Jump to content

Talk:Uyghurs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.162.104.1 (talk) at 01:43, 9 January 2020 (→‎Consensus on the legal definition of "Uyghur people"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This Article is Unscholarly

This article has been tainted with Uighur nationalism. I came here looking for the Manichaean Uighur massacre by Tang. It doesn't seem to exist in here, and instead all I get is a bunch of garbage linking them to the Tarim basin and great kingdoms. If anybody is looking for information, i recomend going to chinaknowledge.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.196.21 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I2b_hrJO8sC&pg=PA7&dq=anachronistic+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K-v1UvrOFsrQyAHnxoCwDw&ved=0CC4Q6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=anachronistic%20uyghur&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y8Nzux7z6KAC&pg=PP24&dq=The+Uygurs+called+by+this+name+in+pre-Ming+times+were+not+of+the+same+culture+as+twentieth+century+Uygurs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PHMbU-usOejr0wGSuoHwDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Uygurs%20called%20by%20this%20name%20in%20pre-Ming%20times%20were%20not%20of%20the%20same%20culture%20as%20twentieth%20century%20Uygurs&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I2b_hrJO8sC&pg=PA7&dq=anachronistic+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K-v1UvrOFsrQyAHnxoCwDw&ved=0CC4Q6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=anachronistic%20uyghur&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA15&dq=anachronistic+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K-v1UvrOFsrQyAHnxoCwDw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anachronistic%20uyghur&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA93&dq=anachronism+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mez1UvLqM4buyAHB-YHQAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=anachronism%20uyghur&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA101&dq=anachronism+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=euz1Uq-sKInkyAHI5IHAAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=anachronism%20uyghur&f=false

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)~[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
the page number is added, it is 40-50, read specifcly about the Uyghur school shortage, Dolatjan (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not there. Hzh (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Philg88 ♦talk 06:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hzh

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Genetics

The word "European" is supposed to be "Caucasian"

Why? — LlywelynII 04:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues and more bias

I'm sure there are plenty of other issues with the article as well, but to start with some of the most glaring problems with the top of the page

  • if there's a #Name section, the mess of foreign text goes there and not in the WP:LEADSENTENCE

and

  • Wikipedia presents things as they are using WP:RELIABLESOURCES, not as we feel they should be based on our feels or WP:FRINGE opinions.

It's fine to note that the actual pronunciation in Turkic languages doesn't have a /w/ sound, but the "weeger" pronunciation is not just "more common": it is the only pronunciation at all in the OED. It's not a "mispronunciation" any more than /ʃɒŋhaɪ/ is a mispronunciation of /zanheɪ/; it simply is the English pronunciation of the ethnonym. (It's fine to note that Uyghurs are in cited reliable sources saying their opinion is that it is a mispronunciation; it's WP:BIAS—and, y'know, wrong—to state that it is one.) — LlywelynII 05:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, there probably isn't much need to go into the historical uses and attestation of the name in the #Name section if, as seems to be the case, the #History section below is going to cover that ground in greater and better-sourced detail. — LlywelynII 10:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to Genetics

The revision made by an IP address on 1 April 2018‎ has problems and may be revised. Involving how the article is at this moment it can be more general. I would like someone who is neutral and has some understanding on the background of this topic to rewrite Genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxmv (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lxmv This has been a long-standing problem on the page, that IP addresses typically editing mainly Chinese issues remove info regarding the fact that Uighurs have a different physical appearance from Han Chinese, and that that effects how they are treated in society (even though if you talk to Chinese people they will regularly acknowledge this is true). These guys are also allergic to any discussion of the widely-held view that Uighurs have some descent from Tocharians. It has always looked like flagrant WP:IDLI to me. The IP's edit summary was also misleading-- he said the page claimed they were "interbred" yet that appears nowhere on the page.--Calthinus (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The present day Uyghurs are gentically mixed, but phenotypically they more resemble the peoples of the Near East. In fact Uyghur people who moved to Turkey feel very much at home in Turkey, which is hardly surprising, as this is where the majority of their ancestors were from. 81.158.205.115 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syria

Discussion about the activities of a few people that happen to have Uighur backgrounds in Syria is way off topic for this page, and actually very messed up to include. Whoever keeps placing this here after others removes it needs to stop.--Calthinus (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claim

