Talk:Uzbeks

Origin of term

The origin of ethnonim itself is in dispute. One view holds that group name derives from Uzbek Khan, though the nomadic Uzbeks were never subject to him. Etymological argument states that the name means “ independent” or the lord itself”, from Uz –self, Bek- a noble title of leadership.(Uzbekistan. Golden Road to Samarkand, p.31 - book of the Oxford University historians)

The most popular point of view, represented in the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, is that the Uzbeks take their name from Uzbeg Khan, just like Nogai people take their name from Nogai Khan. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which you cite as your source, actually says that Uzbekistan was part of the Golden Horde, of which Uzbeg Khan was the most famous ruler. Uzbeg's name is translated as "the lord of self" or "independent", as you correctly point out. If Uzbekistani scholars are so full of megalomania as to think that the name was applied to theeir nomadic ancestors not to the great khan, it should be expressly stated in the text that such an opinion is prevalent in Uzbekistan.

In any case, removing the redirect is unacceptable: it doesn't state that Uzbeg and Uzbeg Khan have something in common; it simply informs people searching for "Uzbeg" that Uzbeg leads to the article on people and they have to click Uzbeg Khan to get the article on the ruler.

Image is given by the artist itself here in Uzbekistan. It was photographed and saved on the disc. AcademicResearch 15:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what is wrong with Prokudin's fine picture? Why do you consider the people photographed by him in Samarkand as Kazakhs? Prokudin-Gorskii's photo is preferrable because it was taken before the Russian Revolution and consequently is copyfree. Your modern illustration is apparently subject to copyright; and Wikipedia discourages using copyrighted images. Please make sure that it is not a violation of the painter's copyright. --Ghirla | talk 15:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much AcademicResearch 15:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, it's difficult to identify a facial (racial, ethnic, etc.) type that would characterize Uzbeks. They vary from typical South-Asian to Middle Eastern outlook. Uzbek has become less a name for ethnic group but more a name for a people (heirs of nomadic and settled culture). One can engage in endless (and rather fruitless) discussions about how a proper Uzbek looks like.

The better way should be put few images that would convey this idea (which is btw is supported by the scientific findings mentioned in the article). --Sahib-qiron (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Alina Kabaeva image

Just wondering about Alina Kabaeva being included in the picture of "Uzbeks" since isn't she actually of Tatar ancestry not Uzbek ancestry? I think part of the confusion is due to her being born in Uzbekistan. Abstrakt 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

you have deleted Alina Kabaeva's image why you don't include many famous Uzbeks image who lived from X century until now. Many fellows and great scientists lived in Uzbekistan.

---I think the ones who edit the content are anti-uzbek. Please be neutral, especially when you are writing about other people.

Totally mess article

After reading the article i came to opinion it was written by pan-Iranist or pan-aryan people who wrongly illustrated the picture. I am from Uzbekistan and ethnic Uzbek. Please note the term 'Uzbek' became in use only in 1924, before the people Uzbekistan were referred by the city he or she lives. Outside people, mainly nomads called them as 'Sart' meaning 'settled'. (however the real meaning could be 'merchant' since most people were engaged in trae). At the moment, Uzbeks combine all Turkic Karluk-speaking (even tajik-speaking) people of Uzbekistan.

The territory of modern Uzbekistan was conquerred for many times. Uzbek khan in 14 century or Uzbek Shaybanids cannot be taken as identification of Uzbek ethnic. Since the word "Uzbek" existed during Tamerlane (no link to Uzbek khan or Shaybanids) and 7-8 centuries when earlies Turkic tribes invaded. Since Shabanid dynasty ruled over Central Asia until XX century, it is possible people were lately identified as Uzbeks. But still Shaybanids have less impacts on modern Uzbek ethnic.

