyghur farmer could write down a contract, using legal terminology.

The reasons why I removed it include the fact that, as far as I know, he only published one book in English, Buried Treasures of Chinese Turkestan, and I cannot find the quote there. I had a good look for it as I originally intended to add the bibliographic details, page number, etc. Perhaps someone has translated it from one of his German publications?

If anyone disagrees with my action and can find a proper reference for the quote I would be very happy to see it added again to the article. Please help if you can. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo of blonde Uighur girl restored again

I have just noticed that User Billion has removed this photo which has been the subject of so much discussion. The reason s/he gave was: "Commented out picture of girl. Talk indicates picture of three girls in market more typical."

I have restored it again for the reasons I gave above in May - i.e., among the Uyghurs, there are some people with very obviously light eyes - sometimes blue - and, especially among the children, some with blonde hair. Certainly they are not in the majority, but they are there.

As the archaeologist, Albert von Le Coq notes on page 40 of his Buried Treasures of Chinese Turkestan, first published in 1928:

"The natives of Eastern Turkestan are a mixed race, and the European touch in many of them has been noticed by all travellers. Some have light or even blue eyes, and many of the men, if dressed in European clothes, would not be conspicuous in any European city. Side by side with this rarer European type another is to be seen—a Persian type distinguished by a tall slim figure, and unclipped beard, large expressive eyes, and a somewhat yellow complexion. The third element is the Eastern Asiatic, and besides these three types there are innumerable mixtures; the majority of the population might be characterized as mountain Iranians with a pronounced Turkish modification."

There is ample evidence, both historical and archaeological, that some of the earliest inhabitants of Xinjiang show strong Caucasian or "Europoid" features, and there have been regular invasions of the region by many peoples, so it is not surprising to find traces of all these ancestors present in the modern population. For a detailed examination of the evidence relating to the racial affinities of the local populations, both ancient and modern, see The Tarim Mummies (2000) by J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, especially Chapter Seven - "Skulls, Genes and Knights with Long Swords," pp. 230-251.

Unfortunately, these racial characteristics have been frequently misused to provide support for various political points of view, and I am concerned that this photo of the young blonde Uighur girl will be eliminated from the Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. To say some minority physical features are not "typical" (or that she "clearly has some germanic/slavic admixture in her ancestry"), and therefore should be removed, sets, I think, a very dangerous and offensive precedent. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored it as it looked like it had been deleted accidentally during the plethora of anonymous edits, then I saw the discussion and realized it was controversial. Its a nice picture and actually features on the article Child, but as there is already a picture of three Uyghur children here already it does not seem necessary unless it is there to illustrate the wide range of appearances of Uyghur people, in which case that should be in the caption and we will have to come to a consensus that there is such a wide range. Personally I have no idea. I just came to the article curious as to what Uighur people look like. I think as John Hill says that there may be danger of it being deleted for political reasons. Also of it being included for political reasons.Billlion (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Billlion! Thanks for your thoughtful explanation of why you deleted the photo. I am glad to see it has not been deleted (again) for "political" reasons. I think it is reasonable to have several photos of Uyghur people on a page headed "Uyghur people", (and the photo in the infobox had recently been deleted - leaving a gap) so I did a little searching on Wikimedia Commons last night and found a couple more photos which I have added to enrich the article. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

More sources

I just found a wealth of useful academic sources here, at Meshrep.com (a Uyghur forum). They might be cherry-picked, but if they are used properly and put in perspective they could add a lot to the article's coverage of separatism/identity issues. I've only looked at the first two so far, though.

Also found this recent article:

• Szadziewski, Henryk. "The discovery of the Uyghurs". openDemocracy.net. Retrieved 11 July 2009.

