Talk:Uyghurs/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Genetics

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]] "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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@SeraphimSystem: you're right. Will do in a sec.--Calthinus (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 [[3]], 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. [[4]] [[5]].

This later review of admixture studies labels Uighurs a "uniquely admixed population" [[6]] : 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

Done.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is a concrete example why Wikipedia is needed in this world. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@Ermenrich: That's a good idea -- give me a ping there? --Calthinus (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks Jargo. So according to your logic, when did Jargo become Jargo? 86.162.104.1 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Jargo" is derived from the word "Jargon". It is a pseudonym. "Jargo" doesn't mean anything. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Caucasian"?

Why the quotation marks around the word "Caucasian"? They seem like scare quotes or seem to imply there is something unusual or inexact about the word. Dynasteria (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

It is fairly difficult to gauge the true opinions of millions of individuals. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

They certainly don't consider themselves Turks. It's modern pan-Turkism which claims all Turkish-speaking groups as one. Even in languages recognized as "Turkish", native elements constitute a larger portion. Most Uyghurs aren't even aware of the movement or the larger language family. Sherwilliam (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether the majority of (poorly educated in these matters because of CCP policy) Uyghurs believes that they're a part of an ethic group can be factor in determining whether they are, but should imo not be the main criterium. From the article Ethnic group: "Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance. Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion, it is sometimes possible for individuals or groups to leave one ethnic group and become part of another." Surely one can objectively determine whether these criteria have been fulfilled? It seems to me like the Uyghurs are a part of the Turkic people by all these standards, and that this is the view supported by literature. Do you believe in the concept of ethnic groups at all? Because the arguments you make mainly seem to point to a general aversion to the concept in itself, which I think should be discussed (and sourced, when the discussion is on Wikipedia) on Talk:Ethnic group instead of here. Doanri (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doanri:. You state supported by literature, but have not yet produced a single scholarly WP:RS for that assertion. WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims (of pan-Turkism) require strong evidence / sourcing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 09:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work on better sourcing, but please do keep in mind that 'Uyghurs are a Turkic people' != 'Pan-Turkism', just like saying that the Dutch and Austrians are a Germanic people does not imply a belief in the ideal of Großdeutschland. Doanri (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