I can't really think of any substitute for claim in this sentence that would be correct in English. I don't agree with your edit summary The word claim has different connotations for different readers from different backgrounds hence it is covered by a policy. - our policy covers various synonyms of the words "said" or "stated" which is only one of the definitions of claim - you replaced it with "argument" - this isn't an argument. It would be like replacing "Henry's disputed claim to the crown" with "Henry's disputed argument to the crown". Or "she claimed her baggage" with "she argumented her baggage". Does that make sense? Seraphim System (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System you're using different word senses of the word claim -- "baggage claim" is a very different concept in English. "Claim to the crown" is closer to hte word sense being used here, but the issue is that that the crown claim is not ambiguously of hte "claim to political status" word sense -- i.e. as per Wiktionary [4]] "A demand of ownership made for something (e.g. claim ownership, claim victory)." However, claim to being indigenous is a bit different because it can also fit under this word sense -- "A new statement of something you believed to be the truth, usually when the statement has yet to be verified or without valid evidence provided". This word sense has acquired, for many native speakers of English, a negative connotation, by which the word is used when the speaker is asserting that the "claim" is probably false. I.e. the page is implying to readers it's "probably false" that Uighurs should be considered indigenous to the lands they live on -- Wiki should not be taking a stance on that, doing so would be a clear violation of NPOV. That's where I'm coming from here.--Calthinus (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System:@Calthinus: What about 'claim to indigenousness'? It's a bit awkward, but I think it removes most of the ambiguity. Doanri (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to mauling the prose over something like this. There are some POV issues with the sentence based on the source (the Khaleejtimes source is a dead link so I can't verify that one) but changing claim doesn't fix any of them.Seraphim System (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... you could have just not reverted me when I enforced WP:CLAIM. Then matters would be quite simple Seraphim System :). It's whatever tho, am I really going to fight over this? No. --Calthinus (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing about Uyghur objections to genetic testing can be taken out as its not supported by the NY Times source. If the only source for it is a dead link to Khaleejtimes it probably doesn't need to be included.Seraphim System (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SeraphimSystem: you're right. Will do in a sec.--Calthinus (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Re-education" camps, Orwell & Uyghur's living conditions & "freedom"?

When one does a search on Uyghurs/Uighurs one gets a completely different view. While Wiki is not reporting news, I think the news and "politics, govt etc)" (and long-standing Orwellian environment which produces it) is too deeply hidden in the cracks, such that the presented view is actually a misrepresentation of reality. The topic is a living people, not a dusty (but error-free) note book. There needs to be more humanity, more current events, and so forth. ABOUT HUMANS. I understand that this takes thoughtful writing, some talent, is not easy.

One might get arrested for exiting the rear door of their home, or refilling gasoline in a neighbors car? (Today's "Democracy Now!" broadcast.) That portrays on-topic, and accurate "feel" or "tone", does it not?

Philosophy question: Is it biased to call a murderer; a murderer? I don't know how to talk about impolite topics politely, but here those details shouldn't be avoided.

Some Search results:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/podcasts/the-daily/china-uighurs-internment-camps-surveillance.html

Authorities Testing Facial-Recognition Systems in Uyghur ... https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/surveillance-01252018161603.html Authorities in northwest China are testing facial-recognition systems that tip off police when residents of the Uyghur-dominated Xinjiang region venture more than 300 meters (1,000 feet) from ...

Opinion | What It’s Like to Live in a Surveillance State ... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/china-surveillance-state-uighurs.html


China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future ... https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/22/china-xinjiang-surveillance-tech-spread China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants Monitoring tech pioneered in the region is spreading across China and the world.

Xinjiang phone app exposes how Chinese police monitor Uighur Muslims https://www.ft.com/content/dfec4ac4-6bf5-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d Financial Times 5d Programme uses vast array of data to detect and monitor individuals according to report


That controversial topic and facts need to be in the Lede section.
see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

intro:

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

Questionable Photograph

The photograph of the blue-eyed, blonde-haired, 'Uyghur' girl is odd. There's nothing in the photograph to tie the photo to Turpan, and the comments on the contributor's user talk page leads me to question whether the photograph is actually of an Uyghur child. The contributor seems to have an issue with POV in articles. While there's lots of variability in any population, she doesn't much resemble pictures of Uyghurs posted by anyone else. Of greater concern is that a Google Image Search shows that this photo crops up in a few related Wikipedia articles and a lots of white nationalist/supremacist websites to support debunked racial theories and calls for genocide (it gets five or six pages in). Can anyone figure out if the picture's contributor actually took this photo, or if it's a picture of a some northern European lass in fancy dress, deliberately misattributed? 70.122.86.238 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One she does not look "European" in the pre-immigration not-talking-about-Bashkortostan sense, two one can acknowledge an ethnic group with diverse origins also has diverse appearances which include traits from various parts of Eurasia without being a KKK member (example: per them I should be killed myself), three a simple internet search would also reveal extensive Chinese nationalist denial of the aforementioned and four please grind your axe on a personal blog, not wikipedia. Thank you!--Calthinus (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She has some East Asian features but with blonde hair. There is some dispute whether she looks typically Uyghur, and I'm inclined to think her look is not typical of Uyghurs, who tend to have darker hair. Note though that atypical does not mean that she is not Uyghur, since we do know that there are variations in the people, for example I found another example of a blonde girl said to be Uyghur [5]. However, if someone wants to replace the picture with another more representative, I don't really object, since there have been some disputes about this picture for some time already. Hzh (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her features arent typical Uighur which if anything is black haired but also more Western in face shape -- essentially like the Uzbeks. However they are almost immediately identifiable as Uighur or some other form of Central Asian, and the genetic diversity of a population shouldnt be reduced to whatever Chinese nationalist IPs would like it to be (we already have other different looking pictures).--Calthinus (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No primary sources