Ancestors of modern Uzbeks are both Turkic and Sogdian, Bactrian and Toharian who were assimilated. The proof is preserved traditions. Uzbek culture is mixture of Turkic and Iranian. But Uzbek people usually do not consider themselves as turkic or iranian. There are a few pan-turkist among Uzbeks and most of them believe that their ancess Modern Uzbeks have been formed during the Karakhanid dynasty.

Before posting article you should know Uzbekistan itself and Uzbeks, their culture, traditions. Regions of Uzbekistan differ not only in traditions but also dialects and even sometimes outlooks of people. Uzbeks are between Caucasoid and Turkic in ethnical terms and the former leads.Simply Uzbeks are Eurasians, mixed of different ethnics.

Uzbek language is Turkic close to Uyghur (because of Karakhanid) and the culture is close to Iran. But for centuries Uzbeks have developed own cultural identity.

Actually, Vladimir Dzhanibekov should not be included here. He was actually Russian but actually adopted his Uzbek wife's family name. Le Anh-Huy 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Uzbeks.png"

The Caucasoid "Uzbeks" are actually either Russians or Tajiks (descent from Persians/Bactrians/Soghdians). Uzbeks are by defintion Mongoloid. Dupree3 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I live in Tashkent, I am Uzbek, I see everyday a lot of Uzbeks, and most of them are Caucasoids. So called "Mongoloid Uzbeks" have Kazakh or Kyrgyz ancestors. Abdullais4u (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Uzbeks weren't originally mongoloid. Mongoloid features are met mostly among descendants of turkic uzbeks mixed with mongols or who have mongol ancestry, but turkic uzbeks are not mongoloid. People who claim that uzbeks are mongoloid only because they're turkic didn't study this subject enough. I'm kazakh myself, I'm NOT mongoloid, nor my father or grandfather. So this conclusion, that all "true" uzbeks are mongoloid, is simply unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.217.231 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Caucasian looking Uzbeks are ethnical Tajiks or descandants of other Indo-european people who are registered as Uzbeks. The ethnical Uzbeks are of Turko-Mongolian origine. Islam Karimov f.ex. is an Uzbek with jewish ancestory whose grand-father converted to Islam, thus his name. The majority of Uzbeks are east-Asian looking people, only some 30% to 40% are Caucasian looking and are of Iranian descandts, also known as Tajiks who just call themself as Uzbek (citizen, spoken language in the public etc.)--178.4.99.48 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

YOU ARE WRONG..I am Uzbek from Tashkent. I am Caucasoid looking. I am not russian or tajik. My grand father has blue eyes. I know my 7 generation. Even the names. I know how Uzbeks looks. Only 10% looks asian in Tashkent. Real Uzbeks not mixed ones have kind of blonde hair. I ahve bunch of friends who have blonde hair. They are Uzbeks not mixed. At least I know their parents and grandparents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.156.163 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

