Talk:Uyghurs/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Uyghurs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
IPA pronunciation
I've seen a lot of discussion on the proper Romanisation/Anglicisation, but nothing involving an IPA transliteration of the proper translation. This would be greatly beneficial and much more useful than any non-standardised Romanisation/Anglicisation. --Harel Newman 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I second. Rwflammang (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Huns Yenesian?
In the History- Pre-Imperial section someone wrote that the Huns were Yenesian. Where does that come from? Isn't it more widely believed now that they were Altaic, probably Turkic? --Sukkoth 14:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)
yeah I'm put it up there here is the source Vovin, Alexander. "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language?". Central Asiatic Journal 44/1 (2000), pp. 87-104. ISSN: 0008-9192 The basic idea is that the "hun" Xiongnu were a yenesian aristocray over a vast turkic and khitan vassal tribes who put the "nu" in "xiongnu" were turkic tribes part of the state? yes. did they rule it? probably not. Is it accurate to say the Uyghurs are Huns if they were a vassal tribe? in that case, they would have to Rouran, Hepthalite, and Gokturk as well.--Gurdjieff (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
umm... to post 'basic idea's i.e. speculative theory as fact. Will someone edit this? There should be a group of real academic moderators, or quoted sources on wikipedia, this is becoming a opinionated message board. Unless you have a degree or are in the field please refrain from posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.154.23 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
okay I removed it, you're the boss--Gurdjieff (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ooops didn't mean to cause any acrimony, I was just wondering--actually Gurdjieff, that reference does sound interesting, if a bit speculative. Well, that's all, --Sukkoth 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)
Please don't kill me
I completed the merge from the older version of history. I fixed the errors and made it match the related articles on Tile, and Dingling so that everything is consistent. I think it needs some copy editing. So far I've finished the pre-impeial section which the most poorly researched, understood, and documented phase of history. Everything is factually correct, except the date of Tokuz-Oguz formation, which is unknown. But I think some fine tuning for clairty and readability would help a lot.
next:
- add imperial section
- update maps
--Gurdjieff (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I added an a quick and dirty SVG map to replace the badly pixelated one. I shall improve upon it later. I also moved the gokturk map here:
for storage since it isn't really about the uyghurs, their territory during the gokturk reign is indicated by the tiele bubble on the map.
Someone wanted to keep all the images at 150px but the map needs to be larger to be legible so I left it at 400px please don't kill me for it.--Gurdjieff (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a sample of music, this is the first audio file I have ever tried so it may not be right. maybe we can build a gallery of sounds later--Gurdjieff (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Last call
After today, I would start to remove all the sections or sentences with weasel words added that are not backed by any reliable sources for referencing. If any of you should find a reliable source to back them for us to verify, you are more than welcome to reinstate the removed portions. Thanks! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Chronology
In the section Pre-Imperial (c 300 BCE–745 CE)period it says:" In 744 CE taking advantage of the power shift caused by the Battle of Talas, the Uyghur, with their Basmyl and Qarluq allies, under the command of Qutlugh Bilge Köl, defeated Göktürks..."
Well Uyghurs defeated Göktürks in 744 and Battle of Talas was in 751. How can the power shift be caused by the battle which would be fought 7 years later. (Remember we are talking about AD and not BC)
Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
BCE/CE changed to BC/AD
Personally, I dislike this kind of bullying. I note that the article in September 2008 was consistently using the BCE/CE convention. The apparent inconsistency of conventions in the current version has been purposefully induced. I'd be inclined to think that this is not a particularly Christian subject.--Wetman (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ouigours
I am reading Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades part 1, and on p. 59 he says, apparently referring to the seventh to tenth centuries, that outlying Turkish peoples, such as the Khazars or the "Nestorian Christian Ouigours, later established on the frontier of China, showed themselves adaptable and capable of cultural progress." I tried looking up Ouigours in Wikipedia without success, but according to the Beijing Review http://www.bjreview.com/xj/2009-07/09/content_206383_2.htm the Uighurs were originally called Ouigours. If this is correct, I think it should be covered and a redirect added for people who search on Ouigours. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Text on sexual mores, etc. Review needed from an Administrator?
I was just doing some minor editing - mainly capitalization of proper nouns - when I noticed that large slabs of text had recently been removed by one editor and then replaced by another. This text seems to refer mainly to prostitution, homosexuality and so on. Now, I am far from being a prude, but I wonder how pertinent (not to mention how accurate) all this detailed information is in a Wikipedia article? Could someone with the requisite knowledge and position please review this matter? It seems to me that there may be some hidden agenda here. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- My attention was also brought to this matter, by an editor alerting me to the removal of referenced text. My conclusion, after consideration, was that there needed to be a consensus for the retention of this data, with reference to applicable policy and guideline. It is my belief that it being able to be referenced is not sufficient reason and that other criteria need also be satisfied. I commented to the editor that the text should be removed until there was consensus for its conclusion and, as an admin, I suggest that this be done unless someone is able to provide a good reason why not in very short order. In any event, there needs to be consensus - perhaps by a WP:RfC - for it to remain in the long term. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- We don't need an administrator to review this; I took out the two passages regarding women's pre-marital promiscuity and the thing about selling their daughters. These are generalizing statements made about an entire group of people, each based on a single source. I think the stuff about the emperor can stay, as he's only one person, and is thus not generalizing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is the well known agenda of extreme nationalists, such as in the history of the page Prostitution in South Korea and similar articles, to expunge any information of sexuality, miscegenation, etc. from the articles of their people. Far from being solely prurient additions as you imply, the information restored here seems to have independent justification, if not context. (1) is about laws enforcing racial segregation in the Tang dynasty; forbidding interethnic marriages was but a byproduct of that. (2) is about Uyghur marriage customs; marriageable ages, etc. (3) is not about "homosexuality" but a political and romantic relationship between a Ming emperor and a Uyghur leader, both of whom just happened to be men. (4) relates to the historical exploitation of Uyghur migrants. The sources for these additions do not seem to be of a lower standard than the existing references, and the additions are not very long or detailed. Quigley (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've just given a level-2 warning to the guy who wants to remove it all without commenting; I agree (1) and (3) can stay. I am, as I said above, skeptical about (2) and (4). Let's wait and see if that SPI bothers to say anything. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
NEWS
Chinese authorities say a 19-year-old woman with an ethnic Uighur background has confessed to taking part in a failed terrorist attack on an airplane traveling from Urumqi to Beijing.
the current event tag is not needed
removing it, and adding the following to the appropiate section below, plus edited sentence to be more npov
sign your posts;Wikipedia:Signatures#How_to_sign_your_posts. 23sports (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Chinese View only
This article should be names "Chinese view of Uighurs" not the Uighur People. While talking about Uighurs, no Uighur view is presented or cited. Initially this article offered relatively balanced view of central Asian Uighurs. Now this article is converted into china centric article directly cut and pasted from Chinese communist propaganda. Slandering Uighurs as “small tribe” , disassociating the link between Huns (xiongnu) and Uighurs, minimizing information regarding mighty empire Uighur empire that rescued Tang Chinese dynasty, avoiding the link between Tocharian and more than half Caucasoid Uighurs by citing claims by Victor Mair (who is not a historian) represented more of a chinese view not accepted Uighurs . I will provide evidence of bias in my next visit. Hungarian new (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Rioting in Xinjiang
"Uighur rioters burned bus passengers alive, he told the class, and they raped women and decapitated children, displaying their heads on a highway median." Should this incident be mentioned? --95.34.1.57 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Source? You need reliable sources. 23sports (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
too long
This page is 71 kilobytes long, readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB. The history section is too long, there is already the History of Xinjiang article(38 kilobytes long), some of the material in this section can be moved to History of Xinjiang. 23sports (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- While I agree that the page is too long, I don't quite agree with your suggestion for fixing it. The history of the Uyghur people is not necessarily the history of Xinjiang, nor is the history of Xinjiang necessarily the history of Uyghurs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have created a new article-History of the Uyghur people. 23sports (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's recent additions
I have removed this set of edits. From what I can tell, it misrepresents what is stated in sources (for instance, the first sentence claims that Russians "created" the Uyghur identity, whereas the source only says that they were the first to recognize Uyghurs by name and "played a role" in the development of Uyghur identity; [Gladney, Dru C. (2004). "The Chinese Program of Development and Control, 1978–2001". In S. Frederick Starr. Xinjiang: China's Muslim borderland. M.E. Sharpe] has a more in-depth discussion of the development of Uyghur identity). Furthermore, to be frank it's quite poorly written; it's just a long list of sources and short snippets, not clearly organized in any way. If this edit is to be restored, it needs to be rewritten in an organized way so that its points are clear, and it needs to be worded in such a way that 1) it doesn't misrepresent the sources; and 2) it attributes views to sources rather than stating them as undisputed fact. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with removing this series of edits until they are better formulated, more well-written and presented with less POV. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Rjanag. Zero western sources before and during the 1930s even mentioned the name "Uighur", when talking about xinjiang. In "News from Tartary: A Journey from Peking to Kashmir", written by Peter Fleming (writer), who personally traveled in Xinjiang around 1936-37, only the word "Turki" is used. typing in "uyghur" will get no results, neither will "uighur"
Peter Fleming (1999). News from Tartary: A Journey from Peking to Kashmir. Evanston Illinois: Northwestern University Press. pp. 326, 327. ISBN 0810160714. Retrieved 2010-06-28. {{cite book}}: Invalid |nopp=384 (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
- I never disputed that point. I was raising issues about the wording of your addition, not the historical facts. Please consider that rather than changing the subject. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- What ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ wrote was close to the source, which says: "The construction of modern Uyghur ethnic identity was initiated in Russian Central Asia. The Uyghurs were recognized for the first time as a nation by the Soviet state during the period of national delimitation and demarcation in Central Asia in the early 1920s." If that's different than "creating" the Uyghur identity, then I would like to know how. While the tone of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's writing can be incautiously authoritative, it is no more authoritative than the unsourced writing of the rest of the article. I can see a renaming of the section to "Naming", and an attribution to scholars of statements you think are controversial, but this addition is a net positive to the article, and objections to specific claims within it can be handled individually rather through a blanket revert. Quigley (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- And Rjanag, I did not use the word "identity" anywhere. I wrote "The Soviet Communists were responsible for creating the modern Uyghur ethnic nationality and the Uyghur Nationalist movement", not, "Uyghur identity"
- and In the other part, I merely noted that "The original idea of applying the term "Uyghur" to the muslims of Xinjiang came from the Russian Empire's academics"
- Nowhere did I say that the Russians created the Uyghur identity. I wrote that they came up with the idea/suggestion for applying the name.
- Thats true, since it was first during the Soviet census of 1926 in which Uyghur was listed as an option (to choose as a nationality, obviously
- No census in Xinjiang before 1934 ever contained a "Uyghur nationality". It was introduced by Sheng Shicai in 1934/1935 under Soviet direction, when "Uyghur" was an option to choose as a nationality. Claiming that I wrote "uyghur identity" was created by the Soviets is a misrepresentation of my edits.
- and I also attributed the view to the source in one part of my edit- " Scholars like Joana Breidenbach say that the Yugur's culture, language, and religion, is closer to the original culture of the original Uyghur Karakorum state, than the culture of the modern "Uyghur" people of Xinjiang" which is essentially what the source indicatesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Quigley's suggestion for improving this addition.
- ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, I apologize for misquoting your addition as being about "identity" as opposed to "nationality", that was hasty editing on my part. In any case, I think this would be a good distinction to make clear within the text, if the sources also do so.
- It is well known that there was not really a concept of a "Uyghur ethnic group" before the 20th century, so that is not what I was disputing about your addition. I was disputing the wording and the tone of it, which other editors have disputed as well. The writing could be vastly improved by following a few simple suggestions like Quigley's, removing opinionated buzzwords like "Soviet Russian Communists" (why not just "Soviets" or "Russians"?), removing unnecessary asides that don't contribute to the overall point and just sound spiteful (e.g. just "Sheng Shicai" instead of "the Chinese warlord Sheng Shicai", and removing entirely things like "perpetuating their Soviet made up history"), and just overall toning down the vitriol. The overall tone of what you wrote makes it sound as if you think the Uyghurs are a bunch of phonies. The facts described therein are true (that is to say, it's true that due to a historical accident what was once many different ethnic groups is now often treated as a single ethnic group, not only by the Chinese government--whose ethnic group classification is already not taken seriously--but by the group itself and most of the rest of the world as well), but there is no need for the article to sound so angry about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Now the added section contradicts the "history"-section: What is this article about? The people whose history is described, or the people who live in Xinjiang today? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It could be helpful to create a separate article for the Uyghurs (ancient people) and move all of the stuff relevant to the Uyghur Khaganate there. This article would retain some of that—but just enough to explain the founding myth for the modern ethnic classification. Quigley (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, the newly-added section even contradicts itself in places (no doubt the result of being cobbled together based on cherry-picked snippets of a bunch of sources, rather than from careful review of the literature), for instance it originally claimed that Russians called the Uyghurs "Sart" and a few paragraphs later claimed they called them "Turki". During my revisions of that addition I've tried to look into the sources supplied and reconcile those contradictions as much as possible, although I can't guarantee that I caught all of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sart refers to a certain class of people (sedentary merchant). Taranchi refers to a certain class (sedentary farmer settler in Ili) Turki referred to all the entire sedentary ethnic groups living in the oaseses. Turki includes Sart and Taranchi, it is possible for the same people to be called Sart and Turki at the same time, they can either be a merchant or a farmer. Any also the "Oasis identity" has been documented by scholars- the "Turki" would identify his ethnic group as his oasis- Kumulik, Kashgarlik.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Chinese View only
While talking about Uighurs, no Uighur view is presented or cited. Initially this article offered relatively balanced view of central Asian Uighurs. Now this article is converted into china centric article directly cut and pasted from Chinese communist propaganda. This article slandering Uighurs “small tribe” , disassociating the link between Huns (xiongnu) and Uighurs, minimizing information regarding mighty empire Uighur empire that rescued Tang Chinese dynasty, avoiding the link between Tocharian and more than half Caucasoid Uighurs by citing claims by Victor Mair who is not a historian. I will provide evidence of bias in my next visit. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungarian new (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please point out specifically the parts of the article that are directly cut-and-pasted from elsewhere? Plagiarism is a very serious issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- No historian has asserted that Modern Uyghurs have anything to do with Xiongnu. Not even the ancient Uyghur Khaganate has had any proven links to the Xiongnu. If we want to purge alleged "communist propaganda" from the article, then this article would have been moved to "Turki people", and references to "Uyghur" deleted, since it was communists who came up with applying that name, and still are today.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Uyghurs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and general unsourcedness
Although the statement on the intro lacks sources, there are certainly numerous sources on this. Also, I'm adding Turkey back in: it's pretty clear that there has been a large Uyghur community since the early days of the PRC. Here's a source that puts it in the thousands, but I'm sure there are plenty more. It's a pretty uncontroversial fact, but we need sources for it. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 09:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I replaced "large" with "significant" since SecularHumanist1789 apparently wants to use some random arbitrary number in order to determine what "large" is. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are definitely Uyghurs in Turkey, but I'm not sure the population is that big; I have it at just several hundred (personal communication with a Uyghurologist colleague, I will try to give you the actual source tonight if I have time to dig it up). I think it's worthwhile to mention, but we should avoid making it seem like there are more than there really are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- "There are conflicting accounts of the number of Uyghurs in Turkey, since no official data is publicly available. Some estimate their number at more than fifty thousand.... Uyghur interviewees tend to agree on a more modest number, of more than five thousand Uyghurs arriving since 1949."
- From here. This makes clear that the number of Uyghurs in Turkey is pretty significant, although can't give an actual number. Although this article has problems, it should definitely at least mention Turkey as a significant home to Uyghurs. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 09:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are definitely Uyghurs in Turkey, but I'm not sure the population is that big; I have it at just several hundred (personal communication with a Uyghurologist colleague, I will try to give you the actual source tonight if I have time to dig it up). I think it's worthwhile to mention, but we should avoid making it seem like there are more than there really are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There are definitely more than 10,000 Uyghurs living in Turkey where as number of Uyghurs in Afghanistan are negligible. If you don't even let me post on the talk page, I will contact the main Admin. I won't stop editing the Uyghur People until the truth about he Uyghurs is told.UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Posting here for review, and possible reinclusion later
Other suggestions are:-
- "United Nine Tribes," a replacement for Tokuz-Oguz the tribal alliance of which the Uyghurs were part.[1]
- Another suggested etymology is a composite of quick (Turkic:uigy) and man (Turkic:er/ir/ur) for Quick People.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 July 2011
Name of ethnic group debate during the 19th century
http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA173#v=onepage&q&f=false
A sketch of the Turki language by Robert Shaw
In the Turkish of Kashghar and Yarkand (which some European linguists have called Uighur, a name unknown to the inhabitants of those towns, who know their tongue simply as Turki), we can obtain a glimpse backwards at a state of the language when the noun (which in Western Turkish is almost inflected) was but a rude block, labelled if necessary by attaching other nouns, &c, to show its relation to the...
http://books.google.com/books?id=dw7gAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vj1bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZT1bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false
China's Opperession of Uyghurs
Now this is a very important topic. Uyghurs have been oppressed by the Chinese Communistic Regime for a long time. This heavily effected Uyghur people's lives and shaping there spirits. Examples of that is me and a lot of others that I know of. So whenever there is talk about Uyghurs there should a topic on this matter. I will collect some materials and start working on this topic and edit the page ASAP. Hope you all support me in this matter. Please Chinese editors.Cheers! UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Mairism
Stop with the revisionist fad of inserting select Mair quotes into every Xinjiang related topic as to claim your favorite blonde-blue Nordic supermen were the founders of every civilization- or less depraved, that the Uighur are somehow overwhelmingly Caucasoid and thus directly related to the Tocharians who were not (purely) Caucasoid, not Muslim, and not Turkic speakers. Who were also quite evidently routed and chased away from Xinjiang by the Uighur Khaganate. I am citing a source in which Mair is credited, which directly contradicts (older) claims of "East Asians" only being invaders from 3,000 years BP. The puerile "Caucasoid/Aryan/Celtic/Nordish/Irish" vs. "East Asian" type of Nazi Germany history does not belong anywhere in any topic relating to Xinjiang (or Xiyu as it was called in the Han Dynasty). Huaxia (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Mair quote about when East Asians may have arrived in Xinjiang is not directly relevant to Uyghurs, nor is the other study about East Asian and Eurasian traces in mummies, so I have gone ahead and removed them both, which ought to be an acceptable compromise. I left the quotation that is directly relevant to the article, about when Mair thinks Uyghurs arrived in the region. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looks much better. Huaxia (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that late researches suggest ancestry contribution of the Uyghurs is <East Asian : European> = <44%:56%>. If you interested more check this link:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/10
UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments from UyghurSpeaksForUyghur
I completely agree with the User Hungarian new. This article is purely a Chinese view. As it was edited by the Chinese admin Rjanag who claimed to be a native English speaker. It was put to the History of Uyghurs Wrongly by the wikiprojects. There are many books about Uyghurs. Many of the history books about Uyghurs are banned in China. That all because China wants claim that Uyghurs homeland always belonged to China where in fact that is not true. China has lots of paid works to edit these pages.UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not Chinese. (And, to be perfectly honest, I am quite sick of nationalist Chinese editors insisting that I'm Uyghur and nationalist Uyghur editors insisting that I'm Chinese.)
- If you have specific comments about things in the article that you think should be changed, and can back them up with specific reliable sources to support them, then maybe we can discuss proving the article. Just saying "this article is wrong" is not very helpful. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
@Rjanag: First you don't have to do anything for the Uyghurs if you think that is what you are doing. You can delete this article completely and I will thank you on behalf of the Uyghur people. If needed I can organize groups of Uyghur people who can make a pledge that this article is only the Chinese view, came from Chinese sources. Second I can find a lot of reliable sources and I will. Just wait until I learn more about how this wikipedia thing works. If you are not Chinese then what is your nationality? Are you a historian? Why did you choose to contribute to Uyhurs and Chinese relate matters. How do you happened to speak Mandarin fluently? You don't have to answer. Although your name seems like an Indian name. I'm under the impression that you are getting paid to what you do on Wikipedia. I'm only caring that because this a website that millions of people view and trust. I don't want let them get the wrong information about us. I just can't understand why people can't let the Uyghurs introduce themselves, their own culture, religion and view. We weren't allowed to do that in our homeland and we are not being able to do that now outside China.UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- My nationality and my occupation are none of your business, although I make no attempt to hide these things, so it's probably possible to figure out if you read enough of my comments in previous discussions. (For what it's worth, if you must know, "Rjanag" is a Monguor word, although I am not Monguor.) I am not paid to edit Wikipedia and I hope you understand that saying someone is paid to edit Wikipedia is a serious accusation, one you should not make lightly about an editor you just met a couple hours ago and know nothing about. If you make any further veiled accusations like these, I will not respond to your messages any longer.
- As for Uyghurs "not being able" to edit Wikipedia, that is simply not true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as people follow the basic content rules. Your edits weren't removed because you're Uyghur, they were removed because the way in which they were written violates Wikipedia's content criteria; this was pointed out by several editors already. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- This article is extremely far from a neutral view, in the opposite way to what you think. In fact, it takes a rather promotional view of the Uyghurs, promoting them as progressive, secular, and moderate (such as by appealing to stereotypes about "Sufis" and by claiming that the Uyghurs are less patriarchal than the other Chinese Muslim peoples). This article even borders on puffery with such uncited quotes as "Uyghurs left a lasting imprint on both the culture and tradition of the people of central Asia", "The Uyghurs skilfully make things of silver and gold, vases and pitchers", and "Those who preserved the language and written culture of Central Asia were the Uyghurs". So yes, let's work towards making this article more neutral, but you may be unpleasantly surprised to find that a neutral article may not promote, and may even undermine your stated political agenda. Quigley (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually I don't really care what your nation, name or origin is. I only mention you because you have the administrative right deleting images and blocking users around. You said Chinese editors insists you that you are Uyghur. How does that make sense? I mean this whole page is about Uyghur people, Chinese people thinks you are Uyghur and their unhappy that you are writing about Uyghurs? As I said Uyghurs are not allowed to write or read history books except the ones written under Chinese Communistic regime. You are at least allowing me to express myself at the talks page and I thank you for that.