Not 100% sure about the date; I first found it posted here, and it was either written on 9 July or at least posted then. In any case, it was clearly written after the riots. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite this article please

Can someone help with the re-writing of this article because it is very obvious to see that some minor section and part of it are filled with simple grammar mistakes and also a lot of rubbish input (which are not really verifiable as WP:RS per WP:VERIFY) by non-English speaker that it has become like a draft read to me. I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to the recent riots in Urumqi, we've basically had an "onslaught" on all articles even remotely dealing with the topic. A small group of people has been trying to keep things at bay, but keeping track of the articles dealing with politics was already a lot. I agree that this one needs to be looked at, but only after things have cooled down. Feel free to get started though. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mentioned that a few of these newly registered users (arrow pointing at Primosmoscow) are starting to making highly inflammatory edits without any verifiable citation/reliable source for reference, making Wikipedia looking more like a circus show now than becoming an online encyclopedia. Henceforth, I will revert all of his edits if he doesn't include any cite/reference. Note that Wikipedia endorses NPOV, so if someone starts to lean towards the showing of inflammatory remarks or edits, I will take the matter up and possibly getting the article salted for them. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Entering the fray again

I noticed someone has stripped my history section down to almost nothing and filled it with erroneous and uncited "facts". I also noticed someone has made large changes to the identity section. So I will again enter the fray of this contentious article. First of all let me declare I have no interest in genetics, ethnicity, spelling, the etymology of "Uyghur" or history AFTER 1946 CE. The origin and formation of the Uyghur state and ethnicity is highly complex and difficult to understand even without the issue being clouded by nationalist agendas. I am writing here for clarity, and depth of information. Please, please, please do not undo my work unless you are improving the article. thank you in advance.

First of all I am going to group the Identity section into two parts etymology and ethnogensis. then I am going to move the history paragraph at the end to the history section. Then I will fix and expand the history section. I am also going to delete in text references to what some scholar said, as this is what inline citations and quotes are for.--Gurdjieff (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• MY arrows are firmly pointed at the direction of User:Primosmoscow, 35 edits since 15th July 2009 and many of his edits are quite dubious. Gurdjieff, I sincerely wished I could help but I really don't know where to start from, apart from reverting all his unreferenced edits. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of the phenomenon I am working to fix. I have grouped all the various fragments of history together. Note they are conflicting, redundant, and in sections other than history.

Uyghur history is the story start from united nomadic tribes rising from the Altai Mountains and Tarim basin,in current Xinjiang. In ancient time, Uyghur was created by uniting of a group of Turkic tribes that originated from the Altay Mountains and Tengri Taq (Tian Shan) region (in current Xinjiang). Along with the Göktürks (Kokturks), the Uyghurs were one of the largest and most enduring Turkic peoples living in Central Asia.

After the big famine and collapse of the Uyghur Empire, which dominated Central Asia from Tarim Basin to Mongolia in 840 AD, Uyghur in Mongolia move to their Tarim Basin and Tengri Tag (Tian Shan Mountains) regions. They created few kingdoms in this area. Thousand years later, Communist China invaded Uyghurstan(Xinjiang)in 1949, far beyond the Chinese traditional Great wall.The name Uyghurstan or East Turkistan was changed to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where they were the largest ethnic group until the massive recent influx of Han Chinese, and the Uyghurs have become a minority in their homeland. "Xinjiang", meaning "New Frontier", is the Chinese name of the Autonomous Region.

Here's something useful while you're trying to de-crap the article: Template:inuse

Seb az86556 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This can be added to the page by typing "{{inuse}}" without the quotes at the top of the article.—C45207 | Talk 11:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity intro

Please explain the reverts being made to the intro part of the Identity-section. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In short the term uyghur has been used to define different groups of people throughout the history of its usage. I want to state that as a lead-in to the identity section to keep all the debate out of the article.

next I want to isolate the etymology of uyghur, and genetics so the debate can rage within those confined areas and not contaminate the rest of the article.--Gurdjieff (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (this wasn't so much directed at you, but rather at the other user who continues to mess around with that snippet. Still waiting for *that* explanation.)Seb az86556 (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This makes a lot more sense to the general reader now! yay! Seb az86556 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed~! The flow of text seems much better now, as compared to 36 hours back. Still, we should all be keeping a watchful eye here for those disruptive trouble makers, especially those who keep adding dubious edits and weasel words. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

irrelevant material moved from article

I moved this out of the article because it is about turks and not uyghurs, has nothing to do with the term Uyghur and if I recall correctly from the Tiele article is actually discredited

According to Chinese Turkic scholars Ma Changshou and Cen Zhongmian, the Chinese word Tiele originates from the Turkic word "Türkler" (Turks), which is a plural form of "Türk" (Turk) and the Chinese word "Tujue" comes from the Turkic word "Türküt" which is a singular form of Türk. .