As it stands, the genetics section of Uygurs contains all primary sources on genetics research, which is in violation of WP:SCIRS. The links to khazaria.com are also highly problematic as khazaria.com is the personal website of a non-academic. I propose the deletion of the entire section unless secondary sources can be found. This was recently the fate of the articles Xiongnu and Xianbei. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion of the entire section" because of two (2) citations to Khazaria, good luck finding policy to support that. As for WP:SCIRS you are rather mistaken -- go to the top of the page and you will see This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Please don't pretend essays are policy. Thank you! --Calthinus (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the entire genetics section contains primary sources, including Li. WP:SCIRS is a consensus. It makes clear:

Respect primary sources

A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.

The guidelines describe the three types of sources as follows:

A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles.

A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific review (the article/document) with peer review (the activity).

Because Uyghur origins are a controversial and contentious issue, the inclusion of primary sources, much huge blocks of text out of primary sources, is out of consensus.
Please allow for other users, namely @Ermenrich: to contribute before warring with me over this section.Hunan201p (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes but this says those topics which are controversial. Never seen any controversy over the incredibly obvious fact that Uyghurs have diverse origins, save for hotheaded some internet trolls. Of course I wouldn't be against replacing the exact quote. Consider instead this 2008 source with over a hundred citations [[6]], including a number of general population admixture studies that reference the 2008 study's data to place Uighurs and other Central Asian peoples among a set of classical "admixed populations" along with African Americans, etc etc. [[7]] [[8]].
This later review of admixture studies labels Uighurs a "uniquely admixed population" [[9]] : Unique admixed populations are the so-termed Cape Colored residing in the western Cape of South Africa (50) and the Uyghurs of west China... Studies by Xu & Jin (82) found that the Uyghurs, representing 50% of the population of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in northwest China (>9.4 million), have significant amounts of European ancestry, estimated at approximately 50%. Assuming a single pulse of admixture, STRUCTURE estimates the Asian–European admixture occurred 2,080–2,720 years ago (104–136 generations), whereas ADMIXMAP dates the event to 1,680–2,400 years ago (84–120 generations)... These populations offer unique opportunities to identify genes associated with medical conditions or physiological traits that differ across populations. --Calthinus (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On second inspection I would be very much for a replacement with a quote from the review of the older literature as above. Perhaps without some of the details. --Calthinus (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your evident willingness to consider the issue at hand. However, I must address this statement: "Ah yes but this says "those topics which are controversial". Never seen any controversy over the incredibly obvious fact that Uyghurs have diverse origins, save for hotheaded some internet trolls." Well, if you read the article, the exact origins and quantum of ancestry is highly contended by the Uyghurs themselves, the intelligentsia of the Chinese Communist Party, and most importantly, geneticists. The Li study I tried to remove is in fact a contentious study, which attempts to refute a different author's finding that Uyghurs are predominantly West EurAsian (something other scientists and the Uyghur people themselves support). By including this block of text, in large letters no less, we give undue weight to the scientists arguing for the "majority East Asian" hypothesis of Uyghur genetics, and by extension, the CPC. In my opinion, if there is one article which merits full exercise of the WP:SCIR instructions, it is this one. In any case I am for the full removal of the Li quote, and ideally, the entire study. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exact mixture aside (is 45% really that different in effect than 60%? Not a thing that interests me at least) admixture itself is not controversial except for some rogue editing on this page and analogous behavior elsewhere -- thats what I was saying. Anyhow, this makes more sense to me than essays or orthogonal issues (sockpuppetry), you can remove Li. Id rather leave one mention in just prose, not a block quote, if this is a relevant alternate view but perhaps an analysis on what the 15 papers citing it said might be of use (and I suspect most people dont really care what the exact estimated admixture in a likely unrepresentative and disproportionately regional/urban/accessible population sampled are).--Calthinus (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • WP:SCIRS is an essay; accusations of "violat[ing] the consensus at WP:SCIRS" are not really convincing.
  • On the other hand: DerekHistorian claims Restoring genetically sourced data that have been edited since 2010 to 2019, there's no point removing this. So, when exactly was this info removed? And when was it added for the first time?
  • What's the value of Li, and those other sources, on their own?
  • The quotes from Li etc. are definitely too long; they should be shortened.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And li et al. (2009) was already mentioend in the article; I've moved the quotes into a note, and shortened them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't previously aware that WP:SCIRS was only an essay, but I think that there's enough consensus around the issue that it ought to be respected. Genetics sections are complete messes on most articles due to not following its advice. They contain contradictory information, tons of experiments that can't be replicated, etc. Someone should try to bring it to the full force of policy like WP:RS and MEDRS. I'll ask over at Wikiproject Science how we might go about doing this, linking to this discussion. I know it has been amended by community consensus in the past (i.e. the limitations on genetics wasn't previously there).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ermenrich on SCIRS I strongly disagree. Following that would cripple entire topic areas as they currently stand, and in most cases the studies used are from reputable journals, uncontroversial and end up being referenced in secondaries later. I would only observe SCIRS in cases of controversial areas, but even then it is unnecessary because we have WP:DUE which is policy.