@Quigley, Once again thank you for helping to clarify my point. You see this page about Uyghurs are written by people like you with precisely your view you mentioned above. On the whole the main article is nothing promotional, its exactly the opposite. You got problems and its obvious, even if it was rather promotional, why can't you stand it? For your examples and quotes above, I strictly recommend you the book named "Life along the Silk Road" by Susan Whitfield. About Uyghur nationalism and many other facts I recommend the book "Rebiya Kadeer" by Alexandra Cavelius. I recommend you read books written by Uyghurists outside of China. Once you've read couple of books about Uyghur written by western writers you might come to think your "promotions" are not really promotions after all. I would be surprised if you didn't. UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I grew up being Uyghur man, the last I want is let the Chinese or any other people to tell me who I am and, explain my own culture to me!
It's fairly easy to find sources that contradicts a lot of the information on the page about Uyghurs People. I'm doing that on my spare time which I haven't got much as I'm little busy with my postgrad sudies. I think that whole page needs a big warning logo.UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC) UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I advise you not to comment on others' (presumed) ethnicity, political stances, or nationality in any way. Such comments are completely inappropriate here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right I shouldn't talk about all of those. I'm only doing it on the talks page whereas they are doing it on the main page. UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- UyghurSpeaksForUyghur: Again, you have not said anything specific about what you disagree with in the article. You can't just come here and say "this article is full of wrong stuff, fix it". Most of the editors here are interested in improving the article, but we can't do that unless you point to specific things that you think are incorrect.
- Also, it is not fair of you to think that only Uyghur people have any right to say anything about Uyghurs or Uyghur writers. Like I said above, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If someone has knowledge about the topic or access to reliable sources about the topic, they don't need to be Uyghur to edit articles about Uyghur people, culture, language, or other topics. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't mentioned anything specific, simply because there is too much. I get your point about that. I'm working on it. Thanks for reminding me the guidelines. Wikipedia policy does allow anyone to edit it. I still believe some should limit themselves when it comes to editing things related to others unless their professionals. I hope your definition of reliable sources is reliable. If you were to write write an essay about yourself(just one person) how much of it would you reference? and if I was editing your article that you wrote about yourself, eliminated your entries, replaced with my own entries from some other people's diaries because I didn't like the good things about you or for some other reasons, and published it for many people to see, how would you react? UyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uyghur Nationalism
About Uyghur nationalism and many other facts I recommend the book "Rebiya Kadeer" by Alexandra CaveliusUyghurSpeaksForUyghur (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Picture about the info box
We should make a collage with many different Uygur people like other Wikipedia entries on other nations have 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
population figure
So which one is it? 8 million and 21 million, there's quite a significant difference. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- The difference probably has to do with the fact that the former number comes from a statistically rigorous, transparent national census while the latter number was made up out of thin air. Shrigley (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Uyghurs complain that Chinese deliberately give lower numbers for their populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD54:6670:90BF:4941:F218:7472 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Tocharians
I noticed that the quote from a paper in the genetic history section made a lot out of the supposed link between Uyghurs an the Tocharians, but is there any actual proof that they were genetically linked specifically to the Tocharians as opposed to a general Causacian population? There appears to be a contradiction with the other paper with suggests the admixture occurred far earlier than the date when the Uyghurs moved to the region occupied by Tocharians. The section may need to be rewritten if there isn't actual proof, rather it is an just an assumption on the part of the author which may be erroneous. Hzh (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Kasgarlimahmut.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Kasgarlimahmut.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kasgarlimahmut.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
Xinjiang's uyghur population growth from the 1960s to 1982
This information should be added to the article
http://books.google.ca/books?id=K3XdB5o4VFAC&pg=PT99&dq="In+the+mid-1960s,+there+were+about+4+million+Uygurs+and+500+0 00+Kazaks.+By+1982,+the+Uygur+population+had+gr+ow n+to+almost+6+million,+and+Kazaks+numbered+ove+r+9 00000.+The+total+population+of+Xinjiang+in+1987++e xceeded+14+million"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tlAvT9vlH6qg0QWorNnlDQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q="In the mid-1960s%2C there were about 4 million Uygurs and 500 000 Kazaks. By 1982%2C the Uygur population had gr own to almost 6 million%2C and Kazaks numbered ove r 900000. The total population of Xinjiang in 1987exceeded 14 million"&f=false
Page 102
Title China's Geography: Globalization and the Dynamics of Political, Economic, and Social Change Changing Regions in a Global Context: New Perspectives in Regional Geography Series Authors Gregory Veeck, Clifton W. Pannell, Christopher J. Smith, Youqin Huang Edition 2, revised Publisher Rowman & Littlefield, 2011 ISBN 0742567842, 9780742567849 Length 400 pages
Kuoofra (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
illogical
"Uyghur resettled from Mongolia to the Tarim Basin, assimilating the Indo-European population, which had previously been driven out of the region by the Xiongnu" If the Xiongnu drove out the Arsi/Tocharians, how could they be in the Tarim Basin for the Uyghur to assimilate? 71.163.114.49 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Karakhanids
I don't know why it is repeated here that the Karakhanid Khanate was a Uyghur kingdom. I have read quite a few books on Central Asia and the Karakhanids, and none of them mention Uyghurs being a significant part of the Karakhanids. It was a confederation of mainly of Karluks, Chigils, Yaghmas. Unless there is some good source for this claim, it should not be be stated as a Uyghur kingdom. Hzh (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Aha, you are both right and wrong, and the people who claim the karakhanids called themselves uyghurs are wrong.
The modern uyghur people and the old uyghur people of thr uyghur khaganate are two different peoples. The old uyghurs became the Yugur, the modern uyghurs are indeed descendants of the karakahnids, but have little to do with the old uyghur people.
this source clears up the confusionKuoofra (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This source also says that the modern uyghurs are not direct descendants of the old uyghurs, and that the name of the old uyghurs was appropiated by the soviets for the modern ethnic group
http://books.google.com/books?id=F2SRqDzB50wC&pg=PA1143#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=F2SRqDzB50wC&pg=PA1145#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kuoofra (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Michael Dillon says there is no direct link between the ancient uighurs and modern uyghur.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kuoofra (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The kara khanid muslims were different from the buddhist uyghurs
http://books.google.com/books?id=6qs0Wy-Z2VkC&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kuoofra (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Turkic nationalists view on uyghur ethnicity
Masud sabri claimed that the hui were not an ethnic group, identifying them as han muslims and claimed that tajiks were turks. He also rejected the label "uyghur", and just claimed all turkic peoples in xinjiang were one turkic ethnic group. Both Masud Sabri and Muhammad Amin Bughra were turkic nationalists and they did not identify as uyghur, only as turkic. This should be noted in the section "origin of the modern nationality"
Rajmaan (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Historical chinese resettlements of turkic muslims (uyghur) in gansu and ili
Chinese settlement of turkic muslims from xinjiang in guazhou, gansu.
http://books.google.com/books?id=dk12I01qTPUC&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=dk12I01qTPUC&pg=PA181#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=dk12I01qTPUC&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA332#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=AzG5llo3YCMC&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA129#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA132#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DpeQhJ3hcwsC&pg=PA387#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chinese resettlement of turkic muslims (taranchi) from the tarim basin into ili
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA351#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false
In the aftermath, thousands of men, women and children were deported to the Hi valley, the headquarters of Chinese rule in Xinjiang, where they swelled the already large 'Taranchi' community. Pantusov's note is supported by a local author, ...
Page 229
In place of the Kalmuks, Chinese colonists and the taranchi settlers deported from the Tarim basin swarmed the country. Thus the Manchus finally achieved their goal, which was the leit motif of the policy of the Han,T'ang and Yuan dynasties, ...
Page 219
In place of the Kalmuks, Chinese colonists and the taranchi settlers deported from the Tarim basin swarmed the country. Thus the Manchus finally achieved their goal, which was the leit motif of the policy of the Han,T'ang and Yuan dynasties, ...
Page 202
... the vowels of stems harmonizing with those of suffixes, and these turned out to be most productive where progressive vowel harmony was least well developed ( viz. in Taranchi Tatar, or Hi Turki, deported to the Hi Valley of Xinjiang Province, ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=bBoTAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kuoofra (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Pictures
I made two changes regarding the pictures, and I thought it prudent to explain my reasoning here.
Firstly, I don't understand why the Turpan girl's picture was deleted off the page entirely- I agree, looking at this page's history, that it should never have been the picture in the infobox, because she's not necessarily representative of Uighurs as a whole, but that doesn't warrant deleting the picture entirely from the page, so I restored it to the gallery.
Secondly (and more importantly), along those lines, I don't think the previous picture of the boy in the Khotan market was good for the infobox either, because of his clothes. That's not a good cultural representation necessarily... so I replaced it with the girl form Melikawat, though most of the pictures on this page could work too. I moved the Khotan market boy's picture down to the gallery. --Yalens (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Ethnicities are about culture and they don't have to be connected to any physical characteristics. FonsScientiae (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's no proof that the blonde girl is Uyghur, and there's no proof that the redhead boy is Uyghur, except that somebody on Flickr tagged them as such. They don't look like the vast majority of Uyghurs in the region. In fact, in Turpan and Hami, the Uyghurs look more like Hans - sometimes indistinguishable from them - and not like Tajiks in the far west. Reliable sources note that Turpan Uyghurs face discrimination from Hotanliks for this reason! Hell, most Tajiks and Persians don't have blonde hair and blue eyes, so it's extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely that these people adhere to Uyghur culture.
- It's as if I photographed some random blonde American in China, labeled them as "Han Chinese" (they may have grown up in Chinese culture, who knows) and tried to pass them off as representative of Han people in an article. Except this analogy does not convey the disgusting racial supremacist arguments articulated by foreign supporters of Uyghur separatism; the erroneous representation of ancient Xinjiang mummies as "European" related to the previous; the absurdity of picking random people who we don't know self-identify with the ethnie to illustrate "Uyghurs" instead of notable people. Such blatantly misleading photographs cannot illustrate this article; the gallery must be removed. Shrigley (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Likewise, all the other pictures have no absolute proof of being Uighur. If you want to put up Rebiya Kadeer (or any other well-known Uighur, for that matter) as the article's only picture(s), be my guest, though I suspect many would oppose you. By the way, neither Uighur depicted in this article with colored hair looks particular European to me at all, so I highly doubt that either was put onto the article with that intent- assuming so would violate the rule of assuming could faith, wouldn't it? As a side note, in my analysis most "foreign supporters of Uighur separatism" do so for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with race or physical appearance. They only do so for political reasons. --Yalens (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Most Uighurs are most similar to other Central Asians (particularly Uzbeks), who have a wide range of appearances. It's true that it would be inaccurate to depict Uighurs as "white Europeans" and thankfully the article doesn't do so- and it would be just as bad (and politically controversial) to portray them as in any way indistinguishable from Han Chinese. --Yalens (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Minority education for the uyghur
The chinese government allows ethnic minorities like the uyghur to attend either uyghur or chinese schools. At the uyghur school, thry are allowed to observe islamic religious practices such as ramadan while forbidding it at chinese schools.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/china/100928/uighurs-border-culture-islam
Kathleen E. McLaughlinOctober 26, 2010 13:52Updated October 31, 2010 06:33
Borderland: All's not quiet on China's western front
They attend Chinese high school rather than Uighur school, hoping for an advantage in future studies and jobs. In making that choice, they lost the right to wear their head coverings and celebrate their religious holidays at school. Though they could ask for these things, their teachers don’t stop the clock on studies when the five-day Eid holiday rolls around
http://books.google.com/books?id=DMU8Ue0HECcC&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=4q53niG5MLIC&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=Jl_Zw9QzvxEC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=qlZQWWlPGssC&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false
A class of assimilated uyghurs who speak chinese are known as "chinese uighur".