--Gurdjieff (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Current Events"?

So I looked at some of the others articles giving information on ethnic groups -- couldn't find any section named "Current Events"... why is it needed here? This is supposed to be an anthropology-related description, not some political (can't find the right word). In parallel with the other formats it would be more reasonable to start a subsection "People's Republic of China" and leave it at that. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree this is not a political article. I didn't want to delete the information and have it become an edit war, so I isolated the political issues in "current events" if you can/want to get the politics out of this article please do so. by the way thanks for fixing my mistakes--Gurdjieff (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text from earlier version

I pulled this block of text from a previous (better) version of the article, I plan to merge it into the sections--Gurdjieff (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

==Identity== [[Image:Gokturkut.png|right|thumb|255px|Map of the Western (purple) and Eastern (blue) [[Göktürks|Göktürk]] [[khagan]]ates at their height, c. AD 600. Lighter areas show direct rule; darker areas show spheres of influence.]] {{Islam and China}} Historically the term "Uyghur" (meaning "united" or "allied") was applied to a group of Turkic-speaking tribes that lived in the [[Altay Mountains]]. Along with the [[Göktürks]] (Kokturks) the Uyghurs were one of the largest and most enduring [[Turkic peoples]] living in [[Central Asia]]. The earliest use of the term 'Uyghur' (Weihu) was during the Northern [[Northern Wei Dynasty|Wei]] Dynasty (386-534 CE),in China. At that time the Uyghur were part of the [[Gaoche]] later called Tura ([[Tiele]]) people, a group of Turkic tribes, which also included groups such as [[Xueyantuo]](Syr-Tardush), [[Basmil]] (Baximi), [[Oguz]] (Wuhu), and [[Yakut]] (Guligan) from the Lake Baikal Region. The forebear of the Tura belonged to those of [[Hun]] ([[Xiongnu]]) descendants. According to Chinese Turkic scholars Ma Changshou and Cen Zhongmian, the Chinese word [[Tiele]] originates from the Turkic Türkler(Turks) which is a plural form of Türk(Turk) and the word Tujue in Chinese comes from the Turkic word Türküt which is a singular of Türk <ref>[A Historical Collection on the History of the Turks]. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1958): 6-7. </ref>. The origin of [[Gaoche]] can be traced back to the [[Chidi]] and [[Dingling]] Peoples according to the Han Dynasty circa 200 BCE <ref>Peter Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992): 94.</ref> <ref>Sima Qian, Shiji [Records of the Historian] Vol. 110: Xiongnu; and Ban Gu, Han Shu [History of the Han Dynasty], Vol. 94: Xiongnu.</ref> This pedigree is also confirmed in the [[Book of Sui]] volume 84 (c. 600 CE). The first use of 'Uyghur' as a political nationality occurred during the interim between the first and second Göktürk Khanates (630-684 CE). For a more detailed look at the genesis of the Uyghur nation see [[uyghur timeline]]. After the collapse of the Uyghur Empire in 840 CE the Uyghur refugees resettled in the Tarim Basin intermarrying with the local people. It is only after this time that 'Uyghur' can be properly used as a true ethnic designation. Modern usage of the Uyghur ethnonym is used to give an ethnic definition to a traditional Central Asian distinction between nomads and settled farmers. It refers to the descendants of settled Turkic [[urban area|urban]] [[oasis]]-dwelling and agricultural populations of Xinjiang as opposed to those Turkic groups that remained [[nomad]]ic. Uyghurs live mainly in Xinjiang, China, where they are the largest ethnic group, together with [[Han Chinese]], [[Uzbeks]], [[Kazakhs]], [[Kyrgyz]] and [[Russians]]. "Xinjiang" is the Han Chinese name for the ([[Autonomous]]) Region meaning "New Frontier." Uyghurs often refer to the region as [[East Turkistan]]. == History == Uyghur history can be divided into four distinct phases. Pre-Imperial (300 BCE - 630 CE), Imperial (630-840 CE), Idiqut (840-1225 CE), and Mongol (1225-1600 CE) with perhaps a fifth post-mongol or modern phase running from the death of the silkroad in 1600 CE until the present. Their history is story of an obscure nomadic tribe from the Altai Mountains rising to challenge the Chinese Empire and ultimately becoming the diplomaic arm of the Mongol invasion. === Pre-Imperial Era === The ancestors of the