Talk:Uyghurs/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Uyghur genetics

Will Vamlos stop adding excessive speculation from a paper that did not conduct any research into it? The paper specifically stated that it cannot prove the admixture of the modern Uyghurs of earlier people. What it says about historical records and archaeology is only speculations about the origin of the modern Uyghurs, they did not conduct any research to prove any admixture between Tocharians and Orkhon Uyghurs, specifically stating that they don't know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, therefore everything that the paper said on the genetics of Tocharians are all speculations. What is given there is already too much, e.g. the part on Khanty is pure speculation. Hzh (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

hzh, will you stop removing the part that mentions historical record and archeology. The paper stated that it cannot prove the the exact admixture of earlier people that formed modern Uyghurs but it clearly stated from historical records, that after the collapse of the Uyghur empire there was a Turkic migration to Xinjiang/Tarim Basin, another Uyghur empire would rule Xinjiang, replacing and assimilating the Tocharians, ending the once Indo-European populations, languages, kingdoms from existence. Archeology also shows these Tocharians were Caucasian/European looking like people unlike the Uyghurs today (well some still do but not in general, because they heavily mixed).

The study from the paper clearly states " STRUCTURE cannot distinguish recent admixture from a cline of other origin, and these analyses cannot prove admixture in the Uyghurs; however, historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century CE.14 The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans,15 whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs. We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.

The historical record and archeology is pretty much already proven, so it makes no sense to remove them. The only speculation was the genetic constitution of Tocharians, if you want to remove that, I can somewhat agree, but I also think also important to mention it. This isn't just from the genetic paper

According to History of the Uyghur people it clearly state " After the collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate in AD 840, ancient Uyghur resettled from Mongolia to the Tarim Basin, assimilating the Indo-European population, which had previously been driven out of the region by the Xiongnu.[1] Ultimately, the Uyghurs became civil servants administering the Mongol Empire. " and " Official Chinese view asserts the Uyghurs to be of Tiele origin and only became the main social and political force in Xinjiang during the ninth century when they migrated to Xinjiang from Mongolia after the collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate, replacing the Han Chinese that they claimed were there since the Han dynasty "  : And we also don't need Chinese records to confirm this, the fact that Xinjiang was historically a Indo-European language/culture/ethnic people later replaced by Turkic migration/people/language/culture is evidence that the Uyghurs conquered them and forced them to adopt to Turkic identity.

But which Uyghur people are they talking about? The original Uyghurs, or the present pretender uyghurs? When white north american people speak of "Indians", one has to be sure whether they are referring to people of India, or native Americans, eg as in "Cowboys and Indians". African-Americans have also been assimilated into European-American society, and whose native language is now English, but they cannot be called Anglo-Saxons or Europeans. Why should the people now called "uyghurs" be called Uyghurs just because they have been assimilated, and mislabelled as Uyghurs by russians? These people are turks, and should be called "turks". 13:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Qocho or the Qocho kingdom was a Uyghur Turkic empire that conquered Tarim Basin, attacking and invading all territories and kingdoms that used to belong to Indo-European people in the region.

The historical record from the genetic study is accurate, the archeology is also be accurate. There is both physical and linguistic evidence to prove that the historical records were accurate, nobody debates and speculates on that. The only speculation is the exact proportion of West/East Eurasian admixture Vamlos (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The section is about genetics, not history. If you want to add something on history, then add them in the history section, why do you want to add something where it is not appropriate? No one is disputing that there were Tocharians or that the Orkhon Uyghurs moved there, but the Li paper clearly indicates that it cannot distinguish or prove the admixture events, and everything it says about the genetic of the ancient people or Tocharians are speculations (therefore the part about the Khanty is also speculation). It can only observe admixture, but cannot prove who the East Asians or West Eurasians were originally. For example, were they Tocharians or various Iranic people, or who might the Turkic people be because different groups of Turkic people had moved there throughout its history. The Li paper offers nothing new to that's already known. In the future, if the Chinese government allows it, then people might be able to determine the precise component of the ancient people in modern Uyghurs (David Reich has done some very good research on the ancient genetic components of the Europeans and Indians, and such research could be done if the Chinese government permits it), but at the moment, it is not appropriate to add something on their genetics that has not been shown to be true. Hzh (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Only a small part of history is mentioned to further understand the historical genetic formation of Uyghurs. How is it inappropriate to mention something that is clearly stated in the paper. Is not appropriate to cherry-pick some sentence, cutting some out, editing in the version you want. You leave out so many information that clearly mentions way more than how you had edited the section previously and even in your recent edit, you leave out the historical section and archeology which is far more accurate than speculation on Uyghurs genetics, that I don't understand. The Li paper did not doubt and speculate the factual accuracy of historical records and archeology, no one did, the only speculation mentioned in Li's paper was the exact genetic proportion of the original ancient/medieval population of Xinjiang. The Qocho kingdom already clearly stated that the Uyghurs had attacked and invaded territories of Xinjiang that was under the Tibetan empire and Tang dynasty, after their conquest they assimilated the various populations which includes Tocharians (mostly), Iranians and Chinese. There is nothing inaccurate about Tocharian being conquered by Uyghurs and assimilating Tocharians that eventually would form modern Uyghurs. The paper is important piece for the genetic section, not sure why you want to remove it.Vamlos (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not cherry-picking, but simply that it is not a result of the research done in the paper. The paper does not have information on the genetics of the ancient people, so everything it says about the genetic of ancient people is speculation. You are wrong that the paper speculated only on the exact proportion of the ancient populations - it is wrong to make the binary assumption that there were only two groups of people, given that many people had moved into the area throughout history. For example, where are the genetic components of the Saka or Iranic people? During the Tang dynasty, many people were killed in the conquest of the Tarim Basin, so how many people (Tocharian or otherwise) were left to contribute to the gene pool of modern Uyghurs? Historians also don't agree who the Turkic ancestors of the Uyghurs were because different regions may have been occupied by different people. The Turkic people of Turfan/Qocho (Uyghurs) may be different from the Turkic people who occupied Kashgar (who may be the Karluks, Yagmas, Chigils). The science on the ancient genetic component of modern Uyghur has not been done, so it is misleading to add much on it. Hzh (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have something that can replace that genetic study (or better include them together) I see no reason why we should remove the data on Li's paper based on your interpretations on the Li's study. It doesn't matter if they don't have information on the genetics of ancient people, they clearly stated that is a ongoing speculation, but the historical records and archeology is too accurate not to include. You said historians also don't agree who the Turkic ancestors of the Uyghurs were because different regions may have been occupied by different people... indeed contemporary scholars consider modern Uyghurs to be the descendants of a number of peoples but what does that have to do with the fact historical suggest Turkic invaded Indo-Europeans, forming modern day Uyghurs? Historians will agree the ancestors of Uyghurs were the Yugur people, the Turkic Uyghurs in their original forms.

The most accurate thing is this " While the Uyghur language is a Turkic language, James A. Millward claimed that the Uyghurs were generally "Mongoloid" (an archaic term meaning "appearing ethnically Eastern or Inner Asian"), giving as an example the images of Uyghur patrons of Buddhism in Bezeklik, temple 9, until they began to mix with the Tarim Basin's original, Indo-European-speaking "Caucasoid" inhabitants " Xinjiang was a Indo-European Caucasoid population, with the invasion of Uyghurs who were Turkic Mongoloid/or generally Mongoloid, they formed modern Uyghurs physical types and genetic (which makes sense Uyghurs look like they way they do). Do you have any geneticist or historian that will dispute that ? Vamlos (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no data on the genetics of the ancient people in Li's paper, so there is really nothing to add. All that it has on the ancient people is already given in other sources. What's given in the genetics section is more than enough (it already mentions the Tocharians and Orkhon Uyghurs), why do you want to add more? I'm not sure why I have to dispute James Millward's words, it is not a genetic study, just a general observation, something similar is already mentioned in the Identity section (the people of Central Asia like the Uyghurs are all mixed Caucasian and East Asians) and the history section (the settled Indo-European population of the Tarim Basin mixed with the incoming Turkic people). There are enough mentions already in the article, there is no need to keep adding it. You can improve other sections, but unless we have solid genetic data on the ancient people, then anything more in the genetics section would be unwarranted. Hzh (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is data on the historical records and archaeological findings to help explain the genetic formation of modern Uyghurs. It doesn't matter if you dispute James Millward's words, you will need to find a credible historian or scholar that dispute against him. Yours and mine opinion doesn't edit articles, it is what's written from the reliable sources is what counts. It don't see why we can't mention it in the genetic section, especially when it helps better understand and covering on the genetic history on Uyghurs of Xinjiang. Tell me this, are you disputing on the accuracy that Tocharians were conquered by Orkhon Uyghurs ? Are you also disputing on the archaeological findings that Tocharians from Kroran being phenotypically similar to northern Europeans ? Vamlos (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I said, I don't dispute James Millward's words (I'm pointing out that what he said is already in the article), and you seem not to understand what data means in science article (what's written in Li's paper on the ancient people is not data). I didn't say you can't write anything about Tocharians or ancient people since I specifically said that they are already mentioned in the genetics section. What's given there is more than enough because it is just speculation. Many different people control parts of the Tarim Basin, including Han Chinese, that doesn't composition of the people get significantly altered. I don't dispute anything about the people of Kroran, simply that we don't know what component the Tocharians contribute to modern Uyghurs. We know that at least some of the population of Kroran were from Gandhara. Many things have happened in a couple of thousand years, and you should not make assumptions about the genetic of a modern group of people in the absence of firm genetic data. Science is not about speculations. Hzh (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said before, unless you have something that can replace that Li's study, I see no reason you should remove the information I had previously edited. You keep saying we don't know what the components of the Tocharians, I agree, Li's paper agree, nobody is disputing that. Do you have any historian or scientist to back your claims.

What I want is simply to include the information that you had removed which are not mentioned in the genetic section (more specifically on the parts I bolded)..... " historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century CE.14 The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans,15 whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs."