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT8Yc994CuUC&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT8Yc994CuUC&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false
The chinese government encourages uyghurs to worship and practice islam.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT8Yc994CuUC&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Uyghur genetics
The uyghurs are approximately half east asian and half european in terms of genetics.
Page 225
http://books.google.com/books?id=7eyoacDdcIMC&pg=PT242#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/03/uyghurs-are-hybrids/#.UQVVZGt5lP4
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/yes-uyghurs-are-a-new-hybrid-population/#.UQVVaWt5mSM
Rajmaan (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
John Alexander Hammerton
In John Alexander Hammerton's book, he mentioned that the uyghur's languages was Yagatai and that their ethnic groups was Sart or Usbeg.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9qJmAFvg-80C&pg=PA4663#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://za.ebid.net/for-sale/c1920-turkistan-mother-child-yarkand-river-kashgar-lady-35528374.htm
This is another source for the nationality section.Rajmaan (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Most of the history section needs to be deleted
It is proven, through reliable sources that the modern uyghurs are descendants of the karluks while the Yugur people are descended from the Uyghur Khaganate. There are links all over the talk page and in the talk page archives.
All this stuff about the uyghur khaganate and uyghur kingdom in kocho and turfan needs to be deleted and moved to yugur people, while information from Karluk and Kara-Khanid Khanate needs to be moved here because thats who their ancestors were. It's not my opinion, its in the sources.
If you have an objection, you will need to bring reliable sources of your own to challenge the sources which say they are karluks.Rajmaan (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And before anyone thinks its Chinese communist propaganda, it was the Communist party which falsely continued to apply the name "uyghur" to the modern people and wrote histories connecting them to the uyghur khaganate and the kingdom in turfan. The fact that modern uyghurs are not descended from the uyghur khaganate has no bearing on politics (on separatism and independence), and in fact the false narrative that claims they are descended from the khaganate in fact hurts the separatism/independence movement because the Uyghur Khaganate never ruled the Tarim basin and most of Xinjiang, and the modern uyghurs real ancestors, the karluks/kara khanids have a history as long as the old uyghurs and the kara khanids actually ruled over the tarim.Rajmaan (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Evidence for modern uyghur descent from karluks
Old uyghur and modern uyghur are grouped as separate languages. The Western Yugur language is grouped under old uyghur and modern uyghur is grouped under chagatay
Modern uyghur separatist activists like Muhammad Amin Bughra and Masud Sabri themselves were against the name "uyghur", which they viewed as a soviet attempt to divide them from other turkic peoples, they instead called themselves "turki"
Modern uyghurs themselves never heard of the term until it was imposed on them
- Xinjiang: China's Muslim Far Northwest By Michael Dillon
- Xinjiang: China's Muslim Far Northwest By Michael Dillon
Scholars note that there is no direct link between modern and ancient uyghurs
The old uyghurs of gansu (ancestors of the Yugur people) were non muslim and in fact enemies of the muslim Kara Khanid karluks (ancestors of the modern uyghurs)
Much of the historical "work" connecting the modern uyghurs to ancient uyghurs were done by soviet and russian "historians" for political reasons
James A. Millward calls the uyghurs "Turkestani" in his book when referring to them before the 20th century. For the people during and after the 20th century he uses uyghur.
Uyghur is acknowledged to be an anachorism by scholars when referring to the modern people historically (its in the footnotes)
Rajmaan (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- You know, there are ethnic groups in the modern era, and there are ethnic groups in the ancient period and in everything in between. Drawing a straight line tracing "a people" from one time period to the next is always a tricky business. Even in seemingly simple cases like "the Greeks" there is a certain amount of handwaving. For many peoples, including the Uyghurs, I think it's fruitless to put much energy into tracing their history back into antiquity. So, I agree that we should remove almost everything from this article about the Uyghur Khaganate. I don't think we should replace it with material about Karluks. I think we should trace the Uyghurs back to the Taranchi populations living in Xinjiang when the Qing first established their rule in the area and leave it at that. In a section about language, we can mention theories on the classification of the Uyghur language, but let's bear in mind that language history and people history are not always the same thing.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- after the uyghur khaganate information gets blanked, then I will replace it with at least a sentence or a paragraph on historians noting they are of Karluk ancestry, and leave the already present information about the kara khanids, but that still leaves this massive error of an article which is linked in the section - History of the Uyghur people.
- That article needs to be split into two, from 'Pre-Imperial (300 BC– AD 745)' to 'AD 840 – 1600', it is a continuous history of the old uyghurs. From 'Mogulistan' to '1949–present', it describes a continuous histoy of the modern uyghurs. The article either needs to be about the old uyghurs or the modern uyghurs, it can't be both. What do you think should be done with it?Rajmaan (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say you have done enormous damage to this page already. Please don't do anything to that page as you clearly have no idea about the history of the Uyghurs, Karluks, Karakhanids, and Karakhitans. Hzh (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- That article seems like the place to get into extended discussion of scholarly and nationalistic controversies over who the true ancestors of the modern Uyghurs were. I would suggest that everything in that article before Moghulistan should be removed and replaced with whatever material we have on the controversy. The removed material can be shifted over to Uyghur Khaganate or a new article on Ancient Uyghur people.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- That article needs to be split into two, from 'Pre-Imperial (300 BC– AD 745)' to 'AD 840 – 1600', it is a continuous history of the old uyghurs. From 'Mogulistan' to '1949–present', it describes a continuous histoy of the modern uyghurs. The article either needs to be about the old uyghurs or the modern uyghurs, it can't be both. What do you think should be done with it?Rajmaan (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I should just say that any attempt to define Uyghurs as Karluks is simplistic in the extreme. Even Tang history mentioned that some of the ancient Uyghurs went to live amongst the Karluks, and some went to Turpan and founded the Kara-Khoja kingdom, and some went to Anxi where they are later known as the Yugur people. Modern Uyghurs are clearly a mixture of different people - genetics tells us they are a mixture of Europeans who settled here very early on and East Asians. Some modern Uyghurs are indeed descendents of the ancient Uyghurs, it is hard to define them as one particular people. Hzh (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also I should say that the narrative was clearly wrong - Karluks were not the ones who converted to Islam before founding the Karakhanid Khanate. They and other Turkic tribes first founded the Karakhanid Khanate, only later did the Karakhanids converted to Islam after Sultan Satuk Bughra Khan (who is likely a Yaghma, not Karluk) converted to Islam. The Yaghmas and Chigils might have taken the Karakhanid Khanate over from the Karluks since it was recorded later that the Karakhanids had troubles from some Karluks. Hzh (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also it's wrong to say that it's Buddhist Kara-Kitan fighting against Muslim Karakhanid Karluks, since the Kara-khitans were actually invited by a Karakhanid ruler to protect him against the Karluks! It seems that some people are trying to shoehorn a particular narrative against what is known history. Hzh (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would not make up BS if I was not sure of it. I am positive that the muslim kara khanids fought against buddhist uyghurs in Qocho (unrelated to Kara khitai conquest).
See these links
Rajmaan (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about any fight between the Karakhanids and the Uyghurs, what are you arguing? What has it got to do with your suggestion that it is a fight between Muslim Karluks and Buddhist Qocho? Do you actually have a source that say Karluks were Muslims then? Hzh (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- The fifth link mentions "buddhist uighurs", and all the links note that the turks who attacked them were muslim. They were about Mahmud al Kashgari's poems, who wrote about the wars between muslim turks and "infidels", the sources even note the poem talks sbout defiling buddhist temples. Mahmaud al Kashgari was a kara khanid subject. And whether the kara khanids were karluk or a confederation of tribes and whether the karluks were muslims before the kara khanid foundation has no political bearing, I don't object to your edits, but the Kara khanids did fight against the Uighurs in border raids. I remember reading a source about the Battle of Talas and the Karluks converting to Islam after they sided with the Abbasids, that is where I got it from.Rajmaan (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mahmud al Kashgari's poem you read is probably about Khotan since that is actually quite well-known. You appear not to understand my question or know what being written in the books. If a book says Muslim Turks, you think it's Karluks? It is also clear you don't know what event happened. It's the Samanids who attacked Talaz which was a Karluks' base a century later. Hzh (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A few points on history
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As already mentioned, some people are seriously distorting history trying to shoehorn the idea that Karluks = Uyghurs. Just want people to understand these few points already mentioned, you can find the necessary references in the individual pages -
1) The Uyghur Khaganate was destroyed and the ancient Uyghurs people dispersed to Xinjiang (Turfan) and Gansu, and some went to live amongst the Karluks. The people in Gansu are called Yugor people, but not those from Xinjiang. Those in modern Xinjiang are the modern Uyghur people, some of whom probably originated from the ancient Uyghurs who moved to Turpan as well as those who lived with the Karluks.
2) Please don't turn history into Muslim Karakhanids/Karluks vs Buddhist Karakhitan/Yugur, it is simply wrong. The Karluks did not convert to Islam before founding the Karakhanid Khanate. The Karluks together with Chigils, Yaghmas, and other tribes founded the Kara-Khanid Khanate, and there is no mention in written history that the Karluks at that time were Muslims, in fact they were likely not Muslims. Later possibly a Yaghma converted to Islam and he was Sultan Satuq Bughra Khan. The Karakhanids does not equal Karluks, in fact most of the rulers were likely Yaghmas and Chigils. The Karakhanids ruler of Balasaghun actually invited the Kara-Khitan chief Yelü Dashi to help him because he had troubles from Karluks and Qangli tribesmen, instead Yelü Dashi took the opportunity to seize his throne.
3) There are history records that says that the Karluks actually helped the Kara-Khitans in the Battle of Qatwan against the Muslim Seljuks who were then the overlord of the Karakhanids. The Kara-Khitans and Karluks defeated the Seljuks and so the Kara-Khitans became the ruler over the Karakhanids. So what's written about Muslim Karluks fighting Buddhist Kara-Khitan is completely wrong-headed.
4) Modern Uyghurs are clearly a mixture of different people from genetic studies, it is not possible to say that they are descended from just one group of people, they are clearly descended from many different people. Hzh (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- firstly, the muslim Kara khanids did launch raids on the buddhist uyghurs in Qocho, see the above section.
- The modern uyghur language is clearly classified as a Karluk language, the main basis of their culture was formed in Kashgar, and it was only until the Chagataids from moghulistan launched holy wars against Uyghurstan (Qocho) way after the mongol empire collapse did Qocho come into their fold. The Yugur language belongs to a different branch of the family. It can be said that modern uyghur culture is almost entirely from karakhanid and chagataid islamic culture centered in kashgar, aksu and other moghulistan cities.Rajmaan (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
And also this:
Qara Khitai power was assured when Dashi defeated the Western branch of the Turkish Qarakhanids in Farghana, in 1137 and the prestigious Seljuq sultan Sanjar b. Mālik Shāh at the celebrated battle of the Qatwān Steppe...
http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/3/379.full?etoc
In my opinion James Millward has a good account in his book describing the Chagatai conquest of uyghurstan
Rajmaan (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop giving me links when you have clearly no idea what the links say. You gave me a Michal Biran book, I have that book, I know what's in the book. I never mentioned Chagatai, yet you want to talk about Chagatai conquest. You don't appear to understand what I said, it isn't about any fight between Muslim Karakhanids against Buddhist Qocho, it's your complete misunderstanding of the history. When Kara-Khitans defeated the Karakhanids, it a fight between Kara-khitan/Karluks against Seljuks/Karakhanids. The Karluks were on the Kara-Khitans side. This information is in the Biran book, so it is odd that you should give a link to a book which showed that you are wrong, unless you haven't read it at all.