--Calthinus (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, my personal opinion is that applying SCIRS consistently avoids a lot of headaches. I have no opinion about the sources currently used on this article, but given the amount of bad/misleading sources that usually end up in genetics sections, I think it's a sacrifice worth making if we have to remove most genetics information on Wikipedia to get rid of them. The field will become clearer in a few years and then we can recreate the sections with a clearer picture of what the research actually shows.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ermenrich Well I suppose there is probably a happy medium between having some sources that could cause headaches later, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater by purging tons of info (or tagbombing it which is only somewhat better) that is otherwise well sourced and appreciated by the community. Additionally, in addition to us losing tons of content in areas we need it the most (this will not be a problem for areas with lots of editor activity, obviously), another likely side effect of SCIRS is a growing reliance on coarse-grained studies that synthesize different studies often not even in the same field, engendering a "big picture" theoretical elegance bias while SCIRS could obstruct attempts to bring relevant fine-grained discussion into the picture. Worse still when the "big picture" sources could be not journals, but, ahem, the media, and while some of these like NYTimes can be good sometimes, please, let's not. To use a genetics example, let's say we have haplogroup Z that is widely cited as peaking in population Y, but we have one study that points out that in that population it has essential no internal diversity, suggesting a bottleneck. But since this is a widely spread haplogroup aned this population is much less studied, no one cites the study that noted the bottleneck specifically for noting that. Well then we end up suggesting to everyone that Z haplogroup is a population Y marker. -Calthinus (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the person (whoever it was) improved the clarity of my posts here. I am responding to Calthinus: most of the ethnic genetics material on Wikipedia has been presented incorrectly, often times just flat out lies or wrong info, presumably by trolls. I've recently been having to deal with a relentless troll on the Hazara and Turkmen articles who continues to revert the pages to false information. I am in agreement with Ermenrich that most genetics pages on ethnicity articles should be erased, as this is a very sweet spot on Wikipedia for trolls. Some of the information I have corrected stood for 1 decade on this encyclopedia, a real problem and a blight on this website. -- Hunan201p (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to move this to an appropriate venue for this convo. Yes there is a lot of genetics crap on wikipedia. Probably the biggest chunk of it is secondarily sourced crap including maybe some clumsy studies but much more problematically, the media, etc, as well as verrrry frequent use of Eupedia, Dienekes etc which are blogs and not RS anyways but ironically much more reliable on the topic than a lot of the media sources I see floating around. SCIRS doesn't help us a bit with those. Studies like Li et al, that you took issue with, only have minor effects, i.e. Li might have reduced the level of Western admixture in readers' minds, versus some of the secondarily sourced absolute crap that says things like "R1b is a centum Indo-European marker", "white people's DNA" (facepalm), and so forth. I don't think it's justified, anywhere on wikipedia, to delete entire pages or sections with useful information because trolls frequent it. A better solution is page locks and aggressive pursuit of sockpuppets which probably half of them are. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Calthinus (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Calthinus. Bad editors are not a valid reason to reject reliable sources and relevant topics. We already have WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, et cetera. Sources and topics should be judged on their merits, not on abuses of pov-pushers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both ignoring the reasoning given at SCIRS: primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial.. We don't have a clear picture yet. That's why high quality review articles (not newspaper articles, SCIRS specifically cautions on them) should be used instead. Actually, most of Calthinus's arguments cite me as arguments against using primary sources: we don't have the problem of something being described as a marker if there isn't a primary source making the claim. A good review article summarizes overall field conclusions, after all.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cited you where? A good review article, yes, sure, but a good number of secondary sources are absolutely not that and it's really rather bizarre to argue that WP:DUE does not already accomplish everything SCIRS supposedly should without introducing a reliance on coarse picture biased sources and crappy secondaries. Wiki rules exist for a reason. Deletion must be justified, otherwise people will go on IDLI sprees. We already have a policy that should cover any undue weighting of not-yet-verified theorizing, it is called WP:DUE. --Calthinus (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that should have been "strike me". I would be thrilled if you would cite me though ;-). Anyway, I'm not interested in the article-specific issue, as I've said. If you've got consensus, run with it. I just wish we'd adopt those rules officially.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The line "which are controversial" already ignited discussion at the RfC; it's ambiguous. The intention runs counter to two fundamentals of Wikipedia: Wikipedia provides an overview of relevant scholarly information and insight; and Wikipedia trusts on the self-correcting power of collaborating volunteers to have this info presented correctly. WP:SCISR kills these fundamentals, and gives a HUGE incentive to trolls and pov-pushers to distort Wikipedia's aim.
To give a concrete example: Indo-European migrations, specifically Indo-Aryan migration. This is a major subject of research in ancient DNA, generating a lot of popular interest and news coverage, and with a real-life social impact. Imagine a Dalit-girl in India who has learned, all her life: 'you're a worthless piece of shit, you don't belong to the people who've always inhabitated this land'. Now, where does she turn for objective information? Right: the above-mentioned articles. Untill they are censored for including the most recent insights; insights which are covered by newspapers, spinned by nationalists, but no longer covered by Wikipedia, because it's basic principle fails. Tell me, why would I keep contributing to Wikipedia, if my correcting efforts are no longer welcome? It's about the fundamentals, and this proposal kills them.
To add more, about recent insights: WP:AGE MATTERS:

Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

That's policy, not an essay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a concrete example why Wikipedia is needed in this world. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about bad edits? If there is for example an incorrect statement (such as "the main haplogroups among Hazara are c3 (40%) and O (5%)" which stands for years, that means a lot of people get misled in to believing that Hazaras are paternally mostly East Asian, when they're not. Bad edits tarnish Wikipedia's reputation. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, if readers cannot do basic math and figure out that 40% + 5% is not "majority" East Asian, then that is not our fault, but that of elementary education. This matter of how Eastern or Western Central Asians are is a recurring bizarre fixation for people -- most everyone knows they are all go varying degrees mixed and often heterogenously, rendering exact levels unreliable. But if the issue is really individual edits, you'll face less resistance just reverting them, as a half cooked policy like this will not be accepted.--Calthinus (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus:, I don't think you can call this policy "half-cooked". It's the result of an RFC at the reliable sources board.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC) On that note, perhaps the best thing for Hunan201p to do would be to take this to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Actually, I think I'll just do it myself and see what happens.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermenrich: That's a good idea -- give me a ping there? --Calthinus (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Source Material for this Page

‘Become family’: China sends officials to stay with Xinjiang minorities Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC) 'Nightmare' as Egypt aided China to detain Uighurs Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Turkic-speaking"

The term "Turkic" doesn't just refer to a language family. It also refers to a collection of related ethnic groups. Turkic people constitute an ethno-linguistic group, not just a linguistic group. Hence, it is incorrect to refer to Uyghurs as "Turkic-speaking people" in the introduction. They should instead be referred to as "Turkic people". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could Jargo explain how the collection of ethnic groups are related since phenotypically they vary from Semitic-looking to Mongoloids? You might as well say African-Americans and European-Americans are of related ethnic groups because they speak English. 86.162.104.1 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
European is in fact a constituent part of the ethnic makeup of African-Americans comprising, on average, 1/4 to 1/3 of all genetic ancestry. This might come as a shocker to you but theres no such thing as a genetically "pure" ethnic group even at the very fringes of modern civilization, they just don't exist. Can you please stop making these absurdly ignorant and *extremely* offensive arguments? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look Horse Eye, if I had written what you wrote, you would have deleted my talk as disruptive or for some other made-up reason. No, it does not come as a shocker to me. So please don't make fake claims about what I do not feel, or should I now act as uncivilised as you, and delete your comment? I also accept that I have about 3% Neanderthal DNA, but that does not make me a Neanderthal. Please present us the evidence that Black or White people in the USA regard each other as belonging to the same ethnic group because they are English speakers. Also modern Turks and Kazakhs also speak Turkic languages, please give us the evidence that Turks and Kazakhs regard each other as belonging to the same ethnic group. If you cannot present the evidence, then please stop propagating your own agenda on these talk pages. And Horse Eye, please read my talk carefully, it clearly said phenotypically and not genetically.86.162.104.1 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"minority Turkic ethnic group"