That info from Li's paper is factual, truthful, there is no speculation because is based on physical evidence and recoded history. It's information partly helps covering the genetic formation on the history of (present) Uyghurs, those info does are not contradicting on the speculation on the ancient components of Tocharians. If your not disputing it can you let me edit it back? - Vamlos (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It is true that there were Tocharians, it is true that there were Orkhon Uyghurs, but it is speculation that modern Uyghurs were the result of a genetic admixture between these two people, rather than the result of other or more groups of people. There is no solid source to say that this is true. I don't have to provide a source because I am not making any claim about the genetic origin of the Uyghurs. You have to provide a source that say what you want to say per WP:V, for example, a source that say modern Uyghurs are directly genetically related to the Tocharians, otherwise it will be removed. What you are trying to do is essentially original research, trying to make claim about the genetic origin of the Uyghurs without any proof, just random assumption of what might have happened. The Han Chinese once occupied a larger area of the Tarim Basin than the Qocho, are you therefore also arguing that the Han Chinese were genetically ancestors of the Uyghurs? Given that the Tocharians and Orkhon Uyghurs are mentioned in the genetic section, I don't see what your complaint is. This is the genetics section, and only sources on the genetics of the people are acceptable (the Li paper has no data at all on the Tocharians), everything else is original research.Hzh (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You said "speculation that modern Uyghurs were the result of a genetic admixture between these two people", no one said that has to be fact but it deserved to be mentioned as a strong possibility, because whether you and I like it or not, what's really true (and non-speculative ) was that historical records shows Orkhon Uyghurs conquered Tocharians, a Indo-European population/language shifted entirely to Turkic in the 9th-10th century. They possibly they included other groups who are in the minority but that still doesn't change the fact historical record shows Tocharians and Turkic Uyghurs were the majority (with a minority of Iranian and Chinese.) If this was original research, you would have a genetic paper or a historian disputing Li's claims right now. Since you don't have anything to challenge it, I suggest we edit it back. I'm waiting for you to actually show me something worth contradicting it. Do you have any genetic paper that the Han Chinese have genetically impacted the Tocharians or Uyghurs before or after when they conquered Xinjiang ? It's worth mentioning than. The Li paper that I used is genetic and also describing the genetic formation in full details on Uyghurs. You are doing original research by not backing up evidence to support your own claims, not providing any useful source to refute Li's claims. So far all I received from you based on your own interpretations like you did with James Millward's words, now that is really original research. If you don't have anything to support your argument than I don't see why should remove what I previously edited or we could request help from one of the staff, moderator or admin. Please show some proof to back up your claims next time, self opinions are not enough, you need evidence to back it up. Vamlos (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It is now clear that you haven't understood anything I said. The section as it is mentions the Tocharian and Orkon Uyghurs, I haven't removed the information. I did not make any claim, just that we should not say too much on what is simply speculation. I have no interest in what other researchers might want to publish, you might as well ask why other researchers haven't publish data supporting Li's speculation (Chinese government may not want research into the genetics of Tocharians and their possible links with the Uyghurs, it is a sensitive topic). I frankly have no idea what your point about Millward is. If you persist in adding information on genetics that is not supported by genetic data, then the issue will be discussed by the wider community, and the issue may be to remove all mentions of the Tocharians and Orkhon Uyghurs, if not the entire genetics section. You are free to engage the help of an admin, but I doubt there will be many who will support adding something on science that is not supported by scientific data. Hzh (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain to you again on what I want to restore back because we are getting no where again. I'm not adding any extra information on genetic, everything is nuetral and based on Li's genetic paper( and you can't find anything to refute it).

The original edit I made was like this (more specifically, the part that I bolded is what you had removed and what I want restored back)

" According to the paper by Li et al. Historical records indicates Uyghurs were formed through admixture between the conquered Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the invading Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, the two population eventually mixed and became one population that formed present Uyghurs. Archaeological findings shows Tocharians such as Kroran phenotypically similar to northern Europeans while the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. Overall, genetic study shows western East Asians are more closely related to Uyghurs than to eastern East Asians. The study indicates that the analysis cannot distinguish the original ancient component of the Tocharians originated from the West from the more recent Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu) of the East. It unsure what constituted the exact original genetics of the Tocharians but was speculated that if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty people, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.[114] "

You than changed it like this

" A different study by Li et al. (2009) used a larger sample of individuals from a wider area and found a higher East Asian component of about 70%, with much more similarity to "Western East" Eurasians than East Asian populations, while the European/West Asian component was about 30%. The paper by Li et al. noted that historical records suggest that Uyghurs may be formed through admixture between the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, but the study cannot distinguish the original ancient component of the Tocharians. It speculated that the Tocharians may be genetically similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty people, and admixture would already be biased toward the East Asian populations.[114] "

More specifically you removed words like "conquered", "invading" and the entire sentence of that says "Archaeological findings shows Tocharians such as Kroran phenotypically similar to northern Europeans while the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolian". Your doing original research by editing it the way you want, when it can easily be included without a problem, it's part of Li's study afterall.

I want to restored back on what you removed, it's basically that simple. If you don't have a valid argument with a source to help you challenge Li's claims and his interpretations, if not, you should let me restore what I edited, because so far you didn't show me any source to prove that you are correct or how incorrect I am. I suggest we invite a expert or staff in Wikipedia to decide what's accurate for us. It would better if we both have consensus so that I can edit it back. Vamlos (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You want to restore it to the speculations by Li et al on the history of the region so they can fit it to their data. There are simply no serious historians who would argue that the modern Uyghurs are the result of admixture between just two people, not Millward (and I have his book, see also here [1] where he talks about the different people with the ancient Uyghurs being only one of many), or other historians (I also have their books). Historians have noted various people who have moved to the area like the Saka and various Iranic people like the Sogdians (the Millward book for example noted that some of the towns were occupied by Sogdians), and various Turkic tribes, not just Uyghurs. Qocho's influence also did not extend to Kashgar and Khotan (different Turkic people settled there), and I see no sources by historians that said that Orkhon Uyghurs invaded and conquered the Tocharians (the Orkhon Uyghurs moved to Qocho already under their influence and where some Sogdians and Uyghurs had already settled before most of the Uyghurs moved there). Kroran had already disappeared by the time the Uyghurs moved into Tarim Basin, so that is an irrelevance. The consensus by historians is that the identity of modern Uyghurs is a new construct, and trying to linked them directly to the ancient Uyghurs in this way is dubious to say the least. You won't get me agreeing with you, and what's written in the genetics section on the Tocharian and Orkhon Uyghurs is already excessive, and may be unwarranted, therefore an argument could be made for deleting them completely. Hzh (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The content that Vamlos tried to add is a passing statement from a low quality primary source, which would violate WP:SCIRS. It doesn't matter what a historian thinks about portraits that might be inaccurate, or misleading.

However, genetic research has been conducted in to the ancestry of the medieval Uyghurs, obtained from fossils. It shows that they were heterogeneous, but primarily of Western Eurasian ancestry, not East Asian or "Mongoloid". It's also the earliest Türkic individuals who have the most West Eurasian ancestry, not the later ones.

And, like modern Uyghurs, the East Asian ancestry they do have appears to have been transmitted largely from East Asian females - not something you would expect if the Uyghurs were originally full East Asians, who mixed with Tocharians after conquering them... Unless the Uyghur invasion was carried out primarily by Uyghur females. More likely, the Uyghurs were similarily mostly West Eurasian, like the somewhat admixed Tocharians.

From the latest genetic research:

TUK001(250-383 CE), the earliest early Medieval individual in our dataset from a Xiongnu site with a post-Xiongnu occupation, has the highest western Eurasian affinity. This individual is distinct from Sarmatians, and likely to be admixed between Sarmatians and populations with BMAC/Iranian-related ancestry (Table S5H).

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 (Figure 3E).

We observe a clear signal of male-biased WSH admixture among the EIA Sagly/Uyuk and during the Türkic period (i.e., more positive Z scores; Figure 5B), which also corresponds to the decline in the Y chromosome lineage Q1a and the concomitant rise of the western Eurasian lineages such as R and J (Figure S2A).

The early Xiongnu were mostly West Eurasian, as well:

We observe two distinct demographic processes that contributed to the formation of the early Xiongnu. First, half of the early individuals (n = 6) form a genetic cluster (earlyXiongnu_west) resembling that of Chandman_IA of the preceding Sagly/Uyuk culture from the Altai-Sayan region (Figure 2). They derive 92% of their ancestry from Chandman_IA with the remainder attributed to additional Iranian-related ancestry, which we model using BMAC as a proxy (Figures 3D and ​and4D;4D; Table S5F).

Another study has found that several Xiongnu specimens from Mongolia had pigmentation phenotypes to Northern Europeans, which fits with the ancient descriptions of Xiongnu as having blond or red hair. These genes weren't restricted to Tocharians, and it's likely the early Uyghurs had a variety of appearances, including individuals who looked "Northern European" or like the Iranian and Tocharian speaking inhabitants of the Tarim Basin and Mongolia. These were highly genetically heterogenous populations with varying degrees of Eastern and Western Eurasian ancestry. Neither the Uyghurs nor the early Türks were "Mongoloid". Hunan201p (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@hunan's interpretation is naive. Please allow me to give illustrations. White, Black, Hispanic looking people (ie american soldiers) were seen to fight in the Korean War in Korea. Some were even buried in Korea. @hunan's conclusion would be native Koreans must include White, Black and Hispanic peoples. Second illustration: Some Islamic State fighters in the Middle-East are observed to be White-skinned with red hair and beards. Furthermore their jihadi brides are South Asian, White european, Black Africans, Middle-Eastern. @hunan's conclusion would be Red-haired-and-bearded people, South Asians, White Europeans, Black Africans as well as middle-eastern people are all original peoples of the Middle-East. The original Uyghurs were an East Asian people, ie Mongoloids. The present people called Uyghurs do not have the appearance of the original Uyghurs. The present pretender Uyghurs were mislabelled as Uyghurs by russians, in exactly the same way native Americans were mislabelled as Indians by European explorers. The present day people labelled as Uyghurs are not Uyghurs at all, they are mostly anatolians. Please don't insult these people by calling them Uyghurs; you do not call Native Americans "Indians" any more. These people are turks. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:6426:483A:DDA7:C6D3 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How is that low quality primary source ? Do you even have any other sources that refutes and criticized Li's paper.

Do you understand what this rules says WP:SCIRS?

"Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. "

The only problem I see is the word "conquered " or "invading", or sentence " invaded by Orkhon Uyghurs "

Are we really disputing on the whether Tocharians were or weer not conquered by the Uyghurs ?

After the collapse of the Uyghur empire, the Uyghurs migrated to Xinjiang to create the Qocho kingdom clearly shows Uyghur have conquered the territories of Tocharians that were ruled by Tibetan empire and Tang dynasty.

So are disputing the Uyghurs or Turkic being non-East Asian

You said "The early Xiongnu were mostly West Eurasian, as well: "

Questionable claim, why are you using one individual of a early pre-Xiongnu that was related to Iranian. And since when was Xiongnu considered officially Turkic, they were a union of multiple ethnicities with the ruling elite, 2 being East Asian, 1 West Eurasian. The original geographic location of the Xiongnu is disputed among steppe archaeologists. Since the 1960s, the geographic origin of the Xiongnu has attempted to be traced through an analysis of Early Iron Age burial constructions. No region has been proven to have mortuary practices that clearly match those of the Xiongnu.[125] "

You said However, genetic research has been conducted in to the ancestry of the medieval Uyghurs, obtained from fossils. It shows that they were heterogeneous, but primarily of Western Eurasian ancestry, not East Asian or Mongoloid. It's also the earliest Türkic individuals who have the most West Eurasian ancestry, not the later ones.

Sorry but I would like some evidence for this claim. If that was true you would have shown me a credible source and properly edited already.

You said And, like modern Uyghurs, the East Asian ancestry they do have appears to have been transmitted largely from East Asian females - not something you would expect if the Uyghurs were originally full East Asians, who mixed with Tocharians after conquering them... Unless the Uyghur invasion was carried out primarily by Uyghur females. More likely, the Uyghurs were similarily mostly West Eurasian, like the somewhat admixed Tocharians.