- Don't use a book that's clearly deficient in its understanding of the complex history of the region (Karakhanids were a confederation of different tribes, including Karluks, Chigils, Yaghmas, Tukhsi, and others). Any claim that says Karakhanids were Karluks alone, or that the Karluks were the ones who converted to Islam clearly does not understand its history, and cannot be taken to be correct. Use proper sources on history when you want to discuss history, not a couple of sentences in a book on language that is likely wrong. Hzh (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- you were talking about the uyghurs in Turfan (uyghurstan). I mentioned the chagatai conquest because that was when it was conquered and islamisized and uyghur culture replaced by Chagatai culture.Rajmaan (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- And none of which is relevant to this discussion. The Uyghurs in Turfan were only mentioned because you claimed that they are the people referred to as Yugur, which is untrue. Hzh (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm talking about violence between the two (chagatai muslim turks conquering buddhist uyghurstanis). The assimilation of the uyghurs was not a peaceful process, and the conquest should be mentioned in the article, if is is the link between ancient and modern uyghurs you emphasize. Rajmaan (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- not part of this discussion? Go look at the point you made in 1). Those uyghurs in turfan were conquered by the Chagatai.Rajmaan (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is abundantly clear to everyone that you have neither the knowledge nor the capacity to understand what others have written, so there is nothing to discuss anymore. Goodbye.08:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just want to clear up the state of the article before I started editing it's history section - for years it portrayed a misleading and false narrative that the modern uyghurs were entirely descended from only a mix of ancient uyghurs and indo europeans through the Uyghur qocho/turfan kingdom. It mentioned the Karakhanids in passing and treated the Kara khanids and Chagatai khanate as entirely separate entities which appeared to be in the article for no reason, implying that the uyghur heritage was passed on through uyghurstan in Turfan rather than kara khanids and chagataids. You had an opportunity to clean up the history and correct it to correctly portray the multi ethnic origins and genesis of the uyghurs, but instead you waited until I edited the article to do anything about it. Instead of personal attacks, next time fix the article (a couple of years earlier would have been nice) before the other person starts correcting it. In other words, Hzh was fine with the error damage ridden article for years, but when I tried to correct it, he goes Rambo on the talk page and personally attacks me. Rajmaan (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't misuse closure procedure
I see that Rajmaan has chosen to close a discussion where he is a participant, this is in contravention of wikipedia rules. The archivetop template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrator and not by those involved in the discussion - see note on archivetop template. The closure procedure is not meant as a way of getting the last word in, or a place to made accusation while giving it a spurious authority. Hzh (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Someone did the same thing to me after his side got the last word in, and he was most certainly involved in the discussion and not an administrator. Nobody objected so I assumed it was ok. Rajmaan (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well now you know. If someone does the same to you again then you have reasonable ground to object and complain. In that instance however someone not involved in the discussion did endorse closing it, so that other person could still have closed it, but it was nevertheless the wrong thing to do in the first place. Hzh (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the photo in the infobox???
There was once a nice photo of Uyghur in the infobox why was it removed--Gurdjieff (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The person who removed it didn't explain why, you can just undo it. Hzh (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Rewriting the history section
I will attempt to rewrite the history section seeing how that has been mangled into a narrow perspective and false narrative. I will try to give as broad a view as it is possible given that different people have different idea as to what constitute Uyghur history. This will be done over the next few weeks. Tentatively it will be divided into early history, the Uyghur Kaghanate and the subsequent diaspora, the Islamic period, and the modern era. Suggestions however are welcome. Hzh (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
you know I went to a lot of trouble to fix this article years ago after it was mangled by propaganda from a certain country. I don't understand why people feel the need to re-write Uyghur history every few years or so. can you just go back and re-post the work I'VE ALREADY DONE and save yourself the time--Gurdjieff (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the content have been split to a separate article, so we can't restore that old version. I would have preferred not to make the latest change, but since someone did it, so it was an opportunity to start afresh. The old narrative was limited to a certain perspective, and the history of the Uyghurs is something that is disputed since ancient Uyghurs are not the same as modern Uyghurs, so history changes depending on how you look at it. It is therefore preferable to give a broader perspective so people can see the differences in opinion. There were also errors in there, so some changes are inevitable. Hzh (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Are you sure the pronunciation is correct? [ʔʊjˈʁʊː] Is the final rhotic really silent? It's written twice in the article, in the introduction paragraph and in the first section (Uyghur people#Name). See Uyghur language and Uyghur phonology, the rhotic does not seem to become silent. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you feel it is wrong, then by all means change it. There is a sound sample here and you can have a listen. Few in this page know much about phonology to know if anything is wrong, so anyone knowledgeable is always welcome. Hzh (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
what on earth is the hybrid isolation model?
I am biological anthropology major and I don't have a clue what this is supposed to mean. Furthter googling finds no new insight into this esoteric term. Explain it or drop it. --The hybrid isolation model
- It's already explained in the text (where it says "or may be formed by a single event of admixture during a short period of time"). Hzh (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Uyghur ethnic group name during Qing times
It was during Qing times that Uyghurs were known as Chantou Hui 纏頭回 (Turban headed Muslims) by the Chinese, as opposed to HuiHui 回回 (which referred to Hui people), and also as opposed to Sala Hui 撒拉回 (referring to Salar people). The Uyghurs themselves were collectively called Turki (Uyghur: تركى, romanized: Turki)
Rajmaan (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Create Uyghur version of "Assyrian continuity"
Many scholars and historians have mentioned that ancient Uyghurs and modern Uyghurs are the not same people (and that modern uyghur language is not descended from ancient Uyghur), and that using Uyghur in certain contexts (like referring to ancestors of modern Uyghurs) is an anachorism. There is an article on Assyrian continuity dealing with the issues of whether modern Assyrian people are descended from Ancient Assyrian people, perhaps a Uyghur version of this article should be created like Uyghur continuity.
Note again, this has nothing to do with the separatist issue or CCP, because both the CCP and Uyghur separatists are promoting the claims that modern Uyghurs are descended from ancient Uyghurs, and since ancient Uyghurs came from Mongolia and Siberia, it doesn't help separatist claims at all.
I have many sources here
Historian Michael Dillon even resorted to deliberately using different spelling (Uighur for the ancient people, Uyghur for the modern people) to differentiate them since there is no "clear and direct link" between the two".
http://books.google.com/books?id=1ia-2lDtGH4C&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false
Those who were living in Kashgar were not Uyghurs but Qarluqs (this is a source by Mehmet Fuat Köprülü)
http://books.google.com/books?id=_v6IWkCLnEwC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false
Language issue sources are here
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25202808
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3tAqIU0dPsC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=7XuMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think an "Origin of the Uighurs" page, along the line of Origin of the Romanians might be a better idea. --Yalens (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wish you'd stop this. So far all that I have seen of your effort is trying to force your own idiosyncratic view on wiki pages. We have seen from the last time that you cite books when it is clear that you haven't actually read them, simply a page or two that you had pulled off the Google Books. You clearly don't have the whole picture. Wikipedia is not for you to push your own original research put together by little bits of information, often wrong-headed ones. Please don't put your own spin on any Wiki article, Wikipedia is not your little playground to push any particular view point. You are required to give a well-rounded view of the whole subject, which you have shown you are incapable of the last time you made wholesale changes to this page. Hzh (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- if you feel I'm biased then you write the article, or subsection on here or the history of the Uyghur people. There is no point in trying to get around the fact that the issue of connection between ancient and modern Uyghurs is clearly a valid topic brought up by historians, and its not addresed here or in the history of Uyghurs article, over at that article, History_of_the_Uyghur_people#Contested_historythe issue is about dueling Chinese and Uyghur nationalist claims to Xinjiang, not this issue of Uyghur descent from ancient Uyghurs.Rajmaan (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am only going to write something where there are proper academic studies of a particular issue. If there is such a subject as Assyrian continuity, then that is what would be written, but for Uyghur continuity, first however you first need to show that there is actually a subject call Uyghur continuity as discussed by scholars. If there isn't, then that is something invented by you, and as I have said, Wikipedia is not your playground, don't invent topic that doesn't exist. The ethnic origin of the Uyghurs is complex, and that is already dealt with in this article and the History of Uyghur people page, and it is clear that they originated from a number of people. What we don't want is for you to make assertion that they are Qarlugs based on a misunderstanding what has been written, which you seem set to do. Modern Uyghurs are descended from many people. Hzh (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a single source talk about anything called "Assyrian continuity" specifically by scholars or historians, the actual name of the topic appears only to be from random websites.Rajmaan (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- the anachorism of naming people from certain time periods as "Uyghurs" has not been addressed. Masud Sabri for example rejected being called Uyghur, yet he is labeled as a Uyghur on wikipedia arricles, and so are multiple people who never even heard of that label, like Iparhan, and many people here and here.Rajmaan (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- If there isn't something called Assyrian continuity, that is a problem for that page, and I am not going to add more problem to Wikipedia. I should also say that there are many conflicting views on the Uyghurs, therefore the right way to do it would be to give as broad a view as possible, rather than focusing on just one aspect which you seem prone to do.
- The issue of naming these people as "Uyghurs" has already been addressed in various sections, for example in the Identity section. It is a modern invention, and some people did not like it, and some of them prefer to see themselves as part of a greater Turkic people. Hzh (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- You only raised objections to ethnic issues and not linguistics, if you don't have any problems I'm going to edit Uyghur language because the sources explicitly deny that Modern Uyghur language is descended from Ancient Uyghur language. [1][2]Rajmaan (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't keep an eye on the Uyghur language page because I am not qualified to write on linguistics. You also appear not to be qualified as well, since it is generally accepted by linguists that language and people are separate issues (i.e. the fact that some people speak a particular language as their native tongue does not necessarily indicate what their ethnic origin may be), yet you kept trying to associate the two. Hzh (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was linguistics Professor Peter Austin of the SOAS who mentioned ethnicity - "The Qarluq Turks... are ancestors to the modern Uyghurs", I didn't pull that out of nowhere.Rajmaan (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just shows, you don't even know who the author is. Peter Austin is the editor, the author is Dr Kagan Arik. Also you should know that in any academic field, there are always multiple points of view, therefore you should rely on multiple sources and not just one to give a clearer understanding of the subject. Historians would tell you that the Karakhanids were founded by a confederation of tribes, the Qarlugs were just one of them, so this writer obviously is not a historian. Hzh (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Rajmaan
Please, can I ask you to read the content policy of Wikipedia WP:CONPOL before you make any further edits? You have a habit of making changes based on a poor understanding of sources, making unfounded assertion that distorts what the source says. For example you described the use of the term Uyghur leading to "falsehood", when the source doesn't say it (inappropriate does not mean falsehood), please don't make unwarranted inferences from what the sources say. Try to make edits appropriate to the rest of the content, and not shoehorn whatever that occupies your interest currently into the article (last time it was the Karluks, now it's Old Uyghur). Hzh (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It means that the PRC and Uyghur nationalists apply the word "Uyghur" to people who didn't call themselves that, like Emin Khoja, what is wrong with noting that it is an anachronism?I wrote falsehood instead of innapropiate because I was trying to find a synonym to avoid copyvio. (I couldn't find an appropriate synonym for anachronism) The same reason for the somewhat disjointed but readable sentence structure. That was not a deliberate attempt to diss or insult the persons making those claims. This was a semantic mistake (finding the wrong synonym).