Uyghur were the nomadic Turkic[[Gaoche]] People and the [[Tocharian]] peoples of the [[Tarim]] Basin. Gaoche meaning 'High Cart' was a reference to the distinct high-wheeled, ox-drawn carts used to move yurts. The Gaoche were Altaic pastoralists who lived in the valleys south of [[Lake Baikal]] and around the [[Yenisei River]](Yenisei = Ana Say, or "Mother River" in Turkic). They practiced some minor agriculture and were highly developed metalsmiths due to the abundance of easily available iron ore in the Yenisei. They became vassals of the [[Huns]] and manufactured their arms. After the Huns they were passed as vassals to the [[Rouran]] and [[Hepthalite]] States. In 450 CE the Gaoche planned a revolt against the Rouran that was defeated by the [[Türk]] (another Rouran vassal tribe). This incident marked the beginning of the historic Türk-Tiele animosity that plauged the [[Göktürk|Göktürk Khanate]]. When the Göktürk defeated the Rouran/Hepthalite state, they became the new masters of the Tura ([[Tiele]]) (the name "Gaoche" was replaced by "Tiele" in historic records around this time). It was also at this time that the Uyghur tribe was first mentioned in Chinese records as a small tribe of 10,000 yurts in the South [[Baikal]] region. The Uyghur participated in a coalition of Tura ([[Tiele]]) under the leadership of the [[Syr-Tardush]] tribe which allied with the Chinese [[Sui]] Empire in 603 CE to defeat [[Tardu Khan]] and win their independence. This alliance existed with varying degrees of autonomy from 603 CE until 630 CE when the Göktürk Khanate was decisively defeated by the Emperor [[Tang Taizong]]. During this time the Uyghur occupied second position after the [[Syr-Tardush]] in the alliance. In the interum between the first and second Göktürk Khanates (630 -683 CE) the Uyghur toppled the Syr-Tardush and declared their independence. Then a second Göktürk Khanate was established during the reign of [[Empress Wu of Zhou|Empress Wu]]. The Uyghur were again put under the [[Turkic peoples|Turk]]s. After a series of revolts coordinated with their Chinese allies, the Uyghur emerged as the leaders of a new coalition force called the "[[Toquz Oghuz]]". In 744 CE the Uyghur, together with other subject tribes (the [[Basmil]] and [[Kharlukh]]), defeated the Göktürk Khanate and founded the [[Uyghur Empire]] at Mount [[Ötüken]]. ===Imperial Era=== Propery called the '''On Uyghur , Toquz-Oghuz Orkhon Khanate''', the [[Uyghur Empire]] stretched from the Caspian Sea to Manchuria and lasted from 745 to 840. It was administered from the imperial capital [[Ordu Baliq]]. The first city built in Mongolia. During the imperial phase 'Uyghur' came to mean any citizen of the Uyghur Empire, and not just a member of the Uyghur tribe. After the [[Battle of Talas]], although they could have conquered the [[Tang Dynasty|Tang Empire]], they choose instead to use an exploitative trade policy to drain off the wealth of China without actually destroying it. In return they policed the borders and quelled internal rebellions. Large numbers of [[Sogdian]] refugees came to Ordu Baliq to escape the Islamic Jihad in their homeland. It was from them the Uyghur were converted from Buddhism to Manicheianism. The Uyghurs thus inherited the legacy of Sogdian Culture. In 840 CE, following a famine and a civil war, the Uyhgur Empire was overrun by the [[Kirghiz]], another Turkic people. The result was that the majority of tribal groups formerly under the umbrella of the Uyghurs migrated to what is now north western China, especially modern [[Xinjiang]] Uyghur Autonomous region. ===Post-Imperial Era=== The Uyghur refugees joined by other Turkic tribal groups living in [[Dzungaria|Zungaria]] and the [[Tarim Basin]], established three states in the Tarim Basin merging with the local populations of Tocharians (or Tokharians, whose language was Indo-European). It is probable that, [[genetics|genetic]]ally and culturally, modern Uyghurs descend from the nomadic Turkic tribes, and the Indo-European-speaking groups who preceded them in the Tarim Basin oasis-cities as well as Mongols from Mongolia . Today one can still see Uyghurs with light-coloured skin and hair. Modern studies have found that modern Uyghur populations represent an admixture of eastern and western Eurasian [[mtDNA]]<ref> http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/12/2265.pdf</ref> and [[Y chromosome]]<ref> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/18/10244</ref> lineages. It is at this time 'Uyghur' can be used as an ethnic designation.