Doesn't matter. All Uyghurs are heavily mixed besides Uyghurs also have massive Caucasian European females/West Eurasian maternal lineages. 42.6% of 12,223,000 Uyghur population = 5,206,998

Uyghur and Turkic, always brought males and females. Don't confuse this with European, Arab conquest that involved primary males. Or for example the Gypsies in Europe have more Caucasian/West Eurasian female lineages than males. It doesn't mean that Gypsies have conquered and enslaved Europe and aquired. Almost all Y-DNA, mtDNA were created by thousand years or hundreds years of marriages, not from 3 month of conquest, rape.

I wonder what's exactly the problem. Is it really just pointing out that the fact Tocharian's were conquered because that is common general knowledge but here you have Hunan201p talking about the race of Orkhon Uyghurs.Vamlos (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is when we make blanket statements like "original Uyghurs were Mongoloid/East Asian", when direct evidence says they weren't. In fact, the earliest Uyghurs in the sample were the most West Eurasian, and it seems the Uyghur conquest period resulted in an increase of East Asian female ancestry, and a decrease in East Asian male ancestry, in Mongolia and central Asia. The Uyghur royals carried West Eurasian male haplogroups. And the same thing applies to the Oghuz Türks. So that doesn't match the recent edits around here. Also, remember, it was the early Xiongnu (6 specimens designated as earlyXiongnu_West) who were primarily West Eurasian. Not "pre-Xiongnu). Hunan201p (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

How about show me evidence that the original Uyghurs were not Mongoloid/East Asian or by the time the Uyghurs have invaded from the 8th-9th century ( assuming they were heavily mixed, with dominant Mongoloid appearance, even if they weren't originally Mongoloid ). Actually there was a increase of almost purely East Asian male ancestry. Considering the fact that the early Caucasoids from Tarim Basin (read history of Xinjiang ), they had half of their mtDNA East Asian and other have Caucasian although racially Caucasoid, they were properly like 85% Caucasoid ( based on the fact that were are still Uyghur individual who has as high as 84.7% Caucasian admixture ). So when the Uyghurs invaded it was almost totally on the East Asian male side because the ancient Tocharian mummies were all West Eurasian, but now now 1/3 of their Y-DNA are East Asian, and the mtDNA is still the same or slightly increased or diluted.

However let me add that the ancient Tocharian mummies from Tarim Basin were properly less than 1000 or 10,000 when their admixture was formed. By the time the Uyghurs had invaded the Tocharians-Iranians, the Tocharians population was properly from 500,000 to 1 million but racially speaking they were properly still 80-90% West Eurasian.

Were are you getting all these information about Uyghurs and Xiongnu ?. Your interpretations contradict on mainstream views.

" The problem is when we make blanket statements like "original Uyghurs were Mongoloid/East Asian", when direct evidence says they weren't. In fact, the earliest Uyghurs in the sample were the most West Eurasian, and it seems the Uyghur conquest period resulted in an increase of East Asian female ancestry, and a decrease in East Asian male ancestry, in Mongolia and central Asia. The Uyghur royals carried West Eurasian male haplogroups. And the same thing applies to the Oghuz Türks. So that doesn't match the recent edits around here. Also, remember, it was the early Xiongnu (6 specimens designated as earlyXiongnu_West) who were primarily West Eurasian. Not "pre-Xiongnu). "

What evidence do you have for this ? Uyghurs being primary western Eurasian, Uyghur royals carried western Eurasian male haplogroups ? According to who. Your source only says ancient Uyghurs may also have West Eurasian admixture but nowhere does it say they were primary west Eurasian. If that was the case the genetic section would have been edited by that already or 6 Xiognnu from the west? umm... what about from the east and central, north ? ) From what we know even eastern scythians were more closer to Mongoloid than than west. Xiongnu is a confederation, union of many tribes, there's no evidence to show they were proto-Turkic.-Vamlos (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've not received replies in a very long time, as if the conversation had ended. I decided to include the full information of Li paper and this study that Hunan201p posted. Regardless of what was the exact admixture that formed modern Uyghurs , it's prettymuch proven the ancient/medieval ones would have looked much more Mongolian or more East Asians. Unless Uyghurs were less than 35% East Eurasian ( many Turkic people even by that level look more similar to East Asian in appearance ). The study shows Uyghurs had people who were 99-100% East Eurasian, 75% East Eurasian and 40-45% East Eurasian, by all means they people would have definitely look East Eurasian. I never said they had to be pure East Eurasian or even if they were primary west Eurasian, like for example Horn of Africans Somalian, Entreans, North Ethopians are all closer to west Eurasians genetically but physically closer to Sub-Saharan. If your had seen multiracial children who were half caucasian, they tend not to look caucasian in general, because their genes are more weaker compared with the dominant East Asian, South Indian, African ( in general they don't even look caucasian ). The Uyghurs that invaded were surely physically very different to Tocharians. The Chinese never described the Uyghurs as looking any different.

The chart and study are here https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.25.008078v1.full#F3

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/03/25/2020.03.25.008078/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

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.

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 Uy:::ghur 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)

So if any of you want to revert it please explain because I waited way too long and it seems as if neither of you want to continue the conversation.Vamlos (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that you failed to answered my points that I see no historians who said that modern Uyghurs come from only the Tocharian and Orkhon Uyghurs (and I gave sources that say there were other people), and that Kroran had already disappeared by the time the Uyghurs moved to the Tarim Basin, I don't see what reason you have to want to add that. You also removed the main result from the study (which is about genetics), and added only the speculations (which are not results from the study), which made the source pointless, and we could just delete the entire paragraph. Hzh (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No. I answered all your questions. I given sources while you din't. So far all I read from your are your own speculations on what the genetics and appearance of Tocharians were. Where is the source to back up your claims, your provided none. What are the sources you gave that are other people ?

You also basically reedited the source in your own words and interpretations. You chopped off some sentence outs and edited paragraph

" A different study by Li et al. (2009) used a larger sample of individuals from a wider area and found a higher East Asian component of about 70%, with much more similarity to "Western East" Eurasians than East Asian populations, while the European/West Asian component was about 30%. The paper by Li et al. noted that historical records suggest that Uyghurs may be formed through admixture between the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, but the study cannot distinguish the original ancient component of the Tocharians. It speculated that the Tocharians may be genetically similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty people, and admixture would already be biased toward the East Asian populations' "

From the original source it says "We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations. " Your rewording on the entire source is a biff off aswell, nowhere near close to being fully accurate. Removing that Uyghurs conquered Tocharians is one problem but even on the last sentence you edited is off. They speculated they were similar to Khanty people but they are far from being sure, but none of that is fully expressed in your rewording of that sentence. I suggest we return to the original correct wording and expression because the way you edited made it seem they seem that they are very much more sure that the Tocharians were similar genetically to Khanty. Vamlos (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Give me a source from a reputable historian that said the Uyghurs conquered the Tocharians. I can't really see what your point is if your complaint is removing "We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if ...". They said they don't know, so what is the point of adding it? The only useful point of the paper is their genetic research results (which you bizarrely removed, making the whole paragraph pointless), the rest is just speculation, as indicated by their use of the qualifier "If", which was replaced by "may be" (both expressed some level of uncertainty). If you want to used "if the Tocharians were" instead of "the Tocharians may be", then that is not a problem, I've done it. But I now think even the mention of Khanty is unwarranted, given the level of uncertainty. Hzh (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Really now. A reputable historian don't need to say something about so obvious but you can read at the references I established at the bottom. You can read the first Uyghur kingdom Qocho (843–1132), the map of kingdom already showed you they conquered a large chunk of Xinjiang. Uyghurs migrated South and occupied Xinjiang areas by conquering it from other empires.

In 843 a group of Uyghurs migrated southward under the leadership of Pugu Jun and occupied Karasahr and Kucha from Tibetan Empire.

In 866, Pugu Jun declared himself khan. The Kingdom of Qocho captured Tingzhou (Beshbalik, or Beiting) and Xizhou (Gaochang) as well as Changbaliq (near Ürümqi) and Luntai (Bugur) from the Guiyi Circuit.

In 869 and 870 the Kingdom of Qocho attacked the Guiyi Circuit but was repelled.

In 876 the Kingdom of Qocho seized Yizhou from the Guiyi Circuit, after which it came to be called Kumul.

another Uyghurs kingdom the Ganzhou Uyghur Kingdom (894–1036)

Around the years 881 and 882, Gan Prefecture slipped from the control of the Guiyi Circuit.

In 894 the Uyghurs established the Ganzhou Uyghur Kingdom in Gan Prefecture.

In 910 the Ganzhou Uyghurs attacked the Kingdom of Jinshan (Guiyi).

In 911 the Ganzhou Uyghurs attacked the Kingdom of Jinshan and forced them into an alliance as a lesser partner.

Mainly Turkic and Tocharian, but also Chinese and Iranian peoples such as the Sogdians were assimilated into the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho. Chinese were among the population of Qocho. Peter B. Golden writes that the Uyghurs not only adopted the writing system and religious faiths of the Sogdians, such as Manichaeism, Buddhism, and Christianity, but also looked to the Sogdians as "mentors" while gradually replacing them in their roles as Silk Road traders and purveyors of culture.

Are you disputing the facts that existed in the Qocho kingdom and Gangzhou kingdom of Uyghurs ? Because it's obvious that the Uyghurs invaded and conquered Xinjiang, and ruled over it's territories and population. Uyghurs would rule over all of Xinjiang eventualy. Vamlos (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