See this report

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/22/asia/china-xinjiang-uyghur-muslim-intl-hnk/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:16:69A7:4475:3D3D:D74D:DE3D (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It certainly puts the whole affair into perspective. It is about time the modern people who are called Uyghurs learn their true history and identity, and to stop moaning about life. 109.156.38.242 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Both you and OP: WP:NOTAFORUM Doanri (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Recently Added Claim of being a Turkic ethnic group in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm including my entire edit summary of my revert of the IP editor's addition here, since it was cut off, along with a little bit of extra commentary: Okay. I've reviewed the sources; the first makes no such claim about their ethnicity, but only refers in passing to a "Muslim and Turkic" idenity, and its a quote, not a statement of the author. The whole book is about culture, not biology. The second is a one-sentence statement saying that are a "Muslim Turkic" people. But the book is by a musicologist and a lecturer in Spanish and Iberian idenity. The book is about their musical traditions. These are not strong enough sources for such a claim. The first source comes from a highly reputable source, but as I noted, the book is primarily about how cultural affiliations and traditions affect the social and economic status of various communities, including the Uyghurs. The only part connecting any concept of a "Turkic" identity and the group is speaking about their cultural affiliations, and regardless, the author is quoting another source, rather than making a statement of fact. The second source are by two non-experts in anything connected with the Uyghurs, but on their entry regarding the group, says they are a "Muslim Turkic people". Aside from being too vague to even known how they meant to use the phrase, as noted, the authors are a musicologist, and a late lecturer in Spanish, who also comments on Spanish/Portuguese/Iberian identity. These sources are not strong enough to make a claim that they are definitively a Turkic ethnic group, especially in the way the IP editor is claiming. (They appear to have just searched for any source that had "Uyghur" and "Turkic" in the same book)... As we note in the article, the Uyghurs have absorbed a great deal of Turkic culture and obviously, language. A large minority also have Turkic ancestry, from various groups that have moved into the area over the centuries. That they have partly assimilated to these populations is no surprise. But as we also note in the article, they're a primarily Eurasian people, who are also related to the indigenous population, and some have no Turkic admixture whatsoever-- they're made up of several historical groups that have melded into one modern identity over time. Since there are political interests which seek to establish a wholly Turkic identity for the Uyghurs, both in the PRC and in Turkey (and other Turkic countries), for national reasons, such a claim of fact about their ethnicity would need the strongest possible sourcing. And as we note in the article, this is a subject of deep dispute, so even that wouldn't necessarily trump the rest of our sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Is there Wikipedia policy stating that a claim would need to be sourced to a higher standard than WP:RS when there are 'political interests'? As far as I know the only thing we need to care about is factual accuracy, regardless of political consequences. Doanri (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that Uighurs are Turks. We don't need a source for that. Even trying to find a source for it is absurd. Because there is no one who claims that Uighurs are of any ethnicity other than Turks. Look, many books refer to them as Uighur Turks. [7][8] --85.104.66.21 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Everyone does not agree, which is exactly why we are having this discussion. And of course we need sources for this. What you are suggesting is not how Wikipedia works, and would violate many of our core policies. Many of those books you posted in your search link are from the 19th century. Nearly all of them. Scholarship has gotten a little better (and more thorough) since then. The very few others are passing references to a generic and undefined term by authors in other fields. The reason you get so few results from the 20th or 21st century when searching for the term is that this is no longer widely accepted view by mainstream scholars. What you're suggesting is synthesis, and to some extent, original research (or rather, promotion of a fringe view). The reality is much more nuanced than "they are Turks". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus Also, this part of the article was changed by a banned editor. See [9] [10]--85.104.66.21 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who added the phrasing. It's technically correct. The Uyghurs are Turkic, but are not a prima facie Turkic people. In the same way that Egyptians are often called "Arabs", when in fact the very few of them are. They are an Arabized people. That a slight majority of them accept this identification and even promote Arab Nationalism does not negate the factual reality that they are a different ethnic group. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus. You may be able to tell apart an Egyptian from an Arab. But most people outside their group will not be able to tell apart Egyptians, Arabs, Berbers, Middle-Eastern Jews, Druze, Syrians, Lebanese, Algerian, Libyan, Tunisians, Moroccans, Turkish, Iranians, some Greeks, some Spaniards and Portuguese, some Indians and Pakistanis, some Italians, Albanians, Romany, Georgians, Azeris, Kurds, etc; because they are all have similar skin colours, similar shaped noses, and look similar. This may be due to extensive mixing and breeding since ancient times. These people are often described as "Mediterranean" skin colour type and appearance. The present uyghurs belong to these said groups in appearance. Most people will probably find it difficult to distinguish the Chinese, Tibetans, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, aboriginal Siberians, Burmese, Kazakhs, even Vietnamese, Thais, Filipinos, Gurkhas, pure Native North and South Americans, because these people are Mongoloid or East Asian peoples. The original Turkic peoples were Mongoloids. You just cannot mistake a Mongoloid person with a Mediterranean/Middle-Eastern person. The present uyghurs came into China from the Near/Middle East, and were permitted to settle. They cannot claim to be the aboriginals of Xinjiang, because they are not. The present day uyghurs just like the turks of present day Turkey simply adopted the Turkic languages of their Mongoloid rulers. If uyghurs want to form a state, then they should return to the Near-East and form it there. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:D143:6A0F:1A35:C81E (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Turk and Turkic are 2 different things. If uyghurs are Turks, then they should without doubt go back to what is today's Turkey and some of its surrounding areas. Turkic refer to a Mongoloid East Asian people and their language. The modern turks and the uyghurs are Anatolian peoples of the Near-East who adopted the Turkic language of the Turkic people because they were conquered by the Mongoloid peoples, just as the African-Americans adopted English as their own language. African-Americans cannot claim to be Anglo-Saxons just because English is their language, they are still Negroes; and Turks and uighurs cannot claim they are Turkic peoples just because they speak a Turkic language, because they are still Anatolian peoples. They are simply Anatolians who speak a Turkic language, but are not a Turkic people. Over the past few centuries, the people now called uyghurs migrated to China and settled, in exactly the way Jews migrated into Europe from the Middle-East, and the Gypsy-Romany peoples from India also moved into Europe. The Jews cannot form a Jewistan in Europe, neither can the Gypsies form a Gypsystan in Europe. If these people want to form a state, they must form their state back in their homeland in Anatolia. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:205C:E1D2:9C97:A0AC (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM This is not the place to voice your ideas on statehood. Doanri (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@doanri. This is not about ideas of statehood. It is about separating fact from fiction. There are forces that malign and demonise the Chinese people and China using fiction and fake news. Because we live in a free world, this imbalance in information must be redressed. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:D143:6A0F:1A35:C81E (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: first this is not a forum, bring some reliable mainstream views that they are not a Turkic people. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH You say that they are "Eurasian people". Really? What were those "Eurasian peoples" speaking? You just denied ethnogenesis of all nations. Since there are political interests which seek to establish a wholly Turkic identity for the Uyghurs Is this a joke? It is even ridiculous we are discussing if Uyghurs are a Turkic people or not. Really? What is next? Beshogur (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I’m not treating this as a forum. I’m only attempting to keep the article lead in line with the text in the body of the article, and reflecting the reliable sources upon which it is largely based. The enthnogenesis and population history is fraught with inconsistencies and political maneuvering. Even some of the studies we cite in the article are not peer-reviewed; some of the genetic studies by Chinese scholars, additionally, are not even reproducible due to the PRC barring access. No one denies that the Uyghurs are culturally Turkic. In some areas, such as Altishahr, there is direct cultural continuity and a strong identification with the Turkic peoples who settled the area. In other areas, it varies widely. Many modern Uyghurs don’t consider their ethnic identity to be primarily Turkic, but identify with the earlier populations with whom the layer Mongolian and Turkic peoples merged, and assimilated. Historically; they’re actually not far off, based on the data available. The modern day Uyghurs are descended from a variety of peoples, including the Tocharian and Saka peoples. As stated in the article: “Many contemporary Western scholars... do not consider the modern Uyghurs to be of direct linear descent from the old Uyghur Khaganate of Mongolia. Rather, they consider them to be descendants of a number of peoples, one of them the ancient Uyghurs“... And: “The settled population of these cities later merged with incoming Turkic people, including the Uyghurs of Uyghur Khaganate, to form the modern Uyghurs. The Indo-European Tocharian language later disappeared as the urban population switched to a Turkic language such as the Old Uyghur language.” What they were speaking doesn’t matter. Linguistics is only one part of the picture; it is also somewhat unreliable in determining population history, in that it’s an entirely cultural phenomenon. It can only indicate diffusion and assimilation, and can’t indicate much of anything except the prevailing pressures at some point to adopt said language. Extant archaeological evidence indicates that the language assumed to be spoken by many of the inhabitants prior to about a millennia ago was Tocharian, which was subsumed by the Turkic languages of the region, with Old Uygur eventually displacing other dialects. Thus your question of “what were these ‘Eurasian peoples’ speaking?”, with Eurasian peoples in scare quotes, makes little sense to me, because it’s not really that relevant. And it certainly doesn’t mean that I “denied ethnogenesis of all nations” (emphasis mine). There’s no doubt amongst mainstream scholars that they have substantial Eurasian history. Per one genetic study: “A study based on paternal DNA (2005) shows West Eurasian haplogroups in Uyghurs make up 65% to 70% and East Asian haplogroups 30% to 35%“. I think we may be talking past each other somewhat here, in part based on a differing understanding of population studies.. As I said, linguistics (and even cultural practices) doesn’t really indicated anything aside from cultural diffusion and assimilation, and thus cultural affinities. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, this is in no way “ridiculous”, or a “joke”. As my user page says, I’m an anthropologist and archaeologist. That’s not an appeal to authority, or anything of the sort. Far from it. But at least assume that I have some idea of what I’m talking about. There’s no need to be insulting. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Sorry if my text felt that way. But I hope you understand. Please check other ethnic groups articles. They don't say Spanish people are Iberian but Romance. Plus it's not Turkey or PRC that refer to them Turkic, they call their own language Turki, plus refer to their homeland as Turkestan. Beshogur (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn’t bothered, but we should try to be as collegial as possible. As far as your reply... I have to say, I think you’re mistaken in this case. That’s not an ethnic group article, but an article for a nationality. The only real unifying cultural feature amongst Spaniards is their use of the Spanish language. As you can see, the description in the article says “Romance nation”, referring to the nationality of the Spanish people, and is piped to Romance languages. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. As the following sentence in the article says: “Within Spain, there are a number of National and regional ethnic identities that reflect the country's complex history...”. Spain has a number of ethnic groups, including (for example) the Catalan peoples, Castilians, Aragonese, the Basque, et cetera.

Uyghurs almost universally call their language “Uyghur tili” or “Uyghurche”. The designation “Turki” or “Eastern Turki” is anachronistic, and hasn’t been used for about a century. Also, I’ve admittedly never heard of modern Uyghurs calling their primary geographic region “Turkestan”. As it’s not something I’ve run across before, maybe you could provide a few sources for me to peruse? So far as I know, even their traditional name for the Tarim Basin is “Altishahr”. Regardless, as I said, language use doesn’t determine ethnicity. No one denies that much of their culture is Turkic, or that they historically lived under the rule of khaganates. But part of the reason why “Turki” isn’t used as a descriptor for their language is that most Uyghur people reject a solely Turkic ethnic identity. It was a conscious decision to change the name, for that reason.