This precise phrase has been used since the Uyghurs are a Chinese minority and the article mainly focuses on Chinese Uyghurs. The Uyghurs originate from China, specifically from the Tarim Basin (Taklamakan Desert) within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, but diaspora populations exist nearby, such as in Kazakhstan, and these people are generally recognised in accordance with the Chinese standard. Stating that the Uyghurs are a "Turkic minority" may lead people to believe that the Uyghurs originate from Turkey, which is false. It is more accurate to say that the Uyghurs are a "Chinese minority of Turkic extraction". I've just elected to call them a "minority Turkic (ethnic group)". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could Jargo explain his claim that the Uyghurs origninate from the Taklamakan Desert because as far as anybody knows, nothing much originates from the Taklamakan Desert, and certainly not Homo sapiens? 86.162.104.1 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Turkic peoples is linked, people will either follow that link or it's not our fault. On the other hand "Chinese minority" might be taken to imply a Chinese ethnic origin...--Calthinus (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, about Uyghurs being a Chinese minority... The reason that I consider Uyghurs to be a Chinese minority is because they are one of the 55 official ethnic minorities of China. Personally, I think China's classifications of its ethnic minorities are heavily flawed. Nonetheless, China's flawed definitions still dictate the standards that ethnic groups may be identified through even outside of China. However, I've elected not to refer to the Uyghurs as a "Chinese minority" in the opening paragraph due to the controversial issue of Chinese sovereignty over Xinjiang and China's somewhat Apartheid-like ethnic policies in Xinjiang and elsewhere. I've instead chosen to refer to them as "an ethnic minority from Central and East Asia", in order to reflect the ambiguity of their ethnic origins, identity, and nationality. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we consider people to be is immaterial. What sources do matters. By sources, I mean those without a conflict of interest -- which by nature excludes any and all published in the PRC. Do sources all refer to Uighurs as a Chinese minority? Do sources all consider them a minority in the same sense that the She people or the Yao people are a minority? I doubt it. Does Wikipedia consider Catalans a "Spanish" minority? Well that ended up in arbitration. Does Wikipedia consider Chechens a "Russian" minority? Only inconsistently. --Calthinus (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is relevant to note that the term "Chinese" has multiple translations in the Mandarin Chinese language. The term "Huaren" vaguely means "Ethnic Chinese" (somewhat synonymous with the common term "Han Chinese") whereas the term "Zhongguoren" generally means "Chinese" but more accurately means "Citizens of China". The Uyghurs are not Huaren but they certainly are Zhongguoren. So, by ethnicity, they are not Chinese, but by nationality, they are. They are not really a Chinese ethnic group but rather a foreign ethnic group that has been conquered by China. Currently, China is trying to assimilate the Uyghurs into the Chinese ethnicity, or, at the very least, into the Chinese culture. The best way to define the Uyghurs is as a "Turkic minority" (Edit: I realise that I have stated earlier that this may lead to misconceptions. This assertion of mine remains true. Personally, I know what "Turkic" means, but some people have been editing "Turkic" to "Turkic-speaking", which is incorrect terminology. I have, so far, reverted one such edit.). They are definitely a Turkic people based on genetics, culture, language, etc. However, unlike certain other Turkic peoples, such as the Kazakhs, the Uyghurs don't possess their own independent sovereign state. Rather, most Uyghurs regard Xinjiang, a Chinese autonomous region, as their "home country", although Xinjiang is not really a country per se. Many independence-leaning Uyghurs refer to Xinjiang, their homeland, as "East Turkestan", though this term is rarely used in an official capacity by most national governments and intergovernmental organisations. All in all, whether Uyghurs are considered a "Chinese minority" mostly lies on whether Xinjiang remains part of China or not. If Xinjiang were to achieve independence in the future, which is doubtful but possible, then the Uyghurs would probably no longer be considered a Chinese minority. However, at the present time, Xinjiang is part of China, and hence Uyghurs are a Chinese ethnic group. This is especially since the Uyghurs do not have a homeland outside of China. They are not like Koreans in China, for example, whose homeland is easily identifiable as Korea (North Korea and South Korea, two sovereign states). Rather, the Uyghur homeland is located wholly within China. Tibet is in a similar situation, with virtually the entire Tibetan homeland subsumed within the Chinese sovereign state. However, Tibetan history seems to be more well-documented, and Tibet has also been functionally independent for a few decades during the 20th century. That's why in WWII maps of East Asia on Wikipedia, Tibet is usually indicated as an independent country, whereas Xinjiang is usually indicated as part of the Republic of China (1912–1949). By the way, Tibetan people are apparently defined as "Chinese" according to national censuses in the United States. This has been a source of much controversy since Tibetans usually prefer to identify as Tibetan. Also notably, the "Hmong/Miao" people seem to be identified as an independent ethnic group in Australia despite the fact that they don't possess their own ethnic group sovereign state but are rather dispersed across southern China and the Indochinese Peninsula. It seems that there is much inconsistency in this regard. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unsure of what being "Chinese" or "Hua" mean, then compare it to the word "American". What does the word "American" mean? Some people take it to mean only Americans with a white skin, and that means it does not even include all European-Americans such as Hispanics and Italians. But I accept the term "American" to mean all people with American citizenship, be they Black, White, Brown, Hispanic, Jewish, First Nation, Asians, Muslims and anything else you can think of. The term "Chinese" means a citizen of the present day China, and it includes Uyghurs born and living in the present day China. The term "Huaren" in China legally means a person whose heritage or genetics or ancestry were from China, but now no longer hold Chinese citizenship. A Chinese person who live outside of China but still has Chinese citizenship is called a "Huaqiao". 86.162.104.1 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a recent edit that an anonymous user performed to the Uyghur main article, which I subsequently reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghurs&oldid=933643376
The Kazakhs did not possess their own state until 28 years ago, and not long before, they did not even have an autonomous republic, and Kazakhstan was considered part of Russia proper ... but were the Kazakhs ever "Russian"? (well actually, a lot more than many Uighurs are Chinese, after all many of them had abandoned speaking Kazakh for Russian...) All of this is kind of missing the point. Wikipedia neither endorses nor denounces current boundaries per NPOV. Wikipedia neither endorses nor denounces separatism nor unionism per NPOV. I'm happy to discuss our personal views on the matter on my talk page so feel free to continue there. I'm not sure we're keeping away from WP:FORUM here, and I just deleted an IP troll's rants using that rule. But do feel free to continue on my talk page. --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't have anything against the Uyghurs. I have stated that I don't support East Turkestan becoming an independent sovereign state, in the recent past, for logistical reasons, but I fully support Uyghur autonomy and I condemn China's ongoing persecution of the Uyghurs. I agree with you regarding your statements on Chinese publications... the majority of them are untrustworthy, whether to a slight or severe degree. However, I have cited Chinese publications on Wikipedia occasionally, usually to present the "official Chinese view" of various situations. I have never cited Chinese publications to present the "truth"... only to present one particular viewpoint that may or may not be accurate. In the introduction to this article, I have mentioned that the Uyghurs are "considered to be one of the 55 Chinese ethnic minorities" and are "recognised as native to Xinjiang, China". The precise terms "considered" and "recognised" are very important here. These terms indicate that these statements are the perceptions of a national government, the Chinese government, rather than the "indisputable truth". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo, where do you get all these ideas such as "China's ongoing persecution of the Uyghurs" from? There are a few propaganda TV programs and interviews about this. Even the BBC made a documentary, but you can easily see the people that were interviewed were actors. In one, there was someone who was said to be Uyghur, but who looked exactly like a typical Kazakh. I am sure it is pretty easy to fool BBC documentary makers because they are so set on what they thought is reality. The result is fake news is paraded as real news. You might as well claim that there is a continued persecution of Black people by White people in the USA, as the US prisons are full of African-Americans. And guess what, the North Koreans have also made a documentary of how poor the citizens of America are, and that they have to live on the streets and survive by eating snow and feral pigeons. In fact the North Koreans documentary makers felt so sorry for them that they shared their hot Korean coffee with the Americans. Are you going to believe that too? 86.162.104.1 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo, whether you support a Turkestan or East Turkestan, surely should depend on where this hypothetical East Turkestan be located. The ancestry of the present Uyghurs was from the Near East (or West Asia / Anatolia, Trans-Caucasus), and their looks are similar to the people from these areas. Jewish people (ancestry from Middle East)have lived in the area now known as Germany and Poland for upto two thousand years, yet they cannot form an independent state in Germany or Poland. To form an independent state, the Jews returned to their ancestry Middle East. So likewise, there should not be any problems for the present day Uyghurs to return to their ancestral roots and establish an independent state in the Near East, and live alongside their Turk brothers and sisters. 86.162.104.1 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I have recently noticed that the citation for the population of the Uyghurs in the main info-box of Uyghurs actually originates from a Christian Evangelist organisation from the United States whose ultimate mission is to indoctrinate every foreign ethnic group on Earth. That's why they have this huge database of ethnic minorities around the world, including in China. To me, this is very disturbing and possibly inappropriate. I'm not sure whether it's okay for this citation to remain in the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo and others like to delete other people's talk here as soap-boxing and the like, such as talk here is for improving the article. How's Jargo's and other's ramblings here talk of improving the article, and other people's talks are not? Is it time to delete the aforesaid people's talk for the same reason that they delete other people's talks? 86.162.104.1 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the legal definition of "Uyghur people"?