None of them said that the modern Uyghurs were formed from the invading Uyghurs and the conquered Tocharians, which is what the authors of the Li paper are suggesting. The Millward book plainly stated the ancient Uyghurs were just one of many groups of people who were the ancestors of modern Uyghurs (and the ancient Uyghurs were also only one of a number of different groups of Turkic people, for example the Turkic tribes who formed the Karakhanids), it also said that the five towns in Qocho were Sogdians, therefore why aren't you arguing that Uyghurs conquered the Sogdians? It also said they ruled the oasis towns indirectly already, so it is not about them invading to conquer the Tocharians because they were already under their rule indirectly. Trying to force a simplistic narrative as the writers of the Li paper tried to do is wrong, and quite ignorant. The other kingdom in Gansu is irrelevant (it is not part of the Tarim Basin). Hzh (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Qocho and Gangzhou were Uyghurs kingdoms that conquered and ruled a large chunk of Xinjiang which all used to be Tocharian lands. How is that not conquering Tocharians who were original Xinjiang people. Yes, millaward book did say that but it's obvious most of them derived their ancestry from Uyghurs but it still doesn't change the fact that the invaders were Uyghurs that assimilated all those ethnic group were mainly Tocharians and minority of Sogdians, Chinese, and other minority Turkic(not Uyghur) who historically ruled Xinjiang, but they were all in the minorities. Those towns are not Sogdians, Xinjiang was ruled and settled by minority of ethnic Sogdians ruling class and some Sogdian people migrations into Xinjiang which included both females and male. They brought in their families, warriors, slaves, merchants, traders, dancers to Xinjiang. Xinjiang was later ruled by Chinese dynasties agaiun with a minority of ethnic Chinese people who settled there. Sogdians created colonies in Xinjiang later Chinese did the same when they conquered Xinjiang. The Tocharians were always subjugated by other invaders, and they did not only lived in Tarim Basin, Tocharians were everywhere in Xinjiang. And regardless of what happened to Kharakanid they would have assimilated into the dominant Turkic-Uyghur population. Not sure where you are getting that Uyghurs ruled the oasis towns indirectly, in the end they did ruled over the Tocharians and assimilated them. If you like we could include both of the Li's paper study and of Millard's theory and some history of Qocho kingdom to further understand the formation of modern Uyghurs's existence. Vamlos (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is pointless. You are making things up with no sources, and ignore what is actually said in the book. For example, page 43, it says ...Iranian peoples who were then still the primary inhabitants of the Tarim and ... the Uyghur aristocracy ...before centuries of intermarriage with local peoples of Eastern Iranian stock (he certainly didn't say Tocharians, and what he said indicates that most of those in the Tarim Basin were Iranian peoples like the Sogdians), page 48 a Turko-Mongolian nomadic power ruling Indo-European oasis agriculturalist indirectly from across the Tianshan. I have no interest in your original research, so there is no point in further discussion. Hzh (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the souce. Since when did Iranians equate only to Sodgians. The Tocharians themselves were Iranian people, nowhere did they say most of the people in Tarim Basin were Iranians like Sogdians, since when in history did the Sogdians became a majority in Tarim Basin. You had incorrectly interpreted Iranians as Sogdians, when Iranian refer to many Iranian speaking Indo-European groups. The vast majority of Iranians were obviously Tocharians. Vamlos (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no wish to discuss with you any further given your ignorance of the subject and refusal to read the sources properly, and you are just saying random things. Anyone who wishes to talk about the Tocharians should know that they spoke a language that is distinct from the Iranian languages, it is what made them interesting and unusual. The Tocharian languages are centum, grouped with the Western European languages, while the Iranian languages are satem, which is in a completely different group. Millward also considered Tocharians and Iranians separate people, e.g. page 53 a local population with its Tokharian, Iranian, possibly Indian, and in Qocho, Chinese elements. Hzh (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter. I will keep continuing to look for answer to sort out our dispute. Also it clearly shows and says Tocharians <-- Related ethnic groups--> Indo-Iranians, Afanasievo, BMAC culture. Just because their language are not Iranians doesn't mean they are not Iranians people genetically. Languages don't identify with race/ethnic groups, otherwise Jamaicans black are also Indo-European people like the Russians. The Basque people's language is unrelated with Indo-European but genetically shows they are most closest to Irish who's language are Indo-European. And even if the Tarim Basin was inhabited mainly by Sogdians according to this Millard it still shows that the Uyghurs conquered the Tocharians. A people. Here it what it says clearly Here is what you cut out.The Xinjiang history; a Turko-Mongolian nomadic power ruling Indo-European oasis agriculturist indirectly from across the Tianshan. Yet the Uyghurs reached south far enough to maintain a administrative capital(Qocho) in the Turfan Basin. Over time, moreover, the population and cultures of nomad ruler and oasis ruled blended..... So they ruled over the Tocharians, indirectly rule is still rule, who controls the other conquers others. Their administrative capital was in the Turfan Basin. And since it Indo-European and not Iranian, than it makes even more sense that the people conquered were Tocharians Vamlos (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Millard's claim is rather disingenuous and evasive, and not supported by true history as his claim is untrue when the time scale is analysed. The region he is talking about was in the hand of a Mongoloid people called the Han, a long time before the original Uyghurs, who were another Mongoloid people, and anatolian and persian travellers went in. It is well known that indo-europeans moved around, as in for example the movement of the gypsy peoples across europe and the middle-east. Indo-europeans are the original inhabitants of indo-europe, they were never the original inhabitants of the Tarin Basin. The present day pretender uyghurs are descended from further later waves of migrations from anatolia and persia from about 1000 years ago, and are thus not even related to the earlier migrants, apart from the lands they both came from. Millard's claim is like saying that the population of the usa now is statistically identical to the population 300 years ago, or that all the present usa peoples are descended from those in the area 300 years ago, which is of course scientific nonsense. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:94D7:C46B:7A33:5141 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A book describing the origins of the genes for blond hair and blue eyes in Asia Proper, through Viking trade, including their slave trade. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-9403625/What-drove-Vikings-wanderlust.html . @hunan, please stop making your untrue claims. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A146:900A:46CD:43EA (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide has an RFC

Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Slander, libel and defamation. If there is genocide, then please show us the piles of dead bodies and the gas chambers. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:8503:5059:49CB:D161 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

China answers back. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202103/1219553.shtml 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:D0AB:826E:BA9B:71A5 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the genetic history of the Uyghur people

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.

---

Should this statement [2] about the genetic history of the Uyghur people be included in the article? Hzh (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• The statement under discussion is - The paper noted that historical records suggest that modern Uyghurs may have descended from the Indo-European Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the invading Turkic Orkhon Uyghurs from Mongolia. The paper's authors speculated that if the Tocharians were genetically similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty people, then their admixture would already be biased toward the East Asian populations. Hzh (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Uyghurs/Archive 5#Uyghur genetics for the preceding discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Rationale to Delete - The paper by Li et al [3] suggests that the East Asians and Europeans genetic components of the Uyghurs in their results is the product of admixture of the Tocharians and Orkhon Uyghurs. The paper, however, notes that it cannot prove such admixture, but uses other sources to justify the suggestion. The source they used to justify the statement "historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs" is The Uighur Empire by Colin Mackerras. However, the book makes no mention of the Tocharians since it is about a translation of the New and Old Book of Tang where the Tocharians are not mentioned (the people are only studied in modern times). It does, however, talk about the relationship between the Uyghurs and the Sogdians, and Iranian people, and Mackerras (but not the Book of Tang) briefly mentions that a few towns in the Tarim Basin were under the Uyghurs' influence. The translation in fact ended with "All the [Uyghur] tribes were scattered", and does not mention the large-scale movement of the Uyghurs south to where the Tocharians once lived. The book therefore cannot support the statement in the paper that cites it. It is doubtful the authors of the paper have ever read this book.

The second source it used is The Tarim Mummies by Mallory and Mair, which discusses the relation of the mummies to the Tocharians, and used to support a statement on the mummies of Kroran. The mummies of Kroran mentioned are several thousands years old, and by the time the Orkhon Uyghurs moved to the Tarim Basin, Kroran had disappeared. At no point does the book suggest that the modern Uyghurs are the product of only the Tocharians and Orkhon Uyghurs. The part that discussed the genetics of the modern population (pg. 249-251) mentions only Caucasoids (which include possibly the Tocharians and the Sogdians mentioned in page 249) rather than only the Tocharians. The book does however include a discussion in the appendix (pg. 333) conquest of "the Four Twgr" in a Uyghur source, and whether it meant four Tocharian towns, but notes the problem of Kashgar and Khotan being Iranian-speaking, different from the the Tocharian language of Kucha and Yangqi. It is a nuanced discussion, rather than the bold and simplistic statement made by the authors of the paper, again it is doubtful they have read these parts of the book.

The claim that this paper makes about the Tocharians and Orkhon Uyghurs is not their research result, and it is also not supported by the sources it uses. Furthermore it runs counter to other books not cited in the paper which indicate that the modern Uyghurs are a mixture of various people, such as the Tocharians, Sogdians, Saka, various Turkic tribes with the Orkhon Uyghurs being only one of them (discussion and some of the sources in the section on Uyghur genetics above). The Millward book for example noted that the Iranians were the main people in Tarim Basin by the time the Orkhon Uyghurs move down south - [4], and that the Sogdians had established a network of towns in the Tarmi Basin [5]. Such an unsupported claim made by the authors of the paper should not stay in this article. Hzh (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, these genetic overspeculations are not useful, as well I am not sure if would meet WP:MEDRS.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
• Comment: I'm not competent to give an opinion on this topic, but I find Hzh's argument compelling. However, KIENGIR, I want to make the purely academic point that WP:MEDRS isn't that relevant here, because that policy is meant to ensure that, even though we don't give medical advice, people who come to Wikipedia looking for medical advice get the best information we can provide. --Slashme (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slashme: The MEDRS argument is mainly about the sources being WP:PRIMARY. In this way MEDRS may be applicable to all science-related issues, and some Wikiprojects have taken the view that research papers on genetics should not be used on articles and only secondary sources such as reviews and books should be used, particular when the subject is contentious (e.g. in Indian Wikiproject on the people of India). Genetics research may be disputed, hence some cautioned against its use, particularly on the ethnic origin of groups of people. It is in this respect that the objection to the use of quote in this paper was raised in the first place, since the paper makes wide-ranging claim that is not supported by research nor the sources it cited, particularly when such poorly-sourced assertion is then used to make other definitive claims, asserting that X people are originated from Y people when it is entirely speculative and may be controversial. Personally I think genetic research is fine if used in the right way (by stating research results carefully, caveats and all, and not used it to make wide-ranging definitive statement), but if other people want to delete all information based on primary sources (which is not the argument I make), they may have a valid reason to do so as well. Hzh (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all information that comes from primary sources per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. Also per the essay Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science). A lot of genetic studies look at small pieces of DNA with limited sample sizes, and the authors come up with their hypothesis. This is too premature for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, until someone comes up with a review article that go over such research (or a book). Bogazicili (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2021 (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.

Very long portion of lead dedicated to genocide coverage

Since late 2019, the lead has had a paragraph dedicated to the Xinjiang internment camps/Uyghur genocide. Though the content seems to have changed over time, this is the page for an ethnic group, and pages such as Jews and Bosniaks contain at most one or two sentences regarding the Holocaust and Bosnian genocide in their respective leads. I'm thinking that such a prominent mention might be WP:UNDUE in the lead for this article, especially since this is supposed to focus on the ethnic group itself. Do other think that trimming that existing paragraph down would improve the page? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, maybe one or two sentences instead of a paragraph in the lead would be warranted. Checking Jews, Armenians, Hutu, Tutsi, Circassians, and Bosniaks just for a quick check, none of them linger on genocide for as long as this article does (Hutu, Tutsi, and Circassian don't mention their genocides in the lead at all). BSMRD (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've cut it down to two sentences, though it's admittedly still longer than I'd like. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@BSMRD and 75.85.185.153: So I'd cut it down to two sentences, though it looks like it got rephrased by 75.85.185.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The insertion of thus, the camps serve the goals seems WP:OR-y and also comes off like Wikipedia is saying that the camps are actually providing vocational training to disaffected individuals, which is something that the cited sources don't actually say. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur DNA

To 213.162.73.231 (and your numerous IP address ) Please show evidence for this high percentage, if true that would would make Uyghurs more East Asian than even the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz who look far more East Asian (facially and physically) but I seriously doubt this especially on the South Uyghurs who are next to Kashmir, Tajikistan couldn't possibly be this East Asian.

I need to see the sentence that specifically says the part bolded in black. " A study by Zhang et al. 2017 analyzed 1962 Uyghur samples from 14 geographical subpopulations in Xinjiang and observed a southwest to northeast differentiation. Northeast Uyghurs share between 70% to 90% autosomal STRs with East Asian reference populations (Dai/Mongolian), while Southwest Uyghurs share between 60% to 80% East Asian autosomal STRs. According to the authors, the results are in agreement with the historical migration of the Orkhon Uyghurs from Mongolia into Xinjiang. Overall, Uyghurs are closest to other Chinese and East Asian as well as Central-South Asians.[136] "

Also present a link for this quote

• " Northern and Southern Uyghurs and other 4 Asian populations (Thai, Vietnamese, Filipino and Chinese) formed a closely related cluster, suggesting that Northern and Southern Uyghurs are close to East Asians rather than Europeans. "

Also this quote. The Central-South Asian is basically Iranian which is also a West Eurasian component. It seems like that was added on purpose or if I'm wrong than show me.