- secondly you entirely deleted mention of the Khoja brothers in the Tarim Basin, Khoja Burhan-ud-din and his brother Khoja Jihan started a major rebellion in 1758 against the Qing, and the Qing and the Turfan and Kumul Uyghurs then put a final end to Khoja rule in the Tarim Basin in 1759. I fixed that section last month because it had errors in it and you didn't complain
- third I am now talking about Karluk languages, this is in the linguistic section and the sources clearly apply there. I was talking about Modern Uyghur language not being descended from Old Uyghur language but Karluk language. This is an entirely linguistic issue and not about ethnicity. Ask User:Florian Blaschke and User:Kwamikagami about this and whether the sources are accurate, they edit on linguistics articles here. User:Florian Blaschke agrees that Old Uyghur is not ancestral to Modern Uyghur, and User:Kwamikagami looked over my article at Old Uyghur language and found nothing wrong. We should note the languages are not directly related here because it currently gives the impression that Modern Uyghur is descended from Old Uyghur. Also Old Turkic is of the Siberian branch of Turkic and not closely related to Modern Uyghur in the Karluk branch, which is why I deleted that part about them being closely related.Rajmaan (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- First, the point is that you introduced a word ("falsehood") which is wrong to use and introduced bias. Second I did not try to fix the Qing rule section because it was a mess, and I had intended to do something about it after I had read more on it (there were too many things wrong with it). The revert was done so that we can get back to what it was so I can try and see how it can be best be done (I will add the brothers later). Third you are not a linguist, and you showed no understanding of the difference between a language and a people (as your previous edits about Karluks showed). If you can persuade people who are expert on linguistics to edit here, then by all means, but the way you keep introduced Karluks here (for example when you wrote "Karluk speakers") suggests you are going back to introducing your own idiosyncratic theory about the Uyghurs' origin, which is not appreciated here. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I exactly wrote "Karluk speakers" instead of just "Karluks" because of that point! If I had written "Karluks" instead of "Karluk speakers" adopted the Arabic script I suspect you would have gotten pissed off and revert all my edits because you'd think I was talking about ethnicity and not linguistics. What was I supposed to write to differentiate Karluk speakers from Old Uyghur speakers? Write "Kara-Khanids adopted Arabic script" instead of "Karluk speakers"?Rajmaan (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned, there is a difference between people and language, the problem with using the term Karluk is precisely because of the different tribes involved at that time (and your past history editing the page). Some linguists don't even appear to use the term Karluk. I would consider deleting mention of past Uyghur linguistic/script history unless there is a good source discussing the issue in some depth. Hzh (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I exactly wrote "Karluk speakers" instead of just "Karluks" because of that point! If I had written "Karluks" instead of "Karluk speakers" adopted the Arabic script I suspect you would have gotten pissed off and revert all my edits because you'd think I was talking about ethnicity and not linguistics. What was I supposed to write to differentiate Karluk speakers from Old Uyghur speakers? Write "Kara-Khanids adopted Arabic script" instead of "Karluk speakers"?Rajmaan (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- The part about Old Turkic needs to get deleted, it has a blatant error which you can look up easily, Old Turkic is part of Siberian Turkic and not part of Karluk Turkic.Rajmaan (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree about deletion because when people see this article, and if they stumble accross the Old Uyghur and Uyghur language article next and read them, they are going to get confused.Rajmaan (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- The part about Old Turkic needs to get deleted, it has a blatant error which you can look up easily, Old Turkic is part of Siberian Turkic and not part of Karluk Turkic.Rajmaan (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand the problem, I really just don't. Karluk languages is an established term, but it's only a label, and even if some authors may not use the term they'll use one of the alternatives, such as Southeastern Turkic; the name doesn't matter, the facts remain the same. While it may seem excessive to dwell on this point in the article about the ethnic group instead of Uyghur language, it's a very important point about the ethnic group as it exposes the artificial construction of dubious "continuity" with the medieval Uyghurs. Just compare cases such as the Lebanese who claim descent from the Phoenicians, or closer to home the alleged direct continuity between ancient Assyrians and modern "Assyrians"; we don't adopt that POV as our own, either. All those claims of continuity between ancient and modern ethnic groups are ultimately specious or at least overblown, generally speaking. Reality is more complicated than that; ethnic groups mix all the time, that's it, and we shouldn't give excessive credence to nationalistic POVs. Modern Uyghurs are no more "Uyghurs" (in the sense of direct descendants of the medieval Uyghurs) than they are "Karluks". Readers need to be informed of the facts, including the deceptive, propagandistic renaming of the ethnic group and language. Informing them about the business with the language affiliation is called for because it is a part of the puzzle, as it helps to understand why the naming is deceptive, and by suppressing this central fact we ultimately support a specific nationalistic POV. Even without the politics attached, there would be no reason at all to omit the information about the origin and affiliation of the language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- The matter of ethnic origin of the Uyghur is still a matter of academic disagreement among historians, the problem here is precisely because it is not simply a matter of label - Rajmaan had previously tried to force his own point of view about the Karluks on the Uyghurs, using the label "Karluk" as an excuse to delete a whole chunk of the Uyghur history (he in fact used it to rewrite the history of the Uyghurs in a way that no historian would accept). We don't need this kind of distraction or any assertion of "artificial construction". As I have already said, language and people are two separate things, this article is about the people, you are perfectly welcome to write about their linguistic history in the language article. Everything that needed discussing about the ethnogenesis of the Uyghur has already been discussed in the Identity and History sections. Hzh (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- You mean the so-called "modern Uyghurs". Really, the name is terrible and ultimately POV because it is suggestive of a certain interpretation of history that is, as you say, acutely controversial. As a further analogy, consider if the Kurds had renamed themselves "Medes" or "Parthians" in the early 20th century to promote the idea that the modern Kurds are direct descendants of the ancient Medes or Parthians respectively. Or even better, if the Bretons had renamed themselves "Aremoricans" or "Gauls" to suggest they directly descend from the ancient Gauls. That would cause all sorts of confusion and make it really hard to communicate to the common public that no, the naming was created after the fact and the modern "Gauls" are not necessarily direct descendants of ancient Gauls and their "modern Gaulish" language (language being a central component of ethnic identity and continuity and probably the clearest aspect), despite the name, is definitely not a direct continuation of ancient Gaulish.
- I acknowledge that in the case of the so-called "modern Uyghurs", we're stuck with that idiotic nationalistic POV neo-ethnonym, but there is absolutely no reason why the section "Language" should not mention the affiliation of the language (is there any other language section that omits such a standard point of fact?) and good reasons why it should indeed mention it (language discontinuity being a major reason – perhaps the biggest reason – for the suspectness of the ethnic continuity hypothesis, and the controversy surrounding it). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are arguing here. That the modern Uyghur language "belongs to the Karluk branch of the Turkic language family" is mentioned in the first sentence of the sub-section. Hzh (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The matter of ethnic origin of the Uyghur is still a matter of academic disagreement among historians, the problem here is precisely because it is not simply a matter of label - Rajmaan had previously tried to force his own point of view about the Karluks on the Uyghurs, using the label "Karluk" as an excuse to delete a whole chunk of the Uyghur history (he in fact used it to rewrite the history of the Uyghurs in a way that no historian would accept). We don't need this kind of distraction or any assertion of "artificial construction". As I have already said, language and people are two separate things, this article is about the people, you are perfectly welcome to write about their linguistic history in the language article. Everything that needed discussing about the ethnogenesis of the Uyghur has already been discussed in the Identity and History sections. Hzh (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand the problem, I really just don't. Karluk languages is an established term, but it's only a label, and even if some authors may not use the term they'll use one of the alternatives, such as Southeastern Turkic; the name doesn't matter, the facts remain the same. While it may seem excessive to dwell on this point in the article about the ethnic group instead of Uyghur language, it's a very important point about the ethnic group as it exposes the artificial construction of dubious "continuity" with the medieval Uyghurs. Just compare cases such as the Lebanese who claim descent from the Phoenicians, or closer to home the alleged direct continuity between ancient Assyrians and modern "Assyrians"; we don't adopt that POV as our own, either. All those claims of continuity between ancient and modern ethnic groups are ultimately specious or at least overblown, generally speaking. Reality is more complicated than that; ethnic groups mix all the time, that's it, and we shouldn't give excessive credence to nationalistic POVs. Modern Uyghurs are no more "Uyghurs" (in the sense of direct descendants of the medieval Uyghurs) than they are "Karluks". Readers need to be informed of the facts, including the deceptive, propagandistic renaming of the ethnic group and language. Informing them about the business with the language affiliation is called for because it is a part of the puzzle, as it helps to understand why the naming is deceptive, and by suppressing this central fact we ultimately support a specific nationalistic POV. Even without the politics attached, there would be no reason at all to omit the information about the origin and affiliation of the language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality
Hi! As there are some arguments about whether adding sections about unclearnesses and issues, i think that this shall be included, Wikipedia is a source of knowledge where everything is neutral and neutral means showing the both sides of a subject, Uyghurs are a people who lives under oppression of the Chinese government says the Uyghurs in exile and most Uyghurs who are in Xinjiang, there are two represents for Uyghur people in world one is People Republic of China and World Uyghur Congress, Being neutral means not being on the anyside of a subject, and as wikipedia shall be neutral then why dont we show the both side of the Issues and subjects? There are undenieble issues that shows that there are actully conflicts and unclearness over the Uyghur peoples current situation and total Population of Uyghur in Xinjiang, Lately i have edited some sections and added extra details over every section i have edited, and i have also cited many reliable source (Books with legal publishers and known authors) but a user claims that i am providing "Unreliable resources" and deleting and editing those subjects to a diffrent form, and as the user says that im putting "too much detail" on a section, Is not it good with more information and more aspects of views on the subject then having one-sided information and less information? Wikipedia shall show all the aspects of the subject not only one aspect. How do you think and shall we more views and sections about there are conflicts and unclearness about Uyghur issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The only part deleted which is sourced now is the one in the Art section, and the reason has been explained, you are writing about something in the wrong section, what on earth is one-sided about that? Tidying up your bad rambling English is a necessity for the page. The sections ("Population problem" and "Uyghur problems of china") I deleted are completely unsourced, so why do you claim they are sourced? Hzh (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I wrote that i can povide source for every single subject on the new sections and here they are, You argued also that the mural arts were destroyed completly by local residents, but most of them are actully destroyed by Cultural revoluotion, And i have wrote that especialy issue on uyghurs needs to be written in both sides by source, You eventuly wrote that there are two diffrent schools (without source)and did not show the both aspect of this subject also, The question is that the page needs to be neutral and be able to show both aspects over the uyghurs not only PRC aspect on the uyghurs,And it may be true that i am writing in a bad english, The main question is Shall we show the both view over the subject or not? else it will become unneutral. Dolatjan (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- All you need to do is provided the sources, and people can also simply go to your talk page and see that what you claim I said is completely untrue (I did not say "destroyed completely by local residents"). People can also click on the reference #105 (Linda Benson, China's Muslim Borderland. pp. 190–215.) to see that the two different schools systems are mentioned there, so I have no idea why you claim it is unsourced. If you are upset that I removed the population figure you put in, just note that Wikipedia cannot simply accept very different population figure without good reason (it's doubled the Chinese figure, it's unsourced and with unknown methodology as to how they come up that number). Being fair to both side does not mean that we should give undue weight to figure of dubious origin (please see WP:NPOV). The independent source I have said that Chinese census figures of Xinjiang are up to international standard (page 241 of Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland, ed. S. Frederick Starr), so you would need a very good source to justify putting a very different population figure in. Hzh (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)~
Ok, i hope that you can read uyghur but here is the origianl resource of the population of uyghurs, the statistic is done uyghurs all around the Xinjiang, http://ejdad.com/m/show.php?hid=1800&page=4 they was totaly 11 groups of people through out the region that have made a non govermental census over Xinjiang Autonomus region, They have totaly 18838470 in 2010 and it have made conflicts aginst the national census program, You may start to claim that this is just some gibbrish fake data, but this was testified by real people around the region. There are situations where people cannot give out a statistic with the name of some offical insititution. you need to keep in mind that, so let me first edit about the issus about Uyghurs and Uyghurs in exile in a neutral way with cites.