Beyond that though, there is a general consensus among reliable sources that they are qualitatively different from other Turkic peoples, and have a complex ethnic history of multiple backgrounds. This is all covered in the article. But the identification of the Uyghur people as a de facto Turkic ethnic group is heavily disputed. Culturally Turkic? Linguistically Turkic? And even part of their ethnic makeup? Absolutely. While WP:OTHERSTUFF examples are of limited utility here... The Cornish people are almost completely linguistically and culturally Anglicized, and English is their de jure nationality. They have a great deal of historical English admixture. But that doesn’t mean that they’re English. Scholarship acknowledges that they’re a separate and unique ethnic group, despite the fact that many English people would only identify them as English. It’s also an identification that most of them reject. It’s a similar case here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxilarius: Uyghur term is not a nationality. They are not a nation because they do not have any country to become nation at the first place. Lot of Turkic peoples doesn't call themselves Turk either, they have their own name, it doesn't make them non-Turkic. Beyond that though, there is a general consensus among reliable sources that they are qualitatively different from other Turkic peoples, and have a complex ethnic history of multiple backgrounds. majority of the Turkic peoples have complex background, also I do not think Uyghurs are different from Turkic peoples. There are more different peoples than them. But the identification of the Uyghur people as a de facto Turkic ethnic group is heavily disputed by whom? You are comparing assimilated Celts with Uyghurs. Not a good comparison. Those people are aware by their ethnicity despite speaking English. Now can you please say what Uyghurs spoke before they began to speak Turkic language? I wonder. This is pure original research, everything else claiming it would be fringe theories, and I doubt someone is claiming that Uyghurs are not Turkic. that most Uyghur people reject a solely Turkic ethnic identity source again? For East Turkestan, there is a whole article for it. Really asking that? Also take a look at the First East Turkestan Republic, was founded by Uyghurs. (second were founded by Kazakhs) Uyghur Islamist militant groups also use that term, as well as other organisations. For the modern Uyghur terminology, you have a point, but this isn't like forming a new nation from scratch consisting about other ethnicities as well. I explained that modern Uyghur ethnogenesis consist of other ancient peoples as well, but this doesn't make they are of mixed or non-Turkic origin. This isn't a formation happened within 100 years, but many centuries. Beshogur (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@beshogur. We know what the turks called themselves before they became turks/turkish/turkey. They were called the Ottomans. Before they adopted the language now called Turkish, which BTW they adopted from Turkic- the language of Mongoloid peoples, they spoke Greek. Therefore the people of Turkey are not a Turkic people, they are merely an Anatolian people who adopted Turkic as their current language. This is no different to African-Americans who now speak English as their mother tongue. African-Americans can't call themselves Anglo-Saxons because their language is English, so why should turks or uyghurs be called a Turkic people? Then a long time before that they spoke the Anatolian languages, for example Hittite, which was an Indo-European language, and is now extinct. No doubt along the way they used Persian/Farsi languages (again I-E), and the Semitic languages of the Middle-East. The uyghurs trace their roots to the same ancestors as the modern turks, so their ancestors would have used Greek, Persian and other languages before switching to Turkic. And in China nowadays, many of them use and speak modern Han Chinese. What is the problem? The ancestors of these modern uyghurs migrated to China; this is no different to Jews and Gypsy peoples migrating to Europe. The Jews of Germany and Europe even developed Yiddish from the German language for their own use, rather than to use Hebrew for everyday use. The Spanish Jews developed Ladino as a language for use among themselves. People everywhere adopt the other people's language throughout history, and this apply to both the conquerors and the conquered. Yes, uyghurs are mixed-race, but they look more like the Anatolians/ Mediterraneans such as Italians and Greeks, Near- and Middle-Easterns, Trans-Caucasians, Persians/Kurds and even North African than anyone else. Therefore they are turkish, but not Turkic. People don't have problems with that because mixed-race people such as Barack Obama are always called Black, and never White. Thus, mixed-race people such as the uyghurs are turks but not Mongoloids (in this analogy, turks are equivalent to Blacks, and Mongoloids to Whites, and uyghurs are mixed-race such as Barack Obama), even though they may also have Mongoloid genetic components. If they want land to form a state, then they must return to Anatolia, in exactly the same way the Jews returned to the Middle-East to form their state. There is no Afrostan for Black people or a Hispanicstan or a Mixed-Race-stan in the USA; likewise there is no turkistan in China. China has graciously allowed these uyghur people to settle in China; of course if they are not happy with that, then they should return to their homeland in Anatolia. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:9512:B01F:1CBC:41A2 (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:9512:B01F:1CBC:41A2: I don't speak to racistic IP users. Beshogur (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@besh. You simply fail to speak when faced with true facts, because there is nothing you can say to refute the truth. As for a racist, you are the only racist here because you are racist towards the Chinese people. 109.151.173.239 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The article should reflect what the scholarship says. What does the scholarship say? The US State Department: "The Chinese Communist Party is waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men, and children, and members of other Turkic Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, China.". The The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought: "Originating from Tiele-Turkic nomads in the steppes of the northwestern Mongolia Plateau around 300 BC...". The Uyghur Lobby: Global Networks, Coalitions and Strategies of the World Uyghur Congress: "The Uyghurs (or Uighurs) share the ethnic lineage of, broadly defined, the world's Turkic people.". Islam, Family Life, and Gender Inequality in Urban China: "Unlike the Han Chinese, Uyghurs are a Turkic people.". Encyclopaedia Brittanica: "Uighurs are among the oldest Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia.". "The Uyghurs in Xinjiang – The Malaise Grows": "The term Uyghur refers to the Turkic people who, in the Middle Ages, developed a brilliant civilisation in the east of Xinjiang. This ethnonym, having disappeared since Islamisation, was revived by Russian ethnologists; it was brought back into service during the 1930s by Soviet advisors of Sheng Shicai to designate the Turkic-speaking sedentary Muslim communities speaking the Turki dialect of the Xinjiang oases.". It's clear that they are considered Turkic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Scholarship" and the "US State Department" are oxymorons. You might as well say words coming through the mouth of soon-to-be ex-president of the United States D J Trump are works and words of scholarship. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:9512:B01F:1CBC:41A2 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And the rest?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait! There's more: History Today, Merriam-Webster, an article in Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts, and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@3fam. Why wait? From what sources did historytoday.com, merriam-webster.com , us state department, etc etc, get their information? They seem all to quote from the same hymn sheet. White people will even quote the Christian bible as if the info there is the "Gospel" truth; they have certainly started enough wars because of these "truths". Any choirboy can see through that. First thing to do is to check whether what's on the hymn sheet is true or just a story. 3fam, you were probably never a choirboy/girl. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:9512:B01F:1CBC:41A2 (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And even more: Community Matters in Xinjiang, 1880-1949: Towards a Historical Anthropology of the Uyghur, "Mazar festivals of the Uyghurs: Music, Islam and the Chinese State", "Locally modern, globally Uyghur: geography, identity and consumer culture in contemporary Xinjiang", Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, "Genetic admixture history and forensic characteristics of Turkic-speaking Kyrgyz population via 23 autosomal STRs", "Reinventing the Central Asian Rawap in Modern China: Musical Stereotypes, Minority Modernity, and Uyghur Instrumental Music", "Factors and Challenges of Uyghur Nationalism in the Early Twentieth Century", and "The ethnogenesis of the Uighur".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The content of all these reports can all be traced to head sources, which are not scholarly by today's standard. These reports are used for political purposes and not for scholarly or true academic purposes.109.151.173.239 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus that the Uyghurs are Turkic people. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus that the people presently called Uyghurs speak a Turkic language. There is also consensus that this was not the language spoken by the cultural ancestors of these people, but was adopted. However, there is no consensus that these people are a Turkic people. For example, a typical Turk from the country now called Turkey does not have Turkic biological ancestry, although they speak a Turkic language. The English word "Turkic" is an adjective, which is used to describe a language or a person, and is similar to the English adjective "Germanic". We are all very clear what the "Germanic" languages are, likewise we are very clear what "Turkic" languages are. However a "Germanic" person is not necessarily just a person who speak a "Germanic" language as their mother tongue. A clear example of this is the African-American population, whose mother tongue is English, a Germanic language, but who are clearly not a "Germanic" people. Likewise, both the Turks of Turkey, and the Uyghurs speak "Turkic" languages, but they are not "Turkic" peoples. An example of a people who speak a "Turkic" language, and is a "Turkic" people are the Kazakhs. As you all know, Kazakhs are Mongoloids, whose appearance is nothing like the Uyghurs. 109.151.173.239 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this entire discussion has gotten ridiculous. It is completely absurd (and obscene) to discuss in terms of, and I quote from further above, They cannot claim to be the aboriginals of Xinjiang, because they are not. The present day uyghurs just like the turks of present day Turkey simply adopted the Turkic languages of their Mongoloid rulers. If uyghurs want to form a state, then they should return to the Near-East and form it there. Firstly, anyone with a basic understanding of history understands that whatever theories exist on the Uighurs' origin, any historically documented origins in the Middle East are totally out of the question, that is completely WP:FRINGE lunacy. The reality is, it is disputable whether "Turkic ethnic group" is a valid concept, the Uighurs like all peoples have diverse origins that include both the conqueror and the conquered, this is long accepted and has been further corrobated by genetic evidence (hence being "Turkic" or whatever in no way contradicts historical emergence from multiple sources).--Calthinus (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@cal. Agree that it is ridiculous and absurd, but you are talking about humans, and humans are a ridiculous and absurd bunch. For example, Barack Obama is always called a Black man or an Africa-American, and never, not even once, a White man, although biologically he is about 50% White. So why is he not called a White man for 50% of the time? It's just how all societies work. On average, a Uyghur is 30% Turkic and 70% Anatolian, so in terms of human sociology, it is perfectly acceptable to label a Uyghur as an Anatolian. Genetically there is no such a thing as a human "race", all humans belong to the same race; "race" is merely a concept in sociology. It is just not acceptable that certain (but not all) uyghurs make claims that China must give up a large portion of their country to them to form their own independent country because they are a different race, especially when a large number of their ancestors were migrants to China. No European or American country or government will entertain the idea or claim that they should give up parts of their country to Jewsish people or Gypsies, or people of African descent, or Mixed-Race people to form an independent Jewishstan, Gypsystan, Afrostan, or Mixed-Race-stan. Why should China be any different. The Uyghurs in China should simply live in China as Chinese citizens, or if they want to form a Turkestan, then form it in Anatolia. 109.151.173.239 (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Uighurs are not in any way whatsoever Anatolian, people migrated from Central Asia to Anatolia, and not the other way around, period. As for your beliefs about whether some hypothetical "Jewishstan" or "Gypsystan" or "Mixed-Race-stan" should exist, I don't think it is constructive to discuss these things as they are not remotely relevant here, and also likely offensive to some to suggest that your ideas about race should be the decisive factor in what political state apparatuses exist. The Western concept of race is completely irrelevant to Uighur society. --Calthinus (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@cal. Then why do DNA studies show the modern Turks of Turkey and the Uyghurs are genetically related, but the modern Turks typically have no Mongoloid DNA? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:14F7:4E68:FDE5:19A2 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@cal. If Gypsystan etc are not constructive, why then should anyone entertain or give credibility to the idea of a turkestan? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:14F7:4E68:FDE5:19A2 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Xinjiang wasn't historically an integral region of China. In fact, Xinjiang has only really become a part of "China proper" within the past four decades or so; though, I can't pin down an exact number. If you define China as the homeland of the Han Chinese, who comprise around 92% of the population, then the historical bounds of China proper don't extend past Sichuan and Inner Mongolia. Xinjiang has only become an integral part of China during the recent economic rise of China under the People's Republic of China regime. Historically, Xinjiang was either a border region under Chinese suzerainty, or it was completely independent from China. Also, the Qing dynasty was not Chinese; it was Manchu. The Qing dynasty was Chinese only in the sense that the Republic of China was its successor state. This is comparable to how the Spanish Philippines is still considered to be a predecessor of the Philippines, likewise with Dutch Indonesia and Indonesia, British Malaya and Malaysia, etc. Within the Qing dynasty, Chinese people were second-class citizens living under the rule of foreign invaders. Xinjiang was originally incorporated into Chinese territory by the Manchus; the region was subsequently inherited by the Republic of China, and then by the People's Republic of China. Before Xinjiang was part of the Qing dynasty, the preceding Ming dynasty did not rule over Xinjiang. However, the Yuan dynasty did rule over Xinjiang, though, again, the Yuan dynasty was not Chinese since it was ruled by Mongols, another group of foreign invaders like the Manchus. Going even further back, some people claim that Xinjiang was ruled by the Han dynasty. This could be true, though it is probably not easy to prove this. Even if the Han dynasty did rule Xinjiang, this doesn't indicate that Xinjiang is part of the Han Chinese homeland. It seems more so that the Han dynasty's rule over Xinjiang was colonial in nature, with the majority of the inhabitants being non-Chinese. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't actually think the Uyghurs are indigenous to Xinjiang. However, at the same time, the Han Chinese obviously aren't indigenous to Xinjiang either. It seems that, in all likelihood, no one is indigenous to Xinjiang, since any "indigenous" inhabitants have probably been exterminated or assimilated many centuries ago. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Jargo, what on earth are you talking about? You are going about defining China the White Man's way, ie China = Land of the Han. China is an exonym used by English speaking countries. It has no meaning apart from a being some kind of labelling in translation to the English language. The endonym is 中国. Sure the Han people call their land 中国. However the Liao's also called their land 中国, as did the Jurchen and Khitan, as did the Manchu, as well as by the people throughout much of history of the area that the White Man say are not "Chinese". You can also say the English are not indigenous to the land and country now called England. It doesn't change the fact that it is still called England now. And the people now considered pure English are not 100% Anglo-Saxons, they have heritage from the Celtic peoples, the Vikings, Norman French, other French, various German peoples, and other continental European heritage. What they share in common is that they can be described as typical North and North-Eastern Europeans, ie The White Man. The same is true of what is now called the "Chinese" people. The modern Chinese Han person is not just people who are 100% descendants of the Han dynasties of China. The people now referred to as "Han" are the resultant admix of all the various Mongoloid tribes, which you call Hans, Khitans, Mongols, Jurchens, Manchus, S-E Asians in the south, Siberians, Tibetans, Central Asians, as well as Mongoloid tribes that have now disappeared from throughout their history. And what have they got in common? They are all Mongoloids. Of course the Mongoloid people indigenous to Xinjiang are Hans, some of them are even direct descendants from the Han Dynasties. The land of China now is an amalgamation of the lands of all the previous dynasties and states that existed before. The typical Chinese in China is anyone of Mongoloid heritage. People of Chinese heritage outside China are also called Chinese by the respective local countries, even though they are not citizens of China. The modern Uyghurs however are not Mongoloids and many of their ancestors migrated into China from Anatolia, Northern Persia, the trans-Caucasus, and areas around what is considered the Middle-East in recent history. In fact the modern Uyghurs are not Uyghurs at all. They were given the name by Russian Sinologists, who named them after the origin Uyghurs who were a Mongoloid people. But as they are citizens of China, they are also Chinese. The Chinese communists, anxious to be seen treating everyone equally as dictated by communism, recognised a homeland for the non-Mongoloid Uyghurs in Xinjiang, like the Soviets providing an Oblast for Jewish people. So it is absurd for modern Uyghurs to claim that Xinjiang should be handed over to them to form an independent country. If they want to form an independent country, then they should return to Anatolia or somewhere in the Middle-Eastern region and form their state there. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:14F7:4E68:FDE5:19A2 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@cal. I am sure you already know, the term "Turkic" in the English language was used as an adjective for the "Goturk" people of East Asia. The Goturk people were a Mongoloid people, whose language came to be called Turkic in English. "Turkic" is then used as a generic term for any of the "Turkic" languages. The modern people of Turkey adopted Turkic as their mother tongue. Therefore, people of Turkey and the Uyghurs have Turkic mother tongues, but are not a Turkic people. 109.151.173.239 (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Just... wow!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ethnic grouping"

