Talk:Uyghur people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Uyghur people is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject East Asia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Create Uyghur version of "Assyrian continuity"[edit]

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".

Those who were living in Kashgar were not Uyghurs but Qarluqs (this is a source by Mehmet Fuat Köprülü)

Language issue sources are here

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)


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)
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)
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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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, 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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.[edit]

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 (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to, 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[edit]

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)