Talk:Uyghurs

Archives Talk:Uyghur people/Archive 1

AD vs. CE

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

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

Uyghur Medicine

This section:

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

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

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

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

Uygurs Able to Conquer Tang China??

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

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

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

Real Figure for number of Uyghurs?

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

Matttthac 25/1/2007

Lets stay focused

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

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

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

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

Uighurs in Mongolia

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

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

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

Also of interest to you could be:

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

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

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

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

"related groups" info removed from infobox

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

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)

removed odd sentence

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

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

This section needs redoing

Literature

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

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

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

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

cleanup needed!

Too many sentences like this occur in this article:

"The Chinese government has often called Uyghur nationalists terrorists, but have gotten more global support since 9/11."

When I have time, I'll try to tackle the worst of the problems in style and grammar, but the article has an intermittent pov, essayish tone that needs to be addressed by people who know the subject. More sources should be included as well. Bacrito 15:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

why does every person in this discussion only tries to lower the Uyghurs down as a Cultural and Political Power that they were in central asia?

related articles

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

The meaning of "Uyghur"

I do not understand, some sources claim that the word "Uyghur" means "Civilized"[1] whereas this article claims that it means "Unified"; which one is correct? --Phillip J 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth control

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

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

Etymology of Uyghur

You added the following text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uyghur, Alans, and Scythians/Sarmatians?

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

Uyghur and Tocharians

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