Why are so many Wikipedians obsessed with the "ethnic grouping" of the Uyghur people? It would make more sense to brigade this article instead: East Turkestan independence movement. In any case, the article "Uyghurs" is not meant to be some kind of pseudo-science soapbox. How would you like it if someone went over to "Chinese people" and said that all of the Chinese originate from Mars? Total hogwash, nonsense, Nazi-flavoured baloney. Cut it out, or I'm going to take some of you people to arbitration. By the way, I myself am ethnic-Chinese, and the Chinese Communist Party does not control me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I've been seeing these sorts of extremist "ethnic grouping" comments for at least the past two years. It's getting quite repetitive. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, isn't the term "Mongoloid" considered extremely offensive? I could be wrong here, but I thought it was strongly linked to what is known as "scientific racism"? It's probably not helping anyone here to just throw around this term willy-nilly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed from scientific racism, although unfortunately many anthropologists are still scientific racists.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mongoloid/Caucasoid/etc have usage to describe past concepts that were based exclusively on phenotype. Of course we now know that phenotype is a poor proxy for actual genetic relatedness, because there are plenty of groups that look similar yet are not closely related. Papuans look like Sub-Saharan Africans because of they have lived in a tropical region for a long time, yet they are more closely related to Asians. 2/3rds of Finnish men, despite looking mostly like Swedes, bear a Y-chromosome haplogroup that originates in Siberia and whose closest relative (O) is the one predominant among Chinese men, because once again human populations for the most part did not live in isolation, but rather continually interacted throughout history, wiht the exception of some very isolated places due to geography. This is why "race" is insanely stupid to begin with. It is not merely racist, it is objectively false, and is outdated pseudoscience that was known to be useless before many of us were born. --Calthinus (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@cal. Your observations actually answer your question, "2/3rds of Finnish men, despite looking mostly like Swedes, bear a Y-chromosome haplogroup that originates in Siberia and whose closest relative (O) is the one predominant among Chinese men". To you the Finns look like the Swedes. However to the Swedes, Finns do not look like the Swedes. The Swedes even call Finns Mongols. That's because native Mongoloid Siberian herdsmen mixed with the Sami peoples of the region, and left their visual differences which you do not see, but the local Swedes can see. In much the same way the Mongol conquest of eastern Europe left their defective alcohol dehydrogenase gene in the modern Russians and Ukrainians. Another gene that the Mongoloid people left in Scandinavia is their lactase gene, as the incidence of adult lactose intolerance in Scandinavians is a lot higher than other north-western Europeans.2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:BDC9:8604:9335:2DB5 (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If Mongoloid/caucasoid were past concepts, then isn't uighur also a past concept? I mean the term uyghur was a term stuck on these people by russians, named after an earlier people with whom the present "uyghurs" are totally unrelated. The russians still call China "Khitan", and the Chinese, Khitayski. The present uyghurs should really be called by their endonym and not by someone else's exonym. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:BDC9:8604:9335:2DB5 (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@cal. Your assertion that "Mongoloid/Caucasoid/etc have usage to describe past concepts that were based exclusively on phenotype" is untrue. In the case of "Mongoloid", even the biochemistry is different, as they have the characteristic lactase and alcohol dehydrogenase genes. Mongoloids also have their characteristic teeth shape and morphology, as well as a different type of earwax. These characteristics are shared from native Siberians to Thais, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, native North Americans and native South Americans, but not with native Europeans or Africans. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:BDC9:8604:9335:2DB5 (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy5T3oZvI7c&t=63s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.5.181 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"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)