• Gurdjieff, please remember to use a concise way of planting those images again, standardizing all instead of letting them vary between 100-300px like some editors do, defeats the purpose of having them as thumbnails (thumb) in the first place. OR, you could focus on the content and let me fix them image files instead? --Dave1185 (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"phenotypes"

I restored the word "phenotype" and added "gallery of": while talking of "Uyghur phenotypes" when people are shown might be seen as "degrading," adding the word "gallery of" makes it clear that the people themelves are not meant.

The rationale for the word "phenotype" is as follows: it makes it clear that the introdcution to this article is supposed to be (or become) a distanced, scienific/anthropological study of the group (this "distant observer"-position is not degrading, but dispassionate, and could indeed be seen as "cold"). This seems to be a better approach than the previous version of the first section, which by its nature invited nationalistic, emotional rants which were either "glorifying" -- or indeed "degrading." Seb az86556 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of Uyghur phenotypes?

The elegant and thoughtful note above on "phenotypes" is much appreciated and sounded at first glances very plausible, but I find myself, unfortunately, and with respect, still unable to agree with User:Seb az86556. I have several reasons for my position:

I believe the article already has enough about race for a general article on Uyghurs without also featuring a special gallery of "phenotypes" which I believe only serves to highlight racial differences. Furthermore, the photos in the gallery are too small to see properly - so they are not even of much use in clarifying "phenotypes" unless one is interested enough to click on and magnify each photo separately - and how many people can we expect to do that?

More importantly, though, I think that just having a "gallery of phenotypes" highlights differences in facial characteristics and brings attention to any "racial" characteristics or differences there might be without seeing the whole person or the personality as expressed through the photos. I don't know of any other similar article which has such a formal gallery of phenotypes, even though they, too, may well be of mixed ancestry and exhibit distinctive types of faces. I just really don't see the need to emphasise this here. Anyone looking at the photos will be able to spot such differences but may prefer to just enjoy the photo without having to see it as an example of facial and racial "type".

I feel that previously, when many of the photos were scattered about the article larger and easier to see, they not only had a more immediate impact, and made the page decorative and inviting, they allowed one to get some appreciation that these are real human people, people one might really like and be pleased to make friends with. Not only that, they are shown in interesting and varied clothes and doing some interesting things, illustrative of modern Uyghur life. I do think such fine photos are wasted as thumbnail images.

I would like to return the article to something similar to its previous layout. I would be very grateful, though, if others have serious objections, that they would discuss them here before I do anything. Thanks for you attention and consideration, Respectively yours, John Hill (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections to that suggestion. Indeed, I must've had the same initial thought in mind, but didn't want to be so bold as to eliminate the entire gallery without consultation. The magnitude of pictures is indeed quite "crushing," and I haven't come across anything like it in most other anthropology articles. When I re-inserted "phenotype" I was merely trying to (sort of, for lack of a better word) "contextualize" it; and maybe "soften the blow" of what seems to be a message of "Hey, look at the Uyghurs, wonderful people... and they have cool hats, too."