• The phylogenetic analysis showed that Uyghur is genetically close to various Chinese populations, as well as other East Asian and Central-South Asian populations, rather than West-Eurasian populations.

Also there's no need to made blockquote comments. It seems to me your trying to make everything East Asian about Uyghurs intentionally by removing or decreasing Uyghurs relationship with West Eurasian and try to make them East Asian. Vamlos (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

At first, I already have included the specific quote of Zhang et al. 2017 into the reference. You seem to have overlooked that. Secondly, the Li et al. study does not use Western East Eurasian but Western East Asian. I used the search function and it did not show the word combination "Western East Eurasian" but instead several times Western East Asians. I removed the term "Turkic Central Asian" as it does not appear to be in the specific reference. Please provide the exact quote or delete this term. I have let it within the article during my latest edit, but I request you to provide evidence for this term or delete it yourself to show good-faith. Regarding the blockquotes, we can agree to include the specific content within the paragraphs. I will give you the exact quotes and the page numbers here on thr talk page later. We can than talk about and try to find a good solution. I am sure we will find a good solution to this. I agree to first discuss Zhang et al. 2017 and than include the content back. If necessary we can make use of a third user opinion if we are not able to find a solution. I will comment in some hours or a day later. Have a good day.213.162.73.231 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest we don't need blockquotes for everything and it doesn't seem like those are suitable for blockquotes. More DNA study still needs to be done on Uyghurs. I checked the way you edited previously and it seems there is a extreme bias on wanting Uyghurs to be Chinese and East Asians rather than Turkic people. The way you blockquotes those comments and removed words like "Turkic people", "Central Asian", " West Eurasian " and than replaced them with Chinese and East Asian. More DNA study still needed for the Uyghurs, so trying to make Uyghurs seem like East Asian is not accurate.

Also from this this source you added

The phylogenetic analysis showed that Uyghur is genetically close to various Chinese populations, as well as other East Asian and Central-South Asian populations, rather than West-Eurasian populations.

The source posted shows this but did you find this quote or was something you added something extra?

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30005-9/fulltext

"No significant difference was observed between Uyghur and the other two Uyghur populations at all tested STRs, as well as Dai and Mongolian. Significant differences were only observed between Uyghur and other Chinese populations at TH01, as well as Central-South Asian at D13S317, East Asian at TH01 and VWA. The phylogenetic analysis showed that Uyghur is genetically close to Chinese populations, as well as East Asian and Central-South Asian" ( This was not in the link rather than West Eurasian population.)

Central-South Asian is a Iranian/West Eurasian component that is very common in Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks, Kurdish, Pamiris, Afghanistan's Pasthuns, Balochi, aswell in partially parts of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Central South Asian even reaches South Europe in low to moderate levels. So it was really strange to see a quote that didn't make any sense.Vamlos (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read the "Afanasievo culture" in Wikipedia. " The results indicated that the expansion of the ancestors of the Afanasievo people into the Altai was carried out through "large-scale migrations and population displacements",[1] without admixture with local populations.[17][1] The Afanasievo people were also found to be closely related to the Poltavka culture.[17] The authors conclude that the Afansievo people were Indo-Europeans, perhaps ancestors of the Tocharians.[1]". Any I-E people there were migrants (not natives) who did not admix with the local populations, who were not and still are not Indo-Europeans. This should clear up the mis-conceptions a lot of people here have, who think the modern uyghurs are natives and that Modern East Asian peoples took their land. The ancestors of the modern uyghurs were migrants from Anatolia and today's Persia onto the land of modern East Asian peoples.. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:D48C:85AF:82B8:B8E8 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A vs An

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6bPGl10Cts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9aLNxcokOE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wQtRSgbLYc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7RojQpJWMw

@Horse Eye's Back: What is the point of fighting this? I've linked a few examples above but feel free to look for any auditory coverage of Uyghur issues and you will see they all favor the W pronunciation, which English grammar says should be proceeded by A not An. Why do you have an issue with this? BSMRD (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know if you know this but the defining Uyghur-English dictionary is Schwarz’s "An Uyghur-English Dictionary.” Unless you have a comparable or better source there isn’t much to discuss here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My source is every reliable source that covers Uyghurs in the past decade pronouncing it with a W. Language evolves over time, and one dictionary is not sufficient to counteract what the vast majority of sources use. BSMRD (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The source would actually have to say that explicitly, making inferences based on pronunciation is WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you mind if I post this at WP:3O? We clearly disagree on this, and a neutral 3rd opinion would be useful to settle it. As for it being "Original Research", the pronunciation is directly (and literally) stated by the source(s), as it is how they state it. BSMRD (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A WP:3O on which question? Whether or not to use an or your novel interpretation of WP:OR? Generally I would wait a few days to see if anyone else naturally joins in before going to WP:3O. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The former question. This asinine dispute shouldn't exist, but if you feel the need to wait around that's fine. WP:OR states This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. When a source pronounces something a certain way, that is that source directly stating how it is pronounced. I fail to see how that is a "novel" interpretation. Regardless, multiple sources state that it is pronounced with a W. [6][7][8][9]Your Schwarz source is authoritative, but it was also published in 1992, and any source talking about Uyghurs today will use the W pronunciation, and we can make a fairly reasonable assumption from that that our readers will as well. There is a reason it is listed first on this page. BSMRD (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I will disregard the incivility... For now. What is the reason it is listed first on this page? I don’y see any rationale attached or discussion about that on this talk page, am I missing something? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This dispute has to exist because English speakers are too lazy to try and pronounce it as Uyghurs do. "We" is quite wrong. I cite ecery Uyghur. Netanyahuserious (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Uyghurs situation in China

Article does not even mention re-education camps and usage of uyghurs as forced labour in China, let alone other violations of human rights. 176.93.156.151 (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Section 4.10.1 is titled "Genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang" and covers the topic extensively. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect link for Samsa

Under the subheader "Cuisine" the dish Samsa incorrectly links to the South Indian Dish "Samosa" rather than the Uyghur dish "Samsa (food)". I am unable to make this edit due to editing restrictions on this page.

Done. Hzh (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• อุยกูร์.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

True story off (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Uyghur in the world 40 million. 35 000 000 in china,600 000 in ksa,200 000 in turkey,300 000 in kazakhstan,250 000 in usa,150 000 in india True story off (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

The edit request concerns the section "Genetics". The 2017 study mentions one West-Eurasian (European) ancestry component at 33,2%, one South Asian ancestry component at 17,9%, and two East-Eurasian ancestry components, East Asian at 32,9% and Siberian at 16,0%. But the Wikipedia sentence suddenly changes "South Asian" (per source) into "Southwest Asian" and groups it together with European as West-Eurasian. This is not what the paper says. In contrary, the green "South Asian" component correspond with the indigenous South Asian AASI ancestry, and it peaks among tribal South Indians (Mala, Kharia, Lodhi, and Onge), clearly not West-Eurasian. This misleading terming must be corrected.

Source: [[10]]

My request is to replace the misleading text with correct sourced information:

An extensive genome study in 2017, analyzing 951 samples from Uyghurs from 14 geographical subpopulations in Xinjiang observes a southwest and northeast differentiation in the population, partially caused by the Tianshan Mountains, which form a natural barrier, with gene flows from the south, east and west into these separated groups of people. The study identifies three major ancestral components that may have arisen from two earlier admixed groups: one West-Eurasian component, associated with European ancestry (25–37%), one indigenous South Asian (AASI-linked) ancestry component (12–20%), and two East-Eurasian components with Siberian (15–17%) and East Asian ancestries (29–47%). In total, Uyghurs on average range from 44–64% Siberian/East Asian, 33,2% European, and 17,9% South Asian (AASI).

Thank you in advance!103.154.184.239 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Uanfala: or another frequent user, I am not sure to whom I should reply, but another user has thrown in some commentary into my request, not sure if that was by mistake or whatever the user wants. I have reverted the users "additions", hope this is ok.103.154.184.104 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

103.154.184.104, yes, that was against WP:TPO – you were right to remove that text. Ghizz Archus, would you mind not changing or removing other editor's comments, please? – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As for the substance of the request: I don't edit genetics topics. Maybe Austronesier would be willing to have a look? – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

We do not necessarily need an expert to verify what the source says. If someone believes that what the source says is inaccurate (or that the source is unreliable), that would be a different request. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The removal of Uyghur genetics from Hotan and Southern Uyghurs by blocked wikipedian user. The first and second genetic study of Uyghurs

This his how the full genetic information of Uyghurs was supposed to be like. Showing the genetic diversity of ethnic Uyghurs. This first genetic information had been edited for 10 years, and the genetic study also shows

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghurs&diff=1072020677&oldid=1072018531 This was however removed by blocked user in February 18th https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghurs&diff=1072683832&oldid=1072020677. and later again Blocked editor KinhyaKing had restored edits by the same BLOCKED EDITOR Quapaw.

What the blocked wikipedian user intention is to remove every genetic study of Uyghurs that gives them high west Eurasian admixture. The motive behind is to make sure Uyghur can never claim to be racially different to Chinese and that they have no choice but to accept being assimilated with Chinese. To make sure Uyghurs west eurasian admixture are as low as possible so that they can be closer to being assimilated with Chinese

" data of chromosome 21 in a Uyghur population sampled from southern Xinjiang, we showed, in a recent study, that both East-Asian (EAS) and European (EUR) ancestries contribute to the current gene pool of Uyghur populations, with 60% EUR ancestry and 40% EAS ancestry.4 "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427216/

"the distribution of admixture proportions of UIG individuals. The proportion of East Asian ancestry in UIG individuals ranges from 15.7% to 59.7%, and the proportion of European ancestry in UIG individuals ranges from 40.3% to 84.3%. " Ghizz Archus (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And what change are you asking for? Those blocked users' edits have already been reverted. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

References

LTA-related content

The genetics content about Kazakhstan Uighurs is erroneous, and was added by a banned LTA, WorldCreaterFighter. See diff. The study simply contains a typo, because the research it cites says the exact opposite of what this author said. I pointed this out at the time, but unfortunately it took about a year for Vamlos to finally get identified as WCF. Now that we know Vamlos is WorldCreaterFighter, and since the paper is wrong, and incongruent with other secondary research, I've removed this from the article. WP:DENY. - Hunan201p (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Big data: usage of the full spectrum of alternative spellings of the word Uyghurs through time

Big data: usage of the full spectrum of alternative spellings of the word Uyghurs through time.

Sometimes there are shifts...