Could Jargo explain his claim that the Uyghurs originate 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)

The ancestors of the modern Uyghurs migrated to the Tarim Basin/Taklamakan Desert around a millennium ago. They also mixed with some of the indigenous peoples already living there, whose ethnic origins are uncertain. In modern times, Uyghurs originate from the Tarim Basin/Taklamakan Desert since their ancestors have been living in the region for centuries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes Jargo, the Uyghurs migrated there. That is they did not originate from there. Now Jargo, where do you think they migrated from? 109.156.176.133 (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

They originated from various places but that doesn't really matter. The fact is, they've been living in Xinjiang (Tarim Basin) for around a millennium, which is still a very long time. The Tarim Basin is part of China now but it has also been part of several other countries throughout history. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't believe that I can comment too deeply on this particular topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can't comment too deeply on this particular topic, then what made you write "China's ongoing persecution of the Uyghurs"? Were your previous comments based on fake news? 109.156.176.133 (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Personally, I do not support the independence of Xinjiang, aka "East Turkestan". However, I support the rights, freedoms, and desires of the Uyghurs and of the Chinese people as a whole. The authoritarian nature of the Chinese government troubles me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course Xinjiang cannot go independent. It would be like Jewish people in Germany or Poland demanding an independent state in these two countries because they've lived there for centuries and built up a sizeable population. But this should not stop the present day Uyghurs from claiming an independent state in the Near East (West Asia, Anatolia, trans-Caucasus) because that's where a significant numbers of their ancestors were from, and the Uygurs of today still look like the people of the Near East. That was what the Jews successfully did, they returned to the land of their ancestors in the Middle East and successfully formed an independent Jewish state. So the Uygurs will have a higher chance of success if they claim an independent state in the land of their ancestors. As authoritarian governments go, please name one government that is not authoritarian. Will the USA let the Confederate States of America go independent? Will the European population of the USA return the country back to the First Nations people, and then go back to Europe. No, but they will put their native people onto reservations. Will the USA grant their Blacks an independent Afrostan, or their Muslim population a Muslimstan? No. And is it not well known that Muslim governments oppress their Muslim subjects. Will Canada grant Quebec independence? 109.156.176.133 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

""" because that's where a significant numbers of their ancestors were from, and the Uygurs of today still look like the people of the Near East.""""