Having said that, we could remember WP:NOTREPOSITORY and apply it in the broadest sense -- which at least indirectly includes "Wikipedia is not a gallery of images." With that in mind, one or two pictures should do, and we could X the whole thing. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(Also, considering the long rants the picture of the "blonde Uyghur girl" have spawned (see above section), wouldn't it be more accurate/sensible to provide a map showing the main settlement-areas? (I realize that's a different issue, but its' somewhat related)))Seb az86556 (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi look when I created the gallery of phenotypes it was avoid all the rants, like the now infamous "blonde Uyghur girl", by creating a space to showcase diversity. then everyone could stick up their picture of what a Uyghur is "supposed" to look like and avoid long edit wars. for this reason I placed it in the genetics section - to illustrate the text. an image of a phenotype to match the description of a genotype. the people are of different ages, genders, ect.--Gurdjieff (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetics Section

The Uyghur (UIG) population, settled in Xinjiang, China, is a population presenting a typical admixture of Eastern and Western anthropometric traits. We dissected its genomic structure at population level, individual level, and chromosome level by using 20,177 SNPs spanning nearly the entire chromosome 21. Our results showed that UIG was formed by two-way admixture, with 60% European ancestry and 40% East Asian ancestry. Overall linkage disequilibrium (LD) in UIG was similar to that in its parental populations represented in East Asia and Europe with regard to common alleles, and UIG manifested elevation of LD only within 500 kb and at a level of 0.1 < r2< 0.8 when ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) were used. The size of chromosomal segments that were derived from East Asian and European ancestries averaged 2.4 cM and 4.1 cM, respectively. Both the magnitude of LD and fragmentary ancestral chromosome segments indicated a long history of Uyghur. Under the assumption of a hybrid isolation (HI) model, we estimated that the admixture event of UIG occurred about 126 [107146] generations ago, or 2520 [21402920] years ago assuming 20 years per generation. In spite of the long history and short LD of Uyghur compared with recent admixture populations such as the African-American population, we suggest that mapping by admixture LD (MALD) is still applicable in the Uyghur population but 10-fold AIMs are necessary fora whole-genome scan. Complete text from the article by The American Society of Human Genetics [21].

Seb az86556, do you have something against me? Why did you undo [22] my revision without checking the history [23] or checking the original referenced article [24]? I didn't change the text but reverted changes that were made to it. If you had looked at the history you would have seen that ip 166.204.211.12 changed European ancestry into Caucasian ancestry and added Southwest and Central Asia to the parental populations. He does have a point (European ancestry is misleading and Europe and East Asia don't include the central and southwest Asian ancestry the Uyghurs have) for doing this but it isn't what the article says as you can see in the above cursive text. The original text says European ancestry not Caucasian and only gives Europe and East Asia as parental populations. Either use the text without altering it or don't use it at all (which is my preference).

What I wanted to explain later on the talk page is why ip 166.204.211.12 was sort of right for changing European into Caucasian and adding central and southwest Asia to the parental populations. I actually did a lot of reading on this subject because to me it was odd that Uyghurs comprised 60% European and 40% East Asian ancestry only. It is impossible that they only have these two ancestries because Arabian (Semitic) traders have settled among the Uyghurs and they had a long history with the Aramaic Assyrian (Semitic) Nestorian Christians from whom they adapted their script. Several studies [25] give a percentage ranging between 10% to 25% of Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) among the Uyghur. Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) is a Southwest Asian/Semitic haplogroup and doesn't belong to the European or eastern Asian ancestry groups. Also I thought "European" was used incorrectly because the indo-Iranian groups who are among the ancestors of the Uyghurs aren't Europeans but indo-Europeans which is something totally different. I wondered why this legitimate source gave seemingly faulty information and found out what was wrong.

What's wrong is that our (layman's) notion of European is different from the notion of European that is used in STRUCTURE [26], a Geographic Origin Test that was used in this study. In Geographic Origin Tests, SNP's are clustered together into large biogeographic regions. These large biogeographic regions are:

• Native American: Populations that migrated from Asia to inhabit North, South and Central America.
• European: European, Middle Eastern and South Asian populations from the Indian subcontinent, including India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
• East Asian: Japanese, Chinese, Mongolian, Korean, Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander populations, including populations native to the Philippines.
• African: Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa such as Nigeria and Congo region.