- The point you are missing is that the Chinese census data has been examined by outside independent sources. If you can find a reliable independent source that has examined the data and found them to be valid, then it would be acceptable, otherwise the data would still be considered dubious and you should not add them in. Hzh (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So the data i have mentioned above is suitable to edit on the page, the data is examined by other independent sources, The chinese census you are writing on the page is from 2010 not 2009. Dolatjan (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- You need to cite independent non-Uyghur source that have examined the data. The fact is that so far all that you have written (for example, persistent false claims about what I wrote and how you represented what happened in the edits) doesn't show that you are careful about what you write, and what you write may not be entirely trustworthy. Hzh (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh please dont start calling me a lier now, i want theis page to be more neural, not be some page that will look like as if some "fice-cent-army" have wrote it. can you please provide me a non-chinese independent reliable source for the chinese census? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have already given you one source earlier (pages 241-263 of Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland, ed. S. Frederick Starr). Let me also just point to the World Uyghur Congress own site here and see what it says -
- "According to latest Chinese census in 2010, the current population of East Turkestan is 21.81 million including 8.75 million ethnic Han Chinese (40,1%) illegal settled in East Turkestan after 1949 (the ethnic Han Chinese numbered 200,000 in 1949). The Uyghurs make up around 10.2 million Uyghurs (according to the 2000 census; the numbers for 2010 have not been published yet) and constitute still the majority of East Turkestan."
- It also says-
- "However, Uyghur sources put the real population of Uyghurs around 20 million."
- Note that they don't say it's their number, they says "Uyghur sources", so your claim that it is WUC's figure is extremely doubtful. Hzh (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I gave you the Uyghur source and you cannot start to say it is doubtfull directly, and agains can you provide me any non-chinese reliable independent source to me so that we can discuss more about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I no longer understand what you are asking. I have already given you a non-Chinese reliable independent source. And I'm saying the Uyghur source for their own number is dubious, and your claim that the figure comes from WUC is doubtful - the WUC own website doesn't claim it's their own number, and I have a hard time trying to find any mention of any census they might have conducted in that website, perhaps you can find it. Another website here says unofficial Uyghur sources, but again no mention of WUC or a census. Yet another site here says over 15 million, and I found other sites saying different numbers, so without a reliable source that can give a clearer idea of how the numbers are derived, your population figure cannot be accepted. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Now i can see that you have seen the problem here now, there are unclearness over the population of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, so what i mean is that we need to add about that the Number of Uyghurs in xinjiang is unclear and diffrent sources claim diffrent number, Then we need to write about it, we cannot just let there be PRCs census of 2010 we need to add about the pronlem and unclearness in Uyghur population. i did not see that you have given me a Non-chinese relaibel independent source that is claiming or supporting the census of PRC in 2010. do you mind to write it here agian (if you really posted it) ? Dolatjan (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, please don't add anything on the population of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Please read WP:RS first. I see that you want the source for the figure given in the infobox, and the reference is in there. I have no problem with source of the number (it is an Australian website started by an Australian University), and it appears to be close to other sources citing 2010 census figures (see for example here (around 10 million). However I have problem with you making a claim of double that number without any reliable source. There are possible problems of under-reporting of ethnic minorities, but I don't see it possible to miss half of the population of the country. Hzh (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've changed the population figure to the 2010 census figure. I hope that settles the issue. Hzh (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, We need to show the both aspect of views over Uyghur population, If you still consider the source i gave is unreliable, The Census of the Uyghur people (Not goverment), As the book you lined above is not supporting the chinese census nor claiming that it is true (chinese census), then i need to edit a section where i cites all kind of sources for Uyghur population not only Chinese Census but many diffrent kind of census, as WP:NPOV claims that the article needs to be neutral, if there is only the sources of PRC documents this article will not be neutral no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not only do I consider your source unreliable, I consider your edits to be highly dubious. I have just read the whole book of one of the books you cited (Under the Heel of the Dragon: Islam, Racism, Crime, and the Uighur in China by Blaine Kaltman) and I cannot find what you claimed it says about radical Islam and women's education. Although it is the standard practice to assume good faith by editors, unless you can demonstrate clearly what the source of the edits is (for example, page number or chapter of the book, and I would require you to translate any Uyghur text for other people to check), any further edits from you will be treated with utmost skepticism. I will no longer discuss with you because I can no longer assume good faith on your part, and if you continue with adding dubious content to this page, the issue will be dealt with by the administrators of Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, i beleive you have not read it, please claim about something after reading it properly, page 19 chapter 2 " although many uyghur parents want their children to have a proper education and learn mandarin........", page 17 chapter 2 "now there are many uyghurs in Urumqi whose Mandarin is better then thier Uyghur........." page 57 and page 72 are all about Muslim education and femal education in Xinjiang among uyghurs, Now i really think you are just trying to denie sources without even researching it, please dont be like that, The old Uyghur females were also educated a great example is Amannisa Khan, She was the woman who have studied much in art, nowdays there are many Uyghur female professors in both china and western world, i can give you numerous professors both insde and outside china, but there are less professors in china. you are now going away from the main subject we are discussing about we are discussing about "Being Neutral and showing all aspects" in the article of Uyghur. Dolatjan (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have no interest in discussing any further, this is just for any administrator who wants to assess what's being written what's in the source. The edit is here "Uyghur Girls often be encouraged by thier family to continue with secular education to a high level, only some radical muslim family in souther Xinjiang that prohibits female member of the family from education." Here are excepts mentioned, none has anything to do with what's written -
- Page 17: He laughed and said, "You know, now there are many Uighur in Urumqi whose Mandarin is better than their Uighur because they go to Han schools, where all their classes and interactions are in Mandarin. Especially those rich Uighur children who have parents who send them to live at Han schools. They spend more time speaking Mandarin than Uighur, and when they come home they forget how to speak Uighur. In fact, now more and more Urumqi Uighur, middleclass Uighur children, can't read Uighur. They can still speak it, because it's their first language, but they never learn to read. And some speak it so poorly."
- He laughed again and said, "We call them `Chinese Uighur' because they aren't real Uighur."
- Page 19: Although many Uighur parents want their children to have a proper education and to learn Mandarin-which almost always means attending a predominantly Han school-they feel that being a Uighur student in a school where Han teachers and students make up the majority population is difficult because of racist attitudes and language difficulties. Some Uighur believe that Chinese government policies encouraging instruction in Uighur, not Mandarin, are designed to limit Uighur development in Chinese society.
- One Uighur teacher, who was born in Kashgar but moved to Urumqi when he was in middle school and then to Taiyuan to attend high school, believed this to be the case. "My parents wanted to make sure I learned proper Mandarin," he explained. "Being Uighur, it's difficult to learn proper Mandarin. Most Uighur, especially in Uighur areas like Kashgar, go to Uighur schools with Uighur teachers. Many of the teachers don't speak Mandarin, but even the ones who speak very well don't speak it like the Han. Also, some teachers don't speak in Mandarin because they know the students won't understand them. You know, the Chinese government says they encourage Uighur to learn Mandarin, yet at the same time they want to keep the Uighur language alive. They don't want the world to see them as bad, as not protecting their minority cultures. So the government allows and even encourages Uighur teachers not to teach in Mandarin. But this holds the Uighur back. I believe the government does this on purpose ... [so that] they can look like they care about the Uighur by trying to protect their language while, at the same time, they make sure the Uighur can't advance in Han society because they don't speak the major language."
- Similarly nothing about radical Muslim family and female education in page 57 and 72 (for example, page 72 is about Han Uyghur relationship.) It appears to be entirely spurious. Hzh (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It does not become unreleated when you write it, it is releated if you can understand english properly, You told me that "Uyghurs Don't encourage their children to recive education" and i'm now showing you that this is not like that, And the actual subject here was about "neutrality in the article" Not something else, You are now rejecting to discuss, it is you'r choice to reject to discuss, but it s not your choice to chooes the form of the article. Dolatjan (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- To add further, the latest edits by Dolatjan here claim that "Uyghurs are somhow portrayed as extremist Muslims by Chinese media and Chinese governmental books" and "These kind of schools wich gives instruction in Uyghur is only for primary school, after the age of 11 kids dont have school for learning Uyghur, although the kind of primary school that teachs Uyghur is very little number and it is insufficent for the uyghur children." The source is supposed to be chapter 2 of a PhD thesis Muslim Uyghur Students in a Chinese Boarding School: Social Recapitalization as a Response to Ethnic Integration. The book may be found here. There is nothing in Chapter 2 I can find that supports the assertions. The closest I can find is "Special accelerated science classes in secondary schools have been established since 1995, and are conducted in the Han language for selected Uyghur students". That isn't quite what was written. Hzh (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hzh as i mention again, The book self is about the Problems and serious issus of Chinese Education system over the Uyghur and Chinese residents of Xinjiang and outer regions, I suggest you to read it fully, I wrote this response in a hurry, so Hzh please read the book, and i admit that i did a mistake there, is is not "....Chinese media...." it was ".....most chinese media...." i will write the right one there. Dolatjan (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- the page number is added, it is 40-50, read specifcly about the Uyghur school shortage, Dolatjan (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not there. Hzh (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Edits on Uyghur People about Education and other sourced information.