Actually, the first people to populate the Tarim Basin were caucasian people and there are mummies that show their features very clearly. Here is the wikipedia article about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies

I suggest you read the article cited in detail. It states that the mummies and their spoken language was likely Indo-European, not Turkic or Middle-Eastern. There are no identifiable descendants of these people. Neither is there evidence that they are permanent settlers. They were more likely travelling through the area and buried those who died on the way. The article also states the present uyghurs arrive some 2000 years after these mummies, and are unrelated to these mummies, well after documented settlement of the Mongoloid peoples. The ancestors of the present day uyghurs were turks of anatolia, and not white Western European peoples, nor are they related to the mummies in any way. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:49DE:A43D:70FA:F210 (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason why the population is mixed race today is not from caucasian people moving in but the opposite. So saying they should "go back" to the Near East more or less due to their looks is wrong on various levels, including the fact that the native population did not look "Chinese" to begin with but Near Eastern. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:4DD:C59E:3C83:BEEF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If they are caucasians, then clearly that is more the reason why they should go back to the Caucasus, which by definition is where their ancestors came from. What are they doing in China? They are simply travellers who came into China, much like the gypsy peoples of Europe. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:353D:ED01:EF0F:15B3 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has the inherent right to live where they live. Ownership of land is dictated by how big your guns are; i.e. "might makes right". I don't personally believe in concepts such as "Mandate of Heaven" (China) and "Manifest Destiny" (United States), etc. So, whether the Uyghurs want to declare independence is entirely up to them (the Uyghurs), and whether China wants to allow or prevent Uyghur independence is also entirely up to them (the Chinese). Regarding authoritarian governments, I believe that the Taiwanese government is one of the least authoritarian in the world. However, I have not really looked into other governments thoroughly enough to be able to comment on how authoritarian they are, though I agree that all governments are authoritarian to some extent. Still, the Chinese government is one of the most authoritarian governments in the world, so it isn't exactly in a position to criticise other governments for being authoritarian. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You are so wrong. Everyone has the inherent right to live where they live. I live on the planet Earth, so do you. Ownership of land is not by how big your gun is. Sovereignty may have something to do with the military might, but much more important is diplomacy. I "own" the land I live on, but my ownership is subservient to the State's rule. A mighty country will leave a weaker country alone provided the mighty country can profit by this arrangement. This principle is excellently demonstrated by the government of Donald Trump. My country allows me to own land to live on because I pay a lot of taxes to the state to "own" the land. In turn my country make arrangements with other states to prevent them from walking in and take "my land" from me by force. The Uyghurs certainly can declare themselves independent, but they cannot declare the land to be independent. They can declare they are independent, leave China and set up a country in a place where a majority of their ancestors were from, just like the Jews. As for the Taiwanese government being one of the least authoritarian, are you having a laugh? Exactly which Taiwanese government are you talking about? What is your timeline? There have been Taiwanese government that rule with triad gangs. Taiwanese parliamentarians get into fist fights in parliament. Yes, the Chinese government is one of the most authoritarian in the world, but at present this allows most of its 1.3 billion people to live well and into old ago, which is more than you can say for a country such as India or Egypt. 31.53.28.9 (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Jargo Nautilus Just saw that. I agree with its removal.--Calthinus (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Jargo, why don't you say a few things about the US government's authoritarian treatment and persecution of her Black and minority citizens? Come on Jargo, where are you? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:7122:AC35:C5A5:FE7 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"final solution"

This wording is not found in the Tamm source - the other is a dead link/unreachable - but this smells of WP:SYNTH - I suggest this be re-phrased. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"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.

I have been there and talked to people. I did not see or hear of anything that suggested that these Orwellian stories are true. To me they sound like White Power people panicking about the Yellow Peril. People are right to be concerned about such charges and maybe there was something I did not see, but it still seems very unlikely. (Only the US jails racial minorities on this scale.) One thing that tends to suggest that these Orwellian camp stories are lies, is that other very real problems are ignored. Of course China, like any country, has jails and does focus on reeducation/reform more than American prisons. But there is real racism; Uyghurs will be hired for a warehouse job, but less often, and not for a shop-front job. I urge Wikipedians not to accept unfounded stories or those based on a few angry people. The US seems to be too desperate to attack an emerging non-white power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.164.49 (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. White america stirring up hatred once again to hide its own problems. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B90A:E5E7:AD1D:55A (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Kazakhstan Uyghur DNA

I removed this content from the article on 20 December 2020:

"Uyghurs from Kazakhstan on the other hand shows 55% European maternal lineages and 45% East Asian maternal lineages."

See citation URL:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790568/

This study by Li, et al. does not appear to contain any statements or information about the uniparental ancestry of Uyghurs in any country. There is also no mention of keywords like "maternal", "mitochondrial", "HVS", etc. There is nothing in the Supplementary Materials Documents S1 or S2 to indicate anything about the uniparental descent of any group.

What this study does is use randomly selected SNPs from a wide variety of genes (such as SLC45A2, see Document S2) to calculate genetic distance between populations. It doesn't support the statement that it was cited for, to such an extent that the contribution would appear to be falsified. Hunan201p (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

So what? There are many Jews with less than 10% Middle-Eastern lineage,and still say they are Jews and therefore entitled to return to the Middle-East as a native of the Middle-East. The uyghurs should be allowed to return to anatolia and form a state there and live happily ever after with their blood and cultural relatives. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:BDC9:8604:9335:2DB5 (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The source was wrongly selected but Uyghurs from Kazakhstan do have 55% European mtDNA as shown in the sources.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556439/

A Genome-wide Analysis of Admixture in Uyghurs and a High-Density Admixture Map for Disease-Gene Discovery

I quote " sequences of 55% European mtDNA were found in Uyghurs sampled in the easternmost section of Kazakhstan, which is only 18 km from the boundary with northern Xinjiang,8 and those Uyghurs were known to have emigrated from Xinjiang." ---Vamlos (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Vamlos:, thanks for your response. I'm afraid there is a problem with your reference, A Genome-wide Analysis of Admixture in Uyghurs and a High-Density Admixture Map for Disease-Gene Discovery (2008), by Jin, et al.

While your quote is indeed in that paper, look at the paper it cites for that statement, Trading genes along the silk road: mtDNA sequences and the origin of central Asian populations (1998), by Comas et al. Here is the PDF to the full study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377654/pdf/9837835.pdf

It would appear that Jin, et al. (2008) made a simple but critical error in their paper.

Comas, et al. (1998) do not list the Uighurs in their sample as having 55% European mtDNA. See Table 3, page 1832. Uighurs have 54.5% East Asian mtDNA, 34.5% European. Jin must have meant to say that Kazakh Uighurs have 55% East Asian mtDNA, but accidentally typed "European", and this was missed by the editors. Either that or this is a far more complex error.

I think this is a case of WP:INACCURACY#conflict between sources and we will have to get a third opinion.

@Erminwin:@Wario-Man:@KIENGIR: If you could spare the time, could you give some input? Perhaps we should email Jin? Hunan201p (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, from another study (Yong-Gang (2004) cited in the Uyghurs in Kazakhstan article:

The frequencies of the western Eurasian-specific haplogroups in Uygur and Uzbek from Xinjiang are approximately equal to those of Kazakh, Uighur, and Sary-Tash Kirghiz from Central Asia (≥40%; Comas et al. 1998).