Googletype (type and use Google Search):

• BBC Uighur
• BBC Uighurs
• BBC Uyghur
• BBC Uyghurs

217.213.122.92 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement with South Asian being linked with ASSI

The DNA study of Uyghurs does not claim their South Asian component is AASI because that is literally impossible, the component itself is generally regarded as a mixture of West Eurasian and AASI. I guarantee you cannot find anything about Uyghurs and ASSI in any genetics and google page. The Uyghurs South Asian component should only be almost entirely South Asia's West Eurasian such as the Central-South Asian Iranian admixture that is common in Kashmir's Northern India, Northern Pakistan rather than AASI admixture from the depths of South India. ASSI exist almost in all South Asia group in varying degrees but is most common in the South Indians, predominant in Dravidian speakers or almost entirely dominated by South Indian tribals and Dalits

The South Asian component that we see in the Uyghurs is more likely South Central Asian component which is exist among Central Asian Iranics. South Asian (or Central/South Asian) can be interpreted as Iranic component dominant in the Balochi, Hunza, Burusho, Kashmiri who are all phenotypically very different from other South Asians despite living in Pakistan (in the North). The Kashmiri do have more ASSI admixture but still predominant West Eurasian. Uyghurs from Xinjiang are geographically more Central Asia than even the ethnic groups of Kashmir ( Hunza, Kashmi, Burusho) or Afghanistans Balochi.

Please learn from here. South Asian does not equals to AASI. South Asian can also be ANI and since Uyghurs are just above ANI makes far more sense than they be more closer to ANI than anything but even more likely is they are South-Central Asian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia

The AASI type ancestry is found at the highest levels among tribal groups of southern India, such as the Paniya and is generally found throughout all South Asian ethnic groups in significantly varying amounts. The West-Eurasian ancestry, specifically an Iranian-related component, combined with varying degrees of AASI ancestry formed the Indus Periphery Cline around ~5400–3700 BCE, the main ancestry of most modern South Asian groups

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248

Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent.

Almost all groups speaking Indo-European or Dravidian languages lie along a gradient of varying relatedness to West Eurasians in PCA (referred to as “Indian cline”),

UYGHURS South Asian = Central South Asian

From own study by https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/10/2572/3864506?login=false

"the XJU samples were surrounded by populations from SIB, EA, SA, and WE (fig. 1B). Among these neighboring populations, XJU was most closely related to the Central/South Asian populations, followed by the EA/WE populations."

"STRUCTURE and PCA analyses showed that Uyghurs and Kazakhs appeared as admixed individuals of primarily European and East Asian ancestry and were clearly differentiated from Europeans, Middle Easterners, South/Central Asians, and East Asians. "

You will find this if you type google "Based on the optimal K number of 4, the Uyghur individuals had averages of 48% of East Asian, 17.3% of South/Central Asian, 34.1% European"

Please correct this error. This seems like another attempt in trying to decrease Uyghur's west Eurasian genetic relatedness.Ghizz Archus (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your somewhat suspicious personal views are your thing, but pushing them here is another thing. If you take a look at the paper's results[[11]], the 'South Asian' ancestry peaks among the Mala tribals of southern India. It literally says "South Asian", and "West-Eurasian" (blue) has its own component. There is a reason why the authors used these terms, if you disagree with them, then contact the authors. Furthermore, the Mala tribals are neither West-Eurasian nor 'ANI' (Ancient North Indian). If anything, they are 'ASI' (Ancient South Indian). Yelmen et al. 2019 summarized, that the Indian tribal peoples (Paniya, Irula, Mala, Soliga,...) are a good proxy for AASI ancestry, not ANI or "Southwest Asian". They are literally South Indian...[[12]]].

A Mala tribal men, the reference population which scores the highest amount of "South Asian" ancestry, according to the cited study.

What is further suspicious is, as far as I can tell, your solely edits made in Wikipedia, as well as your arguments, strongly correspond with the edits and arguments of the blocked sock vandal, who edited this section previously[[13]]. Either this, or you are a Turkish POV pusher account, trying to related Uyghurs with Turkish people, and hating Indians. Fact is, the study's "South Asian" ancestry component peaks among tribals, not Southwestern Asians, and thr authors clearly made it its own component, not West-Eurasian or a mix of West-Eurasian and AASI, as you claimed here. Note this is WP:OR. There is no discussion about that. Wikipedia has to represent what the sources say, not what some editors think they say. At first you vandalized my request and now you make POV claims about topics you have no clue about. Stop it.103.154.184.104 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just found that a blocked sock troll made the exact same arguments and included "West" in between South _ Asian.[[14]]. Coincidence? @CentreLeftRight: what to do? Could you please monitor the article against vandalism? Seems like the single purpose account here has monitored the article, and soon after I informed the talk page about the misleading terming, he appeared with a newly created account vandalizing my request. I don't understand why someone tries hard to change "South Asian" into "Southwest Asian"...103.154.184.104 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

103.154.184.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), your many responses make it more difficult for me to simply block and revert. So when you have these suspicions, why engage? It's like arguing with a racist on Instagram. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

People must be crazy if they think the entire western eurasian world (Europe, Middle East, North Africa ) have some South Asian admixture as in AASI South Indians. According to your interpretations Armenians, Georgians, Chechens from Caucasus are also 20-30% South Asian. Palestinians, Lebanese have 10-15% and every Europeans have 2-6% of these AASI South Indian component ? How would that have even happened. Gypsies are the only people who have real ASSI South Indian admixture from 10-50%, and their people are always phenotypically distinguished in Europe. If we agree that every people in the western eurasian world have ASSI, than all of them are basically gypsies in the level genetic admixtures.

The South Asian component also peak in the Burusho 55% and Kalash 60% according to this link you shown. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Genetic-History-of-Xinjiang%E2%80%99s-Uyghurs-Suggests-Age-Feng-Lu/e9b6f3546b3d0385b7033595ad33ebda441cd83f/figure/1

They generally look nothing like the mainstream South Asian especially not the South Indians where AASI peaks in the blackest skinned tribes.

Examples of Kalash people https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/57125c2c2b8dde54a34b537f/1555412450291-548PHYE4X27LER4IELGA/Individual-people.jpg?format=500w https://www.yoair.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/kalash-valley-people.jpg Burusho people https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGOjwZMVQAUGkL1.png https://64.media.tumblr.com/e442004dcd3dd2b1c812d305f91185b7/f9f493a2b36cc44c-2b/s1280x1920/a443afb4fda3f4455aafe528e47af6ef7750f733.jpg

Now even all Central Asian Turks have it but it peaks in the Tajiks Pamiri at well over 30%. Clearly there's no sign of AASI admixture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Tajik_Pamiri_children.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGOjwZMVQAUGkL1.png https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PF7BMP/pamiri-women-celebrating-at-the-roof-of-the-world-festival-in-khorog-tajikistan-PF7BMP.jpg

As a Turkish male, often the topics related with Turkic people is the reason I'll read a post in the first place. Someone send me a link to wikipedia and I have seen posts from Vamlos and other blocked multiple accounts. Just by reading the genetic section alone, I definitely do see a disproportionate weight in favor of Uyghurs being just another East Eurasian ethnicity in China. It's not secret Chinese government implemented policies to suppress the cultural identity and religion of Uyghur. So it didn't even surprised me someone would attempt to remove genetic studies giving Uyghurs a high West Eurasian admixture. Now I see someone claiming Uyghurs South Asian admixture is ASSI related (meaning non-west Eurasian). Is this biased approach largely unintentional and often results in ignoring inconsistent information ? I doubt it. This is just another attempt to reduce Uyghurs relatedness with Central Asian and West Eurasian. I said that South Asian equals South Central Asian, not Southwest Asian. I request that this AASI be removed from the Uyghurs genetics.Ghizz Archus (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ghizz. the Chinese government does not implement policies to suppress the cultural identity of uyghurs. In fact they encourage the uyghurs to be uyghurs. As a turkish male you must know that the language you speak now is not the language of your ancient biological ancestors, but you have adopted the language from an East Asian people called Turkic. I don't see you making a case for the people of turkey to return to speaking or using your ancestor's language from 2000 yrs ago. This is exactly the same for Black people in america; their mother-tongue now is English, you just don't expect Black american people to speak any African languages. Furthermore, if you are a muslim turk, then you have to admit that your biological ancestors from 1500 yrs ago were not muslims, but I don't see you arguing that the muslims of arabia suppressed your ancestor's religions and turned them into muslims, and that your people should now go back to their original religions. In fact the uyghurs in China are not uyghurs at all. The people now called uyghurs are actually from your part of the world, anatolia. They were mislabelled as uyghurs by the russians and the name stuck. White people like to do these things, for example white people called the natives of america, Indians, when they are nothing of the kind. The real Uyghurs were an East-Asian People; the present people are pretender uyghurs, and their ancestors came from anatolia. If the present pretender uyghurs want a real homeland, then they should go back to anatolia, and form a state there, just like the Jews of the world returning to the middle-east to form the state of Israel. But for the time being they live in China, so the Chinese government encourage and allow them to keep their identity, but they also have to learn Chinese, just like Black people and everyone else in america have to learn English. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:3089:1D53:88B1:4943 (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I read the entirety of your post and you still need to make a policy-based request. "I don't like it" is not enough of a reason for the removal to be made. If you think the source given is biased (e.g. because of its authors, possible conflict(s) of interest, or funding), you have to prove it. The same is true if you think the section(s) of an article are written in a bias way. In the section I see studies that concluded that the Uyghurs are more closely related to Europeans / Western Eurasians and others that concluded they are more closely related to East Eurasian and other Asian populations. This is fine per WP:NPOV because it gives two prominent conclusions roughly equal weight. If you think the section is not neutral, you have to prove it with more than personal opinions and observations. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The 2017 study that gave Uyghurs 12-20% South Asian ancestries, said absolutely nothing about "South Asian" being related to "AASI". According to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India#AASI). Narasimhan et al. (2018) the term AASI means "Ancient Ancestral South Indian". There is no evidence that "South Asian ancestries" are represented by South Indians or indigenous South Asian? "South Asian" can be AASI , ANI or ASI.

Here's two 2021 genetic study mentioning the previous 2017 genetic study of Uyghurs. The "South Asian" ancestries it's now replaced with West South Asian ancestries. The study included all Xinjiang groups; Hui, Mongols, Kazakhs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8719170/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.760760/full

Feng et al. (Feng et al., 2017) used genome-wide human SNP array and found that the Uyghur population from XUAR have four major ancestral components, which were the result of two earlier admixed groups: one of them was from the West containing European (25%–37%) and West South Asian ancestries (12–20%), while the second one was from the East, with Siberian (15%–17%) and East Asian (29%–47%) ancestries.

It makes sense that the South Asian component in Uyghur is actually West South Asian ( aka Iranic, or Central South Asian). Uyghur from the North Xinjiang Borders with South Siberia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan while South Xinjiang borders next to Tajikistan, and Kashmir regions of Pakistan, North India where the people speak a Iranic Dardic language. I like to see a scientific paper claiming Turkish people's DNA are partially AASI ancestral South Indians.

According to a 2012 study of ethnic Turks, "Turkish population has a close genetic similarity to Middle Eastern and European populations and some degree of similarity to South Asian and Central Asian populations."[29] The analysis modeled each person's DNA as having originated from K ancestral populations and varied At K = 4, results for paternal ancestry were 38% European, 35% Middle Eastern, 18% South Asian, and 9% Central Asian.