User Hzh have openly reversed edits on Uyghur people, The source he deleted was with trustable source and undoubious book, Hzh self have claimed that these books "did not prove" the informations and he posted me to adminstration page for "dituputive edit", he did not success with either the blocking or warning request from a admin, so i will revert it because i have perfect source for the edit and Hzh is removing both my edits and my cites. Dolatjan (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- They are unsourced, and I have explained, and as Zanhe noted. Whether you put books as source in there it doesn't not matter, as I have already shown the information you claimed to be there is not there in the books. And as AmericanDad86 said, your English is too poor to be understood and should be reverted. You do not even understand when I said the your edit on "extremism" is not relevant to the Education section, claiming that I said "irrelevant source". You should recognize that there is a problem with you edits, and learn how to edit, and we would be able to help. We cannot help if you insist on putting things on the page that are not supported by reliable sources or relevant to the section. Discuss first. (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- When we was dicussing about this in "Neutrality" You leaved there and wrote that you will not discuss no more, While i wanted to improve the article and i even requested for help with the edits, you leaved and posted about this on Adminstarion Bord, and no admin have blocked me by my further edits, I have cited books as Zanhe said i have also cited pages, in the question of my English, i may have some incompletment in my English, but my English is not that bad so that i'm not allowed to edit, I even requested (talk) to make the edits in a better form because he was very enthusiastic about editing Uyghur People and every other articles that is one way or another releated to Uyghur people, and you have said that earlier that you read 2 books, but i only cited one book earlier (see the edit history), by this i cannot truely confirm if you are truely researching it or not, sooner i cited one more book to make the statement clear, and i am not sure if you have read it yet, and it is impossible to understand a whole book just by searching for one or two sentence, to understand a book it requires to read the whole book.
- Whatever your intent, your edits damage this article, and make a mockery of the page simply because of your badly-written English. You don't even know what you are doing, because your edits also brought back Under the Heel of the Dragon: Islam, Racism, Crime, and the Uighur in China which I have clearly shown not to include the content you said it did. I quoted passages from the book (which is more than you did, you cannot substantiate your edits with quotes from the book), so of course I have read it. I also quoted from the other book Muslim Uyghur Students in a Chinese Boarding School: Social Recapitalization as a Response to Ethnic Integration, that's two books, I also have a third book Situating the Uyghurs Between China and Central Asia. You have no idea what you are doing, stop damaging this article. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't start to be mean against me now, I'm not "damaging", i am trying to improve it and i know what i'm doing, i am making Wikipedia a more reliable source of information, I was in Xinjiang, and I know how the Uyghur People is and how the diffrent kind of systems work in Xinjiang, I wish that we can discuss it peacefully but now you are starting to get angry and ignoring it, I thought that you wanted a good discussion when you reversed my edit by your copy-paste, it seem like you dont really want to discuss with me. Dolatjan (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- You edits are not reliable because they are unsourced. Apart from those I have mentioned, you said education in Uyghur language stops at 11, that is unsourced, you also said there are few Uyghur primary schools, that again is unsourced. Those information are actually contradicted by the books which you claimed to have read; for example, page 203 Under the Heel of the Dragon said that in 1991, 1,088 out of 1,119 elementary schools in the Kashgar district were minority minzu schools (i.e. Uyghur school), 184 out of 208 the middle schools were minority schools, and beyond the middle schools there were nine further technical schools classed as minority (although not at University level - Xinjiang University for example stopped offering courses in Uyghur starting 2002 (source here)). You give sources that do not support your edits, so in fact you have no source for your edits. Hzh (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I will also said that if you have suggestion as to what you want to put in the page, then discuss it here first. We can help to make the edit so that it is properly sourced and written in reasonably understandable English, but not if you keep insisting on adding content that is completely unsupported by source. Hzh (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do not undo edits without a proper reason, you are just saying that my edits are unreliable and ignoring the books i cited, if you have questions then discuss it instead of undo it with out a cleared discussion, Do not reverse my edits just by saying they are not sourced, this is against the rules, You need to discuss about each edits if you want to change (if the edits was not cited). Dolatjan (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I no longer know what you are doing, nothing you said make sense. I have given you good reasons (your edits are not properly sourced, and I have demonstrated that by quoting from the source books). I have in fact tried to write in my recent edits similar in content to what you wrote in understandable English, with proper sources. You just need to read it. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I no longer understand why you are also ignoring my sources and still saying that i did not source anything, Please my english is not that bad, i feel so sorry for why you are still complain and making my mistakes in english a pretence to undo my edits, lets get back to the beggining pleasae. Dolatjan (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hzhs take on the education section is much better stylistically & grammatically. His points wrt the use of sources both here and at WP:RSN are very well made. I would urge Hzh to open a user RFC regarding Dolatjan if there is continued misuse of sources.I have restored it as best I can. rgds 94.195.46.205 (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I no longer understand why you are also ignoring my sources and still saying that i did not source anything, Please my english is not that bad, i feel so sorry for why you are still complain and making my mistakes in english a pretence to undo my edits, lets get back to the beggining pleasae. Dolatjan (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I no longer know what you are doing, nothing you said make sense. I have given you good reasons (your edits are not properly sourced, and I have demonstrated that by quoting from the source books). I have in fact tried to write in my recent edits similar in content to what you wrote in understandable English, with proper sources. You just need to read it. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks to 94.195.46.205, your contribution to the education was very good! You have made it in to a neutral view rather then a more PRC view over the subject, i am agree with your edits But two small detail needs to be added in my view, it is that the biligual primary schools for uyghur childrens are insufficent for the number of total children and uyghur girls gets forced labor in to eastern china by the government. source : Dragon Fighter: One Woman's Epic Struggle for Peace with China, Dolatjan (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Naming conventions
I just read the following comment from activist Wang Lixiong, a friend of the Uyghur activist Ilham Tohti:
First, I’d like to clarify his name. His real name is just Ilham. For Uighurs, the second name isn’t their family name; it’s their father’s name. So if you call him Tohti or Mr. Tohti, you’re addressing his father! The meaning of the name Ilham Tohti is “Tohti’s son, Ilham.” But if Ilham had a son say named Mehmet, his name would be Mehmet Ilham, not Mehmet Tohti.[3]
Is this true? Should the Wikipedia articles for Ilham Tohti be altered to refer to him after first mention as "Ilham" and not as "Tohti"? Should the Wikipedia articles for other Uyghurs be altered similarly? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has articles and hatnotes for various cultural naming conventions (for example, Korean name and {{Korean name}}), as well as an overall article and infobox on the topic (Personal name and {{Names in world cultures}}). However, the latter do not mention Uyghurs, and there is no article on Uyghur names and no {{Uyghur name}} template. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 17 July 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn with Phil88 being okay with it. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Uyghurs → Uyghur people – This wasn't discussed. In fact, there was a back-and-forth move dispute. – George Ho (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Philg88 ♦talk 06:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose (keep as "Uyghurs"). Why do we keep moving these articles to and from Xs and X people? It's really frustrating. There isn't even any reason given. Leave it. It's shorter and parallels Koreans and many other changed name pages. Ogress smash! 08:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy procedural revert WP:BRD. To return to status quo ante, where this article was in 2014, before the move war erupted. A move to "Uyghurs" should have been a requested move after the first reversion, instead of batting it back and forth. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment That's why I opened this discussion. All will become clear in seven days. Philg88 ♦talk 11:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's missing the R REVERT step. The discussion should be opened after the reversion occurs, not before. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment That's why I opened this discussion. All will become clear in seven days. Philg88 ♦talk 11:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – Whilst the move war was not ideal conduct, the present title is more in line with the WP:PLURAL guidelines and WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Present title is in line with WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose (keep as "Uyghurs"). The guidelines at WP:NCPLURAL are very clear on this, "Articles on people groups. Canadians, French people and Koreans in Japan are all acceptable titles. Titles like Belgian should be recast in the plural, i.e., Belgians. If a plural title without the word "people" is available, it is almost invariably chosen; e.g., Bangladeshis is consistently preferred to Bangladeshi people." Rincewind42 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now I want to withdraw this nomination. However, the request was contested, and the title isn't reverted to previous title. Closing this soon would be improper until I receive Philg88's approval of withdrawal. --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Uyghurs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120322065047/http://www.tanghistory.net/data/articles/d02/621.html to http://www.tanghistory.net/data/articles/d02/621.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Religion section
There is irrelevant information on Tengrism and Shamanism (practiced in the Uyghur Khaganate) in the religion section.
The current belief of the modern Uyghurs is Islam and is inherited from the Kara-Khanids. The modern Uyghurs are the result of Kara-Khanids, and their succesors, the Chagatais, conquering and assimilating the Buddhist/Manichean Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho. Please rewrite the section to explain the co-existence of the Muslim Kara-Khanids and Buddhist/Manichean Qocho. It is confusing to readers, people see information on Tengrism and Shamanism and it suddenly says modern Uyghurs are Muslims right after that with no explanation.
Satuq Bughra Khan and his mazar are revered by the modern Uyghurs for being the first ruler to convert to Islam and this isn't mentioned here.Rajmaan (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Where on earth do you get the idea that the Chagatais are successors of the Karakhanids? They are an entirely different people, with a different history of conversion. Your understanding of the history of Uyghurs is flawed. The history of Islamization is already covered in another section. Hzh (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- They were successors in that they were the next Turkic majority state, with the same (Karluk branch) Turkic speaking Muslim population. I'm not talking about the Chagatai Mongol Genghisid monarch. The majority common people of the state were the successors. The Chagatai's conquered Qocho and Kara Del and brought them into the fold of the Turkic Muslims of the western Tarim.Rajmaan (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- It was Khizr Khoja who conquered Qocho, what has his subjects being generally Turkic got anything to do with the Karakhanids? Hzh (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Religion: Islam
I have a couple of questions, very related: (1) is there really *no* religious diversity whatsoever amongst uyghurs, to the point that it can just say "Uyghurs are Muslim" several times in the article? (2) Is Islam key to the *definition* of Uyghurs, such that non-Muslim Uyghurs can't be posited?
I suspect the answer to both of these is no, in which case this article needs a serious rewrite, but I don't actually know. 69.201.166.50 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Uyghur History
Uyghur. After Goturk lost against Muslim Armies, the Uyghur converted to Islam and rebelled, creating the Uyghur Khaganate in 744. In 1209 they declared vassals of Genghis Khan. The Uyghur are mixed with haplogroup 10% Chinese, 6% mongol, 5% Uralic and 5% Turk; the women 50% Asiatic.
The Uyghur are descendants of the Tocharian-red haired people who conquered the Gansu pass and West China, called Xirong and then Yuezhi in China. Part of the Yuezhi were pushed out by the Xiongnu-Hünnü to the Ili River (east Kazakhstan) during the 2nd century BCE (the Gansu was repopulated by Wusun as Xiongnu vassals and they became allies of the Han dynasty). From the Ili River were pushes out by the Wusun in 133 BCE. The Yuezhi-Yue Chi-Tocharians are pushed to the current Tajikstan were they form the Kushan Empire around 30 CE from Khwarezm to Pakistan and north India. The Kushan were conquered by Hephthalites, white Hun, or Huna people for Indian, forming the Hephthalite Empire from India to Khwarezm, (the Xionites or Kidari or “red Hun” in Tokharistan, current Tajikistan, were the center of the Hephthalite Empire-White Hun). The Hephtahlite are finally incorporated into the Gotürk Empire. The fall of the Gotürk open the door to the independence of Sogdiana+Tukhara (old Hephthalite and Xionite, red and white hun), Kwarezm and Khazars (Kwarezm and all books were destroyed in the Muslim conquer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:2A40:7201:58A5:9972:E179:AB13 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Gumilev, L.N., "Ancient Turks", Moscow, 'Science', 1967, Ch. 27 http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/OT/ot27.htm
- ^ M. Zakiev, 2003, Origin of Türks and Tatars, pp. 54, 58, ISBN 5-85840-317-4, in English.