-Reality- Just don't get one thing: Why does not Uzbek accept the real facts? To your information: The origin of the term is not agreed on by everyone, however, those who subscribe to the "Arab" origin of the name agree that it was ultimately applied to those Iranian-speaking Central Asians who adopted Islam. However, the existence of a similar term for the Iranian-speaking people of Azerbaijan, the Tats, leads other linguists and scholars to believe that this is a term used to denote the non-Turkic peoples of the region who were Iranian speaking. I would challenge you to provide a single source documenting that the Tajiks are the descendants of people that moved from Persia - not once have I ever encountered this theory, although I must say that I tend not to read Uzbek accounts of history, because they tend to be quite ridiculous. To act as if there is no physical difference between Tajiks and Uzbeks is not only ridiculous, it defies all reality. You can also say that the sky is green, but it will continue to be blue in reality - Tajiks appear generally Caucasian (I don't think I can be confused for Mongol), while Uzbeks appear generally Asiatic/Mongol. Whatever fantasies the Uzbek nationalists may cherish, unfortunately they will be at odds with reality. There is no shame in being a Turk, or the descendant of later migrants from Mongolia, but it's unfortunate that you and others feel this way about your origins. It is also clear that you do not speak either Tajik or Iranian Farsi, because you don't seem to know anything about the linguistic structure or lexicography of either one - I would suggest that before making sweeping statements or comments about either dialect, you should probably know how to speak it. The Persian element in Uzbek exists because Persian was the primary literary language of the area, and thus all the other regional languages, such as Uzbek, Pashto, Turkish, etc. borrowed extensively from it. Further, the Russian words are obviously from recent origin and in part the result of efforts by the Soviets to Russify the languages of Central Asia. Thus, this analogy is entirely irrelevant. Just as Uzbeks fantasize about being the area's original inhabitants, or descendants of Sogdians, or any number of nonsensical theories, Kazakhs may well fantasize about being European. Both groups need to simply accept reality - they are Altaic-speaking, and Asiatic-looking, and any scholarly publication will tell you that both are the descendants of a wave of Altaic, Turkic migrants from the east. The Tajiks are the direct descendants of the Iranian peoples whose continuous presence in Central Asia and northern Afghanistan is attested from the middle of the 1st millennium bc. The ancestors of the Tajiks constituted the core of the ancient population of Khwārezm (Khorezm) and Bactria, which formed part of Transoxania (Sogdiana). Sogdian is one of the most important Middle Iranian languages, along with Middle Persian and Parthian. It possesses a large literary corpus. The language is usually assigned to the Northeastern branch of the Iranian languages. Sogdiana existed at least since the Achaemenid era (559-323 BC). Like Khotanese Sogdian possesses a more conservative grammar and morphology than Middle Persian. The modern Iranian language Yaghnobi is the descendant of a variant of Sogdian. They were included in the empires of Persia and Alexander the Great, and they intermingled with such later invaders as the Kushāns. How can you possibly and ignorantly say that Uzbek are descendants of Soghdian???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AryanMK (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (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 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is historically, and anthropologically incorrectly written. First of all, Uzbeks are a Turkic people and are Caucasoids. Uzbeks don't have Mongol Mixes, and the picture of the man in the title is not authentic. He does not look Uzbek, because he doesn't look Caucasian. Please correct these mistakes, and check the history, in order not to use the term Turko-Mongol incorrectly. (CKSS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihan.safa (talk • contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, addition, it doesn't mention the turkic settlements there before the Mongol Invasion. It doesn't talk about Turan or anything. I think this article was severely edited by a Tadjik that probably hates Uzbeks, and for some reason wants to show them as Mongols. I urge the Wikipedia team to 1) replace the picture with a picture of a real Uzbek person, 2) edit the genetic make-up section, since there is no such proof that Uzbeks are Mongoloids, and that the only Caucasians are of Persian Origin. The Karluk and Oghuz Turks that comprise the majority of the Uzbek identity have always been Caucasians. -User:Cihan.safa , 21:06, 26 February 2008

Whatever opinions are exposed here, there's a science which has own and independent ways to reach conclusions. DNA analysis demonstrates the admixture in the gene pool. Uzbeks do combine Mongoloid and Caucasoid features. I see no reason to be ashamed of Mongoloid affiliation - we are proud for what we are and do not need to engage in artificial discourses about origins, as some nations do (e.g. Kazakhs who feel ashamed to be Mongoloid and claim they are Caucasoid - funny, to say the least). We just do not need that. Our mixed race brings that beauty which is a combination of different traits. At the same time I disagree with the picture of the so-called "Tadjik man". He is Uzbek because he lives in our country. Yes, he may have Kazakh or Kyrgyz ancestors but it does not make him less Uzbek. This is the greatness of our nation that we are all-inclusive.--Sahib-qiron (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Uzbek elites were Mongols —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.1.11 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• To Sahib-qiran: It seems your knowledge of ethnography and anthropology is very limited. I would suggest you reading a wiki article about "Tadjik man": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks and if you want to learn further then follow the links provided. Farid2053 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Never understood what you meant to say, my learnt friend Farid. Here I'm talking about Uzbeks and not Tadjiks. Lets "speak English".--Sahib-qiron (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess, one of the best views offered on the subject is perhaps an essay by Prof. Schoberlein-Engel about the Uzbek identity. It was written in 1992 I guess and I happenn to have read it but lost since. If anyone has that, it would help us get some good insights and improve the article. --Sahib-qiron (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, just today I checked out the work you're talking about, Schoeberlein-Engel's dissertation Identity in Central Asia: Construction and contention in the conceptions of "Özbek," "Tâjik, " "Muslim, " "Samarqandi" and other groups. If you remember any specific points from it you want to cite, I'll keep an eye out for them and pass along the page numbers. Otebig (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of the name