I hope everything is understood and clear now.Ghizz Archus (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you realize what absurd nonsense you are actually writing here? Next to the clear case of synthesis, you are trying to change sourced content with another paper from another author?! Your last sentence even repeats the argument you are trying to change (eg.: 38% European, 35% Middle Eastern, 18% South Asian, and 9% Central Asian) -> now even more clear that South Asian is neither European nor West Asian nor Central Asian! And I repeat, the 2017 source give us a graphic which shows the frequency of the various ancestry components. We all can clearly see that the Green "South Asian" component peaks among Kharia, Onge, Mala tribals, and other Southern Indians, such as the Vishwabrahmin group in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Telanga, see[[15]]. It is well known that the Kharia or the Onge do not have West-Eurasian admixture. The Onge are an Andamanese people from the Gulf of Bengal, and among the most isolated tribal people of the world. They are not "Southwest Asian". It seems you are motivated by racist opinions, rather than by reliable criticism. Anyway, if you disagree with the results, contact the authors! Why you hate South Asians? Furthermore, why do you think the authors created an own "West-Eurasian" component (main ancestry of Europeans and West Asians) and an own South Asian component (main ancestry in what surprise South Asians) if the two are the same (according to your personal views)? As a "Turkish male" (at least your user page says so), you surely have something better to do. And to refute your points, let's look at your most "creative" claim: You said: "It makes sense that the South Asian component in Uyghur is actually West South Asian ( aka Iranic or Central South Asian)." Wow, now you even try to say South Asian is in reality "Iranian"? So you say that the Kharia people and Onge people are Iranian?! Yeeks! And I am Gandalf...

Andamanese tribals of the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal

Do you know who the Andamanese Onge are? 103.154.184.104 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually. You haven't proven anything again. All I see your doing is misleading, mislabel and misinforming others. There's not a single genetic paper that would dare claim the South Asian DNA in Uyghurs and Turkish are both ASSI related, at least not the vast majority of South Asian component that you misinterpreting as strictly ASSI. The sourced content you posted never once claim what you been wrongly demonstrating. Virtually all scientific papers have a “author” you can contact, but in this case is just you trying to highjack and alter the source content and the author with your own faulty misinterpretations. You keep repeating to me "if you disagree with the results, contact the authors!", I disagree only you.

You don't even understand the 2017 source. This paper with the chart you keep showing https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Genetic-History-of-Xinjiang%E2%80%99s-Uyghurs-Suggests-Age-Feng-Lu/e9b6f3546b3d0385b7033595ad33ebda441cd83f/figure/1 Even the Kharia, Onge, Mala tribals and other South Indians ethnicity that you naming here, are not entirely South Asian genetically. None of the ethnic groups are pure South Asian. They are mostly South Asian admixture but the rest of it is having significant East Asian admixture or west Eurasian (Onge, Kharia, Mala tribals), while others also have a combination of all of a 4 admixtures; East Asian, Siberian, West Eurasian, South Asian. All your examples of high peaked South Asians examples that only you had shown so far; black skinned ethnic groups that look either South Indian tribal or Onge. How come you avoid ethnic groups such as the Kalash people, Burusho or even the Punjabis and Gujarati who have nearly the exact same South Asian admixture with all your high peaked cherrypicked South Asians ?

Compare them with the Iranic Dardic people of Kashmir such as Kalash and Burusho, there's only like roughly 5-10% genetic differences in their South Asian admixtures with all the high peaked South Asians you keep mentioning. Phenotypically, they look very European/West Asian despite having only a little less South Asian admixture. We certainly don't see some half Onge or South Indian people.

Kalash people

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/88/b8/80/88b880c5ca0e96b45a3e8e708f51d755.jpg Burusho people

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HGsIceAtAdY/hqdefault.jpg Punjabis and Gujarati are considered two of the lightest skinned Indian groups with very strong west Asian phenotypes. From your chart you keep posting very clearly also shows Punjabi and Gujarati have the highest peaked of South Asian admixture, they even have a lot more than even the Onge, Kharia. There's only a few percent difference in the South Asian admixture between Punjabis, Gujaratis and your Mala tribals, and other Southern Indians, such as the Vishwabrahmin group in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Telanga.

Punjabi people

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4f0f1d28d1282a967247f1e078d15430-lq Gujarati people

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-48b0750838af0cdbfdd7388e637043ab.webp Is quite clearly apart from their West Eurasian components, most of the Northwest Indians or Northwest South Asians are a combination of West Eurasians and South Asian ( ANI and ASI ). The South Asian component itself is already a split of two different ancestries with Northern South Asians being dominated by ANI while Southern Indians by ASI.

Also another observation from the 2017 Uyghur study. This chart clearly shows western Uyghurs and Southern Uyghurs of Xinjiang are closer to West Eurasian while Eastern and Northern Uyghurs have more East Eurasian. https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/96943805/msx177f1.tif

Request for change. I now have sufficient evidence for a change. Here's two new updated 2021 genetic studies: The previously "South Asian" ancestries it's now replaced with West South Asian ancestries. The study included all ethnic groups in Xinjiang and not single ASSI word is mentioned. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8719170/ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.760760/full

"Feng et al. (Feng et al., 2017) used genome-wide human SNP array and found that the Uyghur population from XUAR have four major ancestral components, which were the result of two earlier admixed groups: one of them was from the West containing European (25%–37%) and West South Asian ancestries (12–20%), while the second one was from the East, with Siberian (15%–17%) and East Asian (29%–47%) ancestries. Wouldn't it be okay now if I request that "AASI" be removed from the Uyghurs genetics and the " South Asian" be changed into "West South Asian"Ghizz Archus (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeeks, do you realize what utter nonsense and jumble is coming from you? Furthermore, your argumentation does not make sense. You are basically claiming that the "South Asian" component is in reality "Iranic"? Seriously, so according to you, Iranians themselves are mostly "European" but not "Iranic", while South Asians (including Onge people are largely "Iranic". Troll? The study mentions South Asian as distinct component, distinct from the component termed "West-Eurasian" (which includes European and Middle Eastern ("Iranic") ancestry). You continue in citing various different papers, to argue changing this one... That is not how Wikipedia works, neither makes it sense. The South Asian component is highest among the South Indian Dalit grouping known as Mala (caste) and speaking a Dravidian language. These South Indian tribals have some minor West-Eurasian admixture (Neolithic Iranian), next to some East Asian admixture too, which can be seen at the small blue and red components in the chart. There is nothing to dispute about that. And about your other POV claims that "Burusho people" look European, but still have significant South Asian admixture, is nothing but personal OR and even supporting that the South Asian component is distinctively South Asian and not "Iranic", as the Mala have the highest amount of it, not the Kalash. Furthermore, genotype is not phenotype! Racists may think otherwise... And the 2021 paper you keep mentioning is not a valid reason to change an unrelated 2017 study, where it is also apparently clear that they misquoted them...possibly even because of the previous misquoted wording here... It becames increasingly clear that there is a conflict of interest on your side. South Asian is not Iranic. We may reword it more precise in stating "South Asian ancestry, which peaks among the Mala (caste), a Dravidian-speaking Dalit community in Southern India" instead of the more vague "South Asian (AASI)". Anyway, your claim that "South Asian" refers to "Iranic" ancestry is absurd, on the border of trolling! And please stop making fringe claims about Punjabis or Gujaratis. As everyone can see in the chart, there are several Gujarat samples (A to D) in accordance with caste and tribal groups there among them, all of them also having significant Blue (West-Eurasian) admixture. Your logic is really flawed, as example look at the Blue (West-Eurasian) component. Do you honestly think that Iranians themselves are more "European" than "Iranic", following your interpretation? That simply makes no sense. I think it is also dubious that you try hard to restore the wording "West South Asian", which was previously included by a sock troll. After it got corrected, per cited source, you, suddenly, appeared, trying hard to make fringe changes. Maybe you should realize that Synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia anyway.103.154.184.104 (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I don't want to waste much time. There isn't a single genetic paper that would dare support your claim that all South Asian admixtures represents AASI.

1) Here's DNA Lazaridis 2014 ( I hope this would prove you wrong once and for all). Take a look at all the components shared in different colors.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s1600/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png%3Cfont%20color=

Blue = West Eurasian

Yellow = East Eurasian

Green represents = Native American

Purple = AASI related

Red = African

Orange = East African

AASI related component (colored in purple) clearly peaks in 95-100% Australian aborigines, Papuans, 60% Onge and many other straight haired 40-50% South Indian groups. But even in this ASSI related component is diverse and split between those that look physically look Negrito types, Australian aborigines types, Papuan types and those that look like South Indian tribes, Adivasis, and indigenous Sri Lanka Veddas. Even among the high AASI have different diverse genotypes. In Turkey, this AASI/Purple shaded it's just but 0% to 1%. In the Uyghurs, Central Asian Turks it's 0% to 1.5%. If the Uyghurs are 12-20% South Asian and Turkish have 18% South Asian represents AASI like you said, than they would all have substantial of this AASI/purple colored component. If anything these negligible AASI admixtures in Turkish and Central Asians could either be just noise or would have already been contributed by people who are either almost entirely West Eurasian or South Asian with small percent of AASI.

2) According to this study of yours that you keep posting (Genetic-History-of-Xinjiang’s-Uyghurs-Suggests-Age-Feng-Lu )

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Genetic-History-of-Xinjiang%E2%80%99s-Uyghurs-Suggests-Age-Feng-Lu/e9b6f3546b3d0385b7033595ad33ebda441cd83f/figure/1

All the Caucasus, Middle east, Central Asians European groups should be having either 5-8% or 10-30% AASI but we can clearly from the Lazaridi 2014 autosomal DNA study it's either 0% or close to 0%

3) "West South Asian" is correct, I'm also fine "Central-South Asian". After all West and Central South Asians refers to populations of Kashmir; Dardic people, Hunzas, Burusho, Kalash. All Central Asians Turks and Tajiks have Central-South Asians.

Study is here https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2010153 In the heartland of Eurasia: the multilocus genetic landscape of Central Asian populations

Here is the chart https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fejhg.2010.153/MediaObjects/41431_2011_Article_BFejhg2010153_Fig1_HTML.jpg

I'm either fine with "West South Asians" or " Central South Asians " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghizz Archus (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You do not get it or? Your arguments are invalid. Synthesis is not allowed. Furthermore it is completely unimportant with what you would be fine or not. And OR (original research) presented by you does not favor your task at all. Different studies, different results, hello!? That different studies/samples will lead to different estimations/results is not a secret either, but here you dispute a 2017 paper, neither a 2014 nor any other paper! The more you try, the more fringe you appear. It is obvious that you are motivated by personal agenda. What is so hard to understand that Synthesis, OR, and "I don't like it", are invalid reasons. The study says South Asian, as such there is nothing to discuss about that! Furthermore, as I said before, the information may be made more precise per source: "South Asian ancestry, which peaks among the Mala (caste), a Dravidian-speaking Dalit community in Southern India" instead of the more vague "South Asian (AASI)". And hey... I can also come up with random pictures, unrelated to the 2017 paper, claiming they will prove you wrong "once and for all": Ancestry defined as "South Asian":https://i1.wp.com/www.harappadna.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Harrapa-SouthAsia-Participant-Map-C1-1.jpg and ancestry defined as "Iranian/Caucasus":https://i1.wp.com/www.harappadna.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Harrapa-SouthAsia-Participant-Map-C2-1-80.jpg. Of course, in regard to a specific paper, it is invalid! If you like it or not, the 2017 paper use South Asian (Green), which is not included in the wider "West-Eurasian" (Blue) component, and that for a reason! The 2017 paper does not even include the words "Southwest" or "West South Asian". What is so hard to understand?! @CentreLeftRight: could you please explain our "Turkish Male", that Wikipedia does not work like that? I think his behavior is more than fringe.103.154.184.104 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No I don't get your way of thinking. All you need to right now is show to me that Uyghurs or even Central Asians have a portion of their DNA related with South Indian but that's something you obviously cannot do. Even your Mala tribes that you keep claiming have peaked South Asian ancestry are 40% West Eurasian, 40% AASI, 20% East Eurasian. Compared with other North Indian groups who have only 10% or 18% AASI. ANI + ASI = South Asian ancestries. Nobody had claimed that the Uyghurs have indigenous South Asian ancestries. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s1600/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png%3Cfont%20color=

You haven't shown a single study that claims "South Asian" or "South Asian ancestries" is related with the Mala(caste). South Asian DNA is diverse and divided by different ancestries depending on the location, but that's something you don't seem to understand. I've just shown you Turkish and Uyghurs have almost non-existent none of that South Indian related DNA but instead every study and results had shown that their South Asia ancestries is more like related with populations West-South Asians or Central-South Asian.