Here's my understanding of the legal definition of "Uyghur people":

  • The Uyghurs are recognised as native to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China.
    • Note: The word "Uyghur" (well, actually, "Uygur") is included in the official name of the territory; the name that was instated by the Chinese government.
  • The Uyghurs are probably not recognised as native anywhere else. Most countries officially consider the Uyghurs to be Chinese people.
    • Note: I could be wrong, but it's hard to find sources on this. Recognising an ethnic group as a "minority" doesn't necessarily equate to recognising that same ethnic group as native.
  • The Uyghurs are recognised as a native minority to China rather than just as a minority.
    • Note: Looking at China's official "56 ethnic groups", we can see that this obviously doesn't cover every ethnic minority in China. This only covers those "special" minorities that China considers to be members of the "Chinese nation", as well as the majority Han Chinese. Any ethnic group that is included within this definition technically qualifies as a "native ethnic group".
  • The Uyghurs are recognised as a native ethnic group to Xinjiang rather than as an "ethnic group in transit" (immigrant group).
    • Note: The Uyghurs are recognised as the "designated autonomous ethnic group of Xinjiang". Because Xinjiang is designated an "Uyghur Autonomous Region", the Chinese government has special quotas for electing ethnic Uyghur representatives within the local government of Xinjiang. These "Uyghur quotas" don't exist elsewhere, to my knowledge.
  • The Uyghurs are not recognised as indigenous to either Xinjiang or China (including Xinjiang).
    • Note: China technically recognises all ethnic groups as native and none as indigenous. This is a major component of Chinese nationalism that was initially standardised by the Republic of China (1912–1949) and was then adopted by the People's Republic of China (1949–present).

Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever China (PRC, ROC, whatever) thinks is "legal" matters only if we are talking about government policies. The reality is that this matter is contentious with different views among the Chinese, among the Uighurs, among the ethnological scholarly community, among political activists and so forth. We shouldn't privilege one view over others per WP:NPOV. --Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, since the Uyghurs are defined across Wikipedia primarily as a "Chinese ethnic minority", they need to be analysed through this lens. See, in different countries, the same ethnic groups can often have different names. The "Hmong" in Vietnam are classified as "Miao" in China, for example. Meanwhile, Taiwan classifies its indigenous peoples into 16 distinct ethnic groups whereas China groups them all up together as "Gaoshanren" (high mountain people). The definition of "Uyghurs", at least in contemporary usage, seems to be derived from China. In my opinion, China's definition of the Uyghurs is wrong, but it is still very important nonetheless since it is one of the only forms of official recognition that the Uyghurs actually have. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite happy with the current state of the introduction to the article. I don't have a personal vendetta against the Uyghurs or anything. However, I have noticed certain extremists in this talk section trying to argue some very strange ethnic theories about the Uyghurs and asserting that much of this article is anti-Chinese propaganda. That's why I've made this segment here to discuss the actual legal definition of Uyghurs according to China itself. Around maybe half of the introduction was written by me a few months ago, I think. Firstly, I have introduced the Uyghurs, then I have outlined their legal status, then I have outlined their history and culture. The next two paragraphs discuss the Uyghur diaspora. Finally, a large paragraph discusses the recent controversies regarding Uyghurs, especially the re-education camps in Xinjiang. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo, it is good that you are trying to make an encyclopedia, but if you don't have any knowledge of the subject, don't you think you should leave it to others to do? Let's get real, does any Uyghur really know what a Uyghur really is? Change the term Uyghur to any other people, say American, British, French, etc, and ask, for example, does any American really know what an American is? What do you think is the answer? 86.162.104.1 (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uyghurs&oldid=934881885"