[...]

Although these two samples were separated from each other in the PC map (fig. 3a), the percentages of the total eastern Eurasian types (Uygur, 57.4%; Uighur, 56.4%) and western Eurasian types (Uygur, 42.6%; Uighur, 43.6%) were approximately equal. The difference between Uygur and Uighur was significantly smaller than the differences between each of them and the Han or Hui.

So not only do Yong-Gang, et al. describe the Comas, et al. mtDNA sample as majority East Asian, they also compile an mtDNA data pool (which includes the Comas, et al. 1998 sample) which shows Uighurs in Kazakhstan as majority East Asian. Jin, et al. clearly erred. Hunan201p (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Jin, et al (2008) could be a error but the same was possibly true for Comas et al (1998). In his study it says 34.5% European mtDNA but in the Yong-Gang Yao (2004 ) study, Comas failed to include mtDNA R* representing 9.2% of Uyghurs from Kazakhstan as part of the West Eurasian mtDNA which in total is 43.6%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

The Ust'-Ishim man fossil of Siberia, dated ca. 45,000 years old, belongs to haplogroup R* (formerly classified as U*).[8][9] Distribution: The basal R* clade is found among the Soqotri (1.2%), as well as in Northeast Africa (1.5%), the Middle East (0.8%), the Near East (0.8%), and the Arabian peninsula (0.3%).[10]

I think it's pretty obvious that R* belongs to West Eurasian mtDNA.

I suggest the writer of above read this: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/scientists-sequence-genome-of-45000yearold-man-20141022-119yvy.html 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:9A4:11BB:CF99:4FEB (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Where's the evidence to show that 45,000 years ago, people of the world had crystallised into the appearance we know today as the current separate races? Even 10,000 years ago, North-Western Europeans, such as those found in Britain were dark skinned. Here's the link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42939192 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:353D:ED01:EF0F:15B3 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Homo sapiens only reached Europe 43,000years ago. Europe was populated by Neanderthals before that. Here is a reference.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9250929/Scientists-discover-single-gene-alteration-separated-modern-humans-predecessors.html 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:956A:5EE6:8732:45D5 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Googled Ust'-Ishim man and its reconstruction showed someone who looked like a sub-Saharan African (negro) in the process of morphing into a South-East Asian. Where's the similarity to a west eurasian? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:9A4:11BB:CF99:4FEB (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Overall, Uyghurs from Kazakhstan have slightly more west Eurasian mtDNA than Uyghurs from Xinjiang but still more East Asian. The question is now did Jin, et al (2008) also corrected the error of Yong-Gang-Yao (2004)?

The full paper from here also says Uyghur from Kazakhstan with 55% European mtDNA and clearly stated EUR (European) ancestry multiple times instead of EAS (East Asian) https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0002-9297%2808%2900439-4

Did they really make a critical error twice in the full paper and the published science study in ncbi ? Vamlos (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p,

my general opinion that genetic research should be just very scarcely and marginally mentioned, since from then anything may be conlcluded and speculated, weirdly they assume and deduct linguistics of them back in time more thousand years and insert trendy proto-X-Y-Z assumptions and finally everyone may conclude and claim any linguistic, genetic heritage and became the ancient people and culture of any region or civilization. So the better to ignore such as far as possible, and any material added should comply with WP:MEDRS. So Guys, useless to spend too much time and debate on this, keep it short, the less ambigous, and save time. Happy New Year All Of You, Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

An article to book describing Viking trade with the world. It explains how the genes for blond hair and blue eyes spread into Asia Proper. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-9403625/What-drove-Vikings-wanderlust.html 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A146:900A:46CD:43EA (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Representation of blonde/red haired Uyghurs

Though the Uyghurs are central asian peoples with some degree of variation with hair color relative to their Han Chinese neighbours, it strikes me as somewhat eurocentric and not representative of the population that children with blonde/red hair are the ones highlighted for inclusion in this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.149.87 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Who's to say that the blond-haired child's blood-line is not derived from russians (ie European Slavic russians, not russia-colonised peoples of the Far-East), who are also a dominant force in the area for about 400 years. These children's hair usually darken as they age. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:3456:F9F3:A926:B6E6 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The uyghurs are not central Asian peoples at all. Their visual characteristics came from their anatolian and Persian ancestors. In much the same way a white american or canadian person is not really an "american" or "canadian" person, but a european. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:BDC9:8604:9335:2DB5 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2020 (U

I agree with the sentiment expressed by 75.155.149.87, that depicting the mostly dark haired Uyghurs with so many blond and red haired individuals, is biased. In particular, the lead image of a blondish-Uyghur man, is controversial. However, light hair in Uyghurs doesn't come from "Persians" or "Anatolians". Blond and red hair were described among the Xiongnu people, and early Türks such as the Yenisei Kyrgyz (Khakas), the Ashina Goktürk tribe and several early Mongolians. It was actually more common in Eastern central Asia and East Asia than it was in western central Asia. The Uyghur people are of course east-central Asians. Hunan201p (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@hunan. I beg to differ. Your assertions about blond and red hair are not supported by artwork of the time, nor do they match the description of the Huns (thought to be the Xiongnu) by Europeans. Go to Japan or Korea or even China nowadays, and you can see many people with red and blond hair- it is call dye (in fact you will also see green, blue and scarlet hair as well). Europeans also used to call native Americans "Red Indians" due to the redness of their skin, but that red colour was due to the natives using red dyes on their skin. If you wash your hair with lime water, your hair will also go lighter in colour. The ancient Uyghurs were indeed east Asians, but the present uighurs are not in any way related to them. The present uyghurs are turks, with ancestors from anatolia. You are confusing the ancient Uyghurs with the current pretender uyghurs. If the red or blond hair in some of these people were natural, the genes for them were very unlikely from native anatolian or native Persian peoples, as they do not carry these alleles. More likely they came from Scandinavian or Central European slaves (both male and female) who were traded in the Middle-East from ancient times and the alleles would have eventually made their way into Asia via the Silk Road. Once again, the ancestors of present uyghurs are not a central Asian people but anatolians, currently called turks.2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:74A9:B363:48F0:4171 (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If you beg to differ, you should post a verifiable source that addresses the reliable sources I posted, which clearly show that the Xiongnu had Northern European phenos among them. Please, give a reliable source which says that the ancient Uyghurs were East Asian. I just posted a source with direct DNA evidence, which says that most of them were primarily West Eurasian, from an Indo-Iranian source similar to the Alans. Hunan201p (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@hunan. Where are your sources then?