Some Geographic Origin Tests give slightly different names to the cluster groups and some have an additional fifth (Oceania) or a sixth (Kalash) cluster group but all are approximately the same [27]. You can find more info about the methods used in this study on [28], [29]. My problem with this method is that it is not really fit to be used for human history use and there is a lot of criticism [30] on the STRUCTURE clusters method. Geographic Origin Tests/Clusters Studies are mostly used in medicine and for forensic purposes. For example if the police has a DNA sample of the perpetrator of a crime, they can find out whether the perpetrator is Caucasian, African, Native American or East Asian. Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups (Patrilineal) and Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup (matrilineal) are much more suited for human history uses and are the methods used in anthropological/historical use. The person who replaced two perfectly good studies ([31] (MTDNA) and [32] (Y-DNA) with much more useful information with the current confusing misleading text made a big mistake (or did it on purpose). At least if you were going to use the STRUCTURE study, you should have left the 2 original MTDNA and Y-chromosome studies and you also should have made clear that European meant something totally different than what people normally understand under European. European here means much more than Europe, even more than indo-European or Caucasian as it also comprises (Arabic, Syriac) Semitic groups and dark skinned peoples like Dravidian Indian peoples. When people read Europe they think of Europeans not of Iranians, Arabs, Pakistani’s, Indian’s etc, so you should make it clear that European in the context of Geographic Origin Tests/Cluster Studies means more than just the Europeans.

When I made the blonde Uyghur girl section there was only the picture of the blonde Uyghur girl and the three little girls on the marketplace (two of whom had light colored eyes). My objection was that if people saw these two pictures they might think that that was how Uyghurs looked like because at that time only one of the four depicted people looked Asian/middle eastern, especially if they also read the STRUCTURE study calling Uyghurs Europeans. I hope people understand better now what I meant. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing personal, and nothing "against" you, I don't even know you. I have become sick of various people warring over that section w/o giving any explanation first. You've given your explanation. Excellent. Now I can send anyone who challenges your changes to this section, which makes it easier. Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto. Another thing for you Ibrahim, when I tagged the "Genetics" section with a {{Who?}} template, it was because of a weasel word being in use there, read Wikipedia:Words to avoid & Wikipedia: Avoid weasel words. Now, I have to say that I don't doubt your good intention of improving the article here but you have to be specific in stating the source, otherwise someone else beside me can challenge you to that, anytime. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is a Free Online Encyclopedia and not everyone are as bright as we are, so we have to be very clear about what we write, a simple shift in the choice of word can help avoid all this. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the rewrite, Seb... and as the saying goes, clarity has its virtue! --Dave1185 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see this kinda style throughout... after all, we're only reporting and summarizing, not stating facts. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ibragim wrote: "When I made the blonde Uyghur girl section there was only the picture of the blonde Uyghur girl and the three little girls on the marketplace (two of whom had light colored eyes). My objection was that if people saw these two pictures they might think that that was how Uyghurs looked like because at that time only one of the four depicted people looked Asian/middle eastern..."

Does everyone understand why the gallery of phenotypes exists now? it is for exactly these kind of issues.--Gurdjieff (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's settled. Just leave it. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for me it is not settled yet. I'm sorry for being a pain in the ass but I have to somehow re-incorporate in the article the original two Y-DNA [33] and MTDNA [34] studies which were deleted and replaced [35] on 19 July 2008 by the STRUCTURE cluster study [36] published by the American Journal of Human Genetics. I will leave the STRUCTURE study in the article because in its present form it is no longer misleading even though it doesn't really give that much useful information regarding Uyghur ancestry besides that the Uyghurs are an mixture of western and eastern ancestry as most people familiar with the Uyghurs already knew. It does give useful information on how long ago this mixing occurred (approx 2500 years ago).