I can't belive that the etymology of the name is so obscure. I don't believe it may have something to do with Uzbeg Khan who never ruled over Uzbekistan. What was the local name of the country when the three khanates were subdued. ? Why didn't the names like Turk, Uighur, Karluk, Karakhanid, Shaybanid or Sart survive ? I hope an Uzbek editor may clarify the subject Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The name doesn't have to have much sense. The term is made-up by Russian "experts" in whatever grounds to designate Turkic people living in Central Turkestan. Very different names for Turkic peoples under occupation were given by Russians to prevent separatist movements. This is well documented, but I see no reference here. I will try to include them. Also, the page is definitively pan-Iranian biased. Stokastik (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture on the profile does Not represent all Uzbeks. I think you have confusion about Uzbeks and Bukharian Jews look. Uzbeks have diverse look. Please change profile picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.49.20 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

4% of world population? Surely closer to 0.4%

Orphaned references in Uzbeks

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Uzbeks's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cp":

• From History of Uzbekistan: "Country Profile: Uzbekistan". Library of Congress Federal Research Division (February 2007). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• From Education in Afghanistan: Afghanistan country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (May 2006). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Uzbek-4.jpg Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:Uzbek-4.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mattbuck for the following reason: Mass deletion of pages added by Ssh21 - copyright violations What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Studio-15.jpg Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:Studio-15.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mattbuck for the following reason: Mass deletion of pages added by Ssh21 - copyright violations What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ibnsino.gif Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:Ibnsino.gif, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mattbuck for the following reason: Mass deletion of pages added by Ssh21 - copyright violations What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Nodira.gif Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:Nodira.gif, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mattbuck for the following reason: Mass deletion of pages added by Ssh21 - copyright violations What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Otabekmutalxujaev168.jpg Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:Otabekmutalxujaev168.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mattbuck for the following reason: Mass deletion of pages added by Ssh21 - copyright violations What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:5214967.jpg Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:5214967.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mattbuck for the following reason: Copyright violation What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Genetic origins vandalism

User:Sonic99 reverted my change. First, there is NO passage in the research paper that says "the genetic admixture of the Uzbeks clusters somewhere between the Iranian peoples and the Mongols". It is purely personal conclusion. One has to read to understand the whole reality before making such a bizarre statement. Second, Central Asia was ALSO in fact invaded by Turks. Why did he delete my edit [...]emanating out of Turks and Mongolia[...]? So I am putting my edit back. Before making any other reverting, discuss the matter here, please. Stokastik (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Rough consensus, and I'd have to agree that no valid reason has been given for the move, or even accurate data. Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Uzbeks → Uzbek people – (* Other ethnic group articles also have "people" in their titles e.g. Turkmen people. Khestwol (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not always. Just look in Category:Turkic peoples and you'll see many without "people" in the title, such as Kazakhs and Bulgars. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why move it? —  AjaxSmack  02:33, 16 March 2013 (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.

Under the Turkification of Transoxiana

Qarakhanids or Karakhanids? All the Karakhanids should be replaced by the Qarakhanids (because an article redirection exists in this name). Should be a standard in the text. So I have changed it already.--Movietech (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)