2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A book describing the trade between Vikings and the world, explaining the spread of the genes for blond hair and blue eyes into Asia Proper. @hunan should read before making any more wild, unfounded and unsupported speculations about the racial appearance of the original Uyghur peoples. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-9403625/What-drove-Vikings-wanderlust.html 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A146:900A:46CD:43EA (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hunan201p, I just reading the source you used. You keep repeating the same mistake claiming Xiongnu and Uyghur were primary west Eurasians. Most Uyghur period individuals exhibit a high, but variable, degree of west Eurasian ancestry ( high but not higher than East Eurasian ) . Here is what it shows

The chart is here if you haven't looked https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.25.008078v1.full#F3

Uyghurs

Early Uyghurs were practically primary “Ancient Northeast Asian” (ANA)" that DNA is 100% in the slab grave culture. A DNA that reach 100% in Mongolian people. Look at the graph. One, Uyghur pie chart shows 99% ANA Second shows 75% ANA, 25% ALAN, , 3rd shows 45% ANA, 45% Alan, 10% BCMA. So they were basically half Mongoloid to pure Mongoloid. Something I would expect from ancient Turkic people. I never said they were pure Mongoloid but with such incredibly high ANA it is certain they look East Asian/Northeast Asian in appearance. This is enough to explain the formation of modern Uyghrus, where the ancient Tocharians had full to almost for Europoid and after the Uyghur invasion they brought in Mongoloid and part Mongoloid admixtures.

More importantly is the ruling/class the elites.

Another individual (TUM001), who was recovered from the tomb ramp of an elite Türkic-era emissary of the Tang Dynasty, has a high proportion of Han- 75-76% Han and 24% or 25% BMAC, this makes the person 3 times closer to Mongoloid race than Caucasoid.

Among the individuals with the highest eastern Eurasian affinity, two Türkic- and one Uyghur-period individual (ZAA004, ZAA002, OLN001.B) are indistinguishable from the Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave cluster. Another individual (TUM001), who was recovered from the tomb ramp of an elite Türkic-era emissary of the Tang Dynasty, has a high proportion of Han-(78.1±1.5%) (Fig. 3e) and especially Han_2000BP-related ancestry (84±1.5%) (Table S21). This male, buried with two dogs, was likely a Chinese attendant sacrificed to guard the tomb entrance (Ochir et al., 2013). The remaining 17 Türkic and Uyghur individuals show intermediate genetic profiles.Most Uyghur period individuals exhibit a high, but variable, degree of west Eurasian ancestry - best modeled as a mixture of Alans (a historic nomadic pastoral group likely descended from the Sarmatians and contemporaries of the Huns (Bachrach, 1973)) and an Iranian-related (BMAC-related) ancestry - together with Ulaanzuukh_SlabGrave (ANA-related) ancestry (Fig. 3e)

Xiongnu

I already told you were a multiple union of many different ethnic groups. So far there is no consensus from scholars to include them into Turkic. If they were Turkic for sure the Turkic nationalist would have already included them into the list of Turkic empires. Xiongnu as shown in your pie chart. Early Xiongnu shows them, one pie chart to be 75% ANA. The other shows them to be Chandman IA, which I don't know what that means. Late Xiongnu show many of them to be 100% ANA with Han, while some others show to be 100% Samartian and BMAC. But were these the slaves of the Xiongnu or branch of a Xiongnu like the Jie people who were either conquered or absorbed  ? It was reported that the Xiongnu had white slaves among them. And than there's the thrid group who are mix but mostly ANA and Han.

The threads are about "racial" characteristics and not "ethnic" groups. Why do you continue to mix and confuse the two? Jews are classified as an "ethnic" group that could be of any "race" or mixture of "races". "Racial" characteristics in humans are a measure of their pedigree, which rightly or wrongly many societies prize. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It says this (“earlyXiongnu_rest”) fall intermediate between the earlyXiongnu_west and Ulaazuukh_SlabGrave clusters; four carry varying degrees of earlyXiongnu_west (39-75%) and Ulaazuukh_SlabGrave (25-61%) related ancestry, and two (SKT004, JAG001) are indistinguishable from the Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave cluster (Fig. 3d; Tables S19-S20).

On Turkic, it clearly shows Turkic as 100% ANA and Han ( 100% Mongoloid )

Khitan''

Now as for the late medieval Khitan, 3 individual (don't know what the other piechart represents ) 96-100% ANA and Han, the others if it's Khitan than 77-100% ANA , 10-20% Alan, higher Alan could be one of those Iranian slaves raided by they Khitans.

Mongol

Late medieval Mongol, several are 100% ANA and Han, some are 90-99% ANA and Han, 5-10% Alan, Many 80-90% ANA and Han, 10-20% Alan, and 2 of them have 60-65% ANA(+Han) 30-35% Alan, 1 individual 55% Alan, 45% Han. However I suspect not all of them were Mongol. Mongolic people or Mongol for example there's no way the individual with 55% Alan, 45% Han could be Mongol and lack ANA admixture which are predominant in all Mongol.

Mongol period individuals have a much higher eastern Eurasian affinity than previous empires, and this period marks the beginning of the formation of the modern Mongolian gene pool. We find that most historic Mongols are well-fitted by a three-way admixture model with the following ancestry proxies: Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave, Han, and Alans. Consistent with their PCA location (Fig. 2), Mongol era individuals as a group can be modeled with only 15-18% of western Steppe ancestry (Alan or Sarmatian), but require 55-64% of Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave and 21-27% of Han-related ancestry (Table S22).

So about the Uyghurs, they were basically a group of Mongoloid and Half Mongoloid by DNA. The Tocharians also had East Eurasian admixture but are low levels, not enough to change the physically as they were all physically Caucasoid. It is the Uyghur invasion which resembled closer to Mongolians that changed them racially today.Vamlos (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion about "Mongoloids" is troubling and has notions of racial essentialism embedded within it. We are not here to promote 1890s Craniology. It is true that red haired and blonde haired Uyghur people exist, but they are in no way the majority nor are they representative of the people's appearance. Uyghurs are located in East Asia. Red and blonde hair are in no way common for East Asian populations, or Central Asian populations or even West Asian populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.149.87 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Any natural red/yellow hair people among the ancient Uyghurs were not native ancient Uyghurs. They could be captured slaves or mercenaries. For heaven's sake, there are stories that the legendary King Arthur of the Britons had a Black knight, and Henry the 8th of England had a Black servant; nobody is suggesting these alleged Black people at that time were native British. The ancient Uyghurs and present pretender uyghurs are two unrelated human populations. Turkic can only be identified with a human language family and not as a group of human with a common "racial" identity. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It is insulting to call the present population of ethnic Uyghur "pretender uyghur". Moreover, it is factually invalid that red/yellow hair cannot diffuse throughout populations absent genetic injection by slaves or mercenaries. Can a moderator clean this up?--Tropicalzed (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pretender" is used as a technical English term, and not to be taken as insulting. For example "pretender" to the throne. It is used to distinguish the original Uyghurs from the present people called and labelled as Uyghurs by Russians. Clearly the present Uyghurs have been mislabelled as Uyghurs by the Russians, and the term has stuck. Therefore the most appropriate technical term is "pretender". 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A95C:8A39:BDE8:224B (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@tropical. An explicit example is Native Americans were once called and labelled as "Red Indians" in English. These peoples were not Indians and not related to Indians, who are people of the Indian subcontinent. The term "Red Indian" is insulting to the Native Americans. The term "Indian" belong to the original Indians, and not to the later people labelled as such by another foreign European people.The term Indian is not insulting to the original people of India. Therefore, if anything is insulting it is insulting to call the present pretender Uyghurs "Uyghurs", when clearly they have nothing to do with the original Uyghurs, and had the label conferred to them by Russians. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A95C:8A39:BDE8:224B (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)