As I already said before, I would rather not have had this STRUCTURE cluster study replace the much more useful Y-DNA and MTDNA studies that at least differentiated between the various ancestral peoples in the Europe and East Asian clusters. Haplogroups are also more useful for the study of population history because the patrilineal or matrilineal haplogroups don't change through the generations of one's ancestry. You belong to the same haplogroup as your patrilineal forefather did a thousand years ago. This method is off course faulty in that you might for example have had a single African ancestor among your hundreds of western European ancestors but that this particular African individual just happens to be your fathers, fathers......father and this makes that you belong to an Y-DNA haplogroup which occurs almost exclusively in Africa while you might be milky white with blonde hair and blue eyes, not representing all your hundreds of other ancestors who just happen to be not your direct patrilineal ancestor but together make most of your genetic make-up. This is why Geographic Origin Tests based on SNP cluster groups are preferred over Y-DNA or MTDNA haplogroup tests by the forensic police and medicinal analysts. This feature of the Y-DNA and MTDNA haplogroups is for the same reason why it is useless in forensic studies very useful in human history because it can show historical migrations of haplogroups that happened centuries/millennia ago and it can give more detailed information who comprises the ancestry of modern ethnic groups such as the Uyghurs.Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Seb az86556 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole section was blatantly and shamelessly plagiarized from the source; copying a paper's entire abstract (even including the "we" at the end) without putting it in quotation marks is not acceptable. I've removed the section, and until someone who understands plagiarism guidelines is willing to write a real summary of it (and hopefully of other relevant literature, rather than just one random study) this whole discussion is moot. This plagiarism issue is not even a style disagreement, it's a rule; if anyone re-inserts the section in plagiarized form, it should be immediately reverted and the editor should be given a stern warning. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To Ibrahim4048: Hi, I've read what you wrote and I'd like to correct you on a couple of statements that you claimed to be 'facts', first of all the tocharians are in noway indo-IRANIAN as they have migrated to tarim basin from eastern europe/northern caucasus, and are consiidering as being of EUROPEAN type or Indo-EUROPEAN in a genral term as you might find on the hundreds of mummies that have been unearthed in the last few decades, they've all(Tocharian mummies) posses European features i.e coloured hair and physical appearance, their weaving style and a big chunk of their remains have been identified as being closest to the CELTIC tribes, which is why the study clearly states 60% is identical to the WESTERN European population, and if you read the article a little more thoroughly you would've noticed that the admixture occured at about 2500 years ago, which excludes the possibility of the chinese when refering to east asian population (according to the historical sources the chinese haven't stepped foot on the region at that time). Another thing I'd like to express my concern about is you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the Tajiks, which puts me in doubt as to whether you yourselve is somehow persian and might have a biased opinion on the matter (pardon me if I'm wrong of course), though the recent influx of tajiks into the region was the result of the russian persucution of the tajiks of tajikistan, same would go for other central asian population residing in the region such as kazakhs and kyrgyz they were mostly driven out of their land and seeked refuge in the region, and if you do some research you would find that a LOT if not majority of tajiks have traces of east asian i.e turkic admixture, you might even see it in the slight slant in their eyes, just like the blonde girl she CLEARLY has east asian like shape of the eyes AND the rounded shape of her face indicates the admixture. I also would like to stress that the appearance might be deceiving one might posses the mixture of DNA but might tend to get more of the physical appearence from one side than another, infact you will see this in mixed race families e.g. black and white parents produce two offsprings, one looks more white than black, the other more black than white, its an everyday scenrario...So by the way you judge the situation seems very biased because you don't tend to look at different possiblities and tend to stick to one conclusion that you assumed is right. More over you have a limited access to the Uyghurs themselves, I for instants knew quite a few blonde, coloured eyed Uighurs, you might also look at the situation in the region present day, fact that a lot of uyghurs are denied passports, and (very controversial, i know) china could have a hidden agenda to portray Uyghurs as more east asian and have an institutional racism in place, such as if you're more east asian looking you have more chances in life including going abroad, which explains why dont really meet as many abroad (this could be supported by the basic human psychology of trust instict, one would be more likely to trust a strange person if he had more of some kind of resemblance rather than non at all)...For you to truly see the real picture you should travel ACROSS the region, notice i've highlighted across and not just one place in the region. And to understand Albert van La Coq you again need to refer back to the mixing process that ive explained above, one does not look identical if he has types of races flowing in his genes...And as for you're claim that he might have mistaken the ethnicties of the people than i think you will find that there are virutally no tajiks nor any other indo-iranian group residing in turpan, and the only place where the tajiks live is tashkurghan which borders tajikistan which i think is self explanatory that the tajiks have actually moved accrossed the border in order to escape the persecution forn the russians. And one last thing its not misrepresnative to show a blonde, blue eyed uighur girl from turpan, infact its represntative of those uyghurs who have been left aside just like her, one reads encyclopedia to gain knowledge about a subject, so why not start with details that would fascinate and encourage one to find out more and expand his or her intellect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.63.233 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)