HERE. Using the 2017 study against you. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/10/2572/3864506 Not a single mention of SA/South Asia represents indigenous South Asian ancestry.

" inferred WE-SA admixture time based on Western admixed populations (Brahui, Burusho, Pathan, Sindhi, and Tajik_Pomiri), whose major components were limited to WE and SA" <---- And all these population groups are West-South Asians and Central South Asian. They have very high South Asian ancestries but all well over 90% West Eurasian ANI-South Asian with minor AASI. And Uyghurs live next to them.

South Asian ancestries peaks at 90-95% in the Sindhi, Burusho, Pathans but I hope your not gullible to believe it's mostly related with South Indian.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AiqxfdH1kqo/TnC1DOX7yUI/AAAAAAAAEHk/LanedZAS19Q/s1600/admixture-caucasus.png

" Mala (proxy of SA) were used as reference populations for WE-SA admixed " .Mala itself is a mixture of West Eurasian, AASI, East Eurasian <----- There is not such thing as pure AASI Mala, or even 50% AASI Mala. They are also as West Eurasian as they are AASI but their high AASI admixture makes them look like South Indians.

HOWEVER

"In the second scenario, we dated XJU from each region with Korean, Itelmen, Sardinian and Kalash as proxies of EA, SIB, WE, and SA,".

Kalash is also used as a proxy for South Asia but Kalash people look extremely European/West Asian and very little of AASI as do Turkish and Uyghurs. So not only were you wrong thinking Mala were only AASI, your also failed believing they were only accurate Proxy for South Asian. mention Kalash people can be a proxy for South Asia.

AGAIN from the more recent 2021 study about Uyghurs from Xinjiang

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.760760/full

" Populations from Xinjiang showed their affinity with Central Asian, South West Asian, West Asian, and East European populations. " It clearly said South West Asian (ex: Kalash people, Dardic people, Kashmiris from South Asia), nobody said indegenious South Asian or AASI.Ghizz Archus (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

OMG. There seems all hope lost at you? Do you even realize what absurdity and confusing stuff you are writing here? It does not even make sense. Who said Mala are pure representatives of AASI? I did not say that. I said, and everyone can see that by looking at the study's results and the cited chart, that the Green South Asian component peaks among the Mala samples, but they also have some minor West-Eurasian and East Asian admixture. So what? This actually supports what I have repeatedly said! Green represents the specific South Asian ancestry, because of that the authors named it SOUTH ASIAN! Your claim that the South Asian component is 90% West-Eurasian ANI is nothing but absurd BS. Personal POV which does not even fit the existing data! You are citing a completely different study from 2014 and try using its content to change an unrelated 2017 study!? Seriously!? What is so hard to understand that Synthesis and Original research are violating Wikipedia rules? If we look at thr genetic section of the articles, we have at least 4 different studies, all with very different results! That is the sense of it, presenting all results to give weight! Not to cherry pick specific studies (which pleasure your personal feelings)! You can not use other studies to change this one and its results! EOD! And your obsession with Iranic and Dardic people is unsourced too! West South Asia refers to Punjabi, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, not Burusho or Kalash or Kashmiris, which are located in northernmost South Asia! Get basic geographic skills before making bold claims! Furthermore it seems you do not even can read and understand the papers results. As example here: "...inferred WE-SA admixture time based on Western admixed populations (Brahui, Burusho, Pathan, Sindhi, and Tajik_Pomiri), whose major components were limited to WE and SA..." do you understand it? It says that these people have varying degrees of WE (West-Eurasian) ancestry and SA (South Asian) ancestry! Nothing referring to" West South Asian", but simply an information about these groups! The chart similarly shows them to harbor mostly Green (SA) ancestry and Blue (WE) ancestry. So Sherlock, what does this have to do with your absurd claims? Stop spamming various unrelated studies, when discussing a specific 2017 paper!103.154.184.104 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: I really hope this this dispute can end. Currently this thread is being derailed with big replies and I really don't want continue. The user 103.154.184.104 is unable to prove Uyghurs have indigenous South Asian or AASI linked ancestries in any of the genetic papers. On the other hand I have sufficient evidence from genetic studies from 2014, 2017, 2021 about the Uyghurs. All the genetic studies the South Asian component in Uyghur being unrelated with AASI so I hope words like " indigenous South Asian ( AASI-linked )" ancestry or "South Asian(AASI) " be removed. How can that be edited when there isn't even single word of AASI in them ? Clearly original research.

Currently this is what's written in the genetic section of Uyghurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Genetics " The study identifies three major ancestral components that may have arisen from two earlier admixed groups: one West-Eurasian component, associated with European ancestry (25–37%), one indigenous South Asian (AASI-linked) ancestry component (12–20%), and two East-Eurasian components with Siberian (15–17%) and East Asian ancestries (29–47%). In total, Uyghurs on average range from 44–64% Siberian/East Asian, 33.2% European, and 17.9% South Asian (AASI).[148] " The part bolded saying one " indigenous South Asian ( AASI-linked )" ancestry or "South Asian(AASI) " <----- There is not a single genetic paper on the Uyghurs that claimed their South Asian is AASI linked. The word AASI doesn't even exist in Uyghurs. If they were proven to be AASI I would have given up with the replies already. Again, adding words that doesn't even exist in the genetic paper is not only asserting but clearly original research ( Wikipedia:No original research).

1)

Here's updated 2021 genetic study that I quoted https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8719170/ Title: The Heart of Silk Road “Xinjiang,” Its Genetic Portray, and Forensic Parameters Inferred From Autosomal STRs

" Populations from Xinjiang showed their affinity with Central Asian, South West Asian, West Asian, and East European populations. "

"Feng et al. (Feng et al., 2017) used genome-wide human SNP array and found that the Uyghur population from XUAR have four major ancestral components, which were the result of two earlier admixed groups: one of them was from the West containing European (25%–37%) and West South Asian ancestries (12–20%), while the second one was from the East, with Siberian (15%–17%) and East Asian (29%–47%) ancestries.

Changing it to "West South Asian " would seem more accurate.

2)

From the 2017 genetic study that was used to misinterpret "South Asia " is " AASI". https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/10/2572/3864506 Title: Genetic History of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs Suggests Bronze Age Multiple-Way Contacts in Eurasia

" Mala (proxy of SA) were used as reference populations for WE-SA admixed "

Mala itself is a mixture of 40% West Eurasian, 40% AASI, 20% East Eurasian <----- There is not such thing as pure AASI Mala, or even 50% AASI Mala. They are also as West Eurasian as they are AASI but their high AASI admixture makes them look like South Indians.

"In the second scenario, we dated XJU from each region with Korean, Itelmen, Sardinian and Kalash as proxies of EA, SIB, WE, and SA,".

Kalash is also used as a proxy for South Asia/SA but Kalash people look extremely West Eurasian people.

Both the Mala and Kalash people have almost the same level of South Asian ancestries. The Burusho, Punjabi, Tajik Pamiri also have very high South Asian ancestries but genetic shown them to have minor to almost no AASI. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Genetic-History-of-Xinjiang%E2%80%99s-Uyghurs-Suggests-Age-Feng-Lu/e9b6f3546b3d0385b7033595ad33ebda441cd83f/figure/1

3)

Here's DNA Lazaridis 2014 ( I hope this would prove you wrong once and for all). Take a look at all the components shared in different colors.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s1600/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png%3Cfont%20color= Blue = West Eurasian , Yellow = East Eurasian, Green represents = Native American, Purple = AASI related, Red = African, Orange = East African. The AASI related component (colored in purple) clearly peaks in 95-100% Australian aborigines, Papuans, 60% Onge and many other straight haired 40-50% South Indian groups. But even in this ASSI related component is diverse and split between those that look physically look Negrito types, Australian aborigines types, Papuan types and those that look like South Indian tribes, Adivasis, and indigenous Sri Lanka Veddas.

In Turkey, this AASI/Purple shaded it's just but 0% to 1%. In the Uyghurs, Central Asian Turks it's 0% to 1.5%. If the Uyghurs are 12-20% South Asian and Turkish have 18% South Asian represents AASI like had 103.154.184.104 said they would all have substantial of this AASI/purple colored component <-----Proving that AASI linked or indigenous South Asian ancestry is nearly non-existent in the Uyghurs. I would like the genetic section of Uyghurs to remove "Indigenous South Asian " and "AASI" because none of it are true.Ghizz Archus (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The only one who is misrepresenting data is you. You fail WP:Synth, and try to forge various papers to get your "West South Asian" blah blah. Than you continue to falsify the 2014 paper claiming that purple represents "AASI-like" ancestry. Sadly for you is that the purple refers to Oceanians, not South Asians. AASI was first defined by Reich in 2016. As I said before, I would agree to make it more precise per source, something like this: "South Asian ancestry, which peaks among the Mala (caste), a Dravidian-speaking Dalit community in Southern India" instead of the more vague "South Asian (AASI)". There is nothing to dispute about that. The paper uses South Asian, and the graph shows that it peaks among the Mala, followed by Kharia and Onge/Andamanese. By the way, here is Damgaard et al. 2018, who demonstrated that distinctive South Asian (samplified by Onge) is far more widespreaded than previously anticipated: Graph from full text version:[[16]] and study itself:[[17]]. The (repeated and spam like) arguments by "Ghizz Archus" fail WP:Synth, WP:OR, and WP:Weight/WP:NPOV. A clear case of "I don't like it“. If the source uses South Asian, than we must use South Asian too, period! Not a POV wording because some personally motivated" Turkish male" can not accept the results. And results of other papers are irrelevant im regard to this paper! Furthermore the user seems to be obsessed with phenotypes and fails to understand that genotyped is not phenotype! A single purpose account who suddenly gets active trying to restore wordings included by a blocked sock troll is more than suspicious.[[18]]. And please STOP SPAMMING AND REPEATING THE SAME MISLEADING ARGUMENTS!103.154.184.104 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ghizz Archus and 103.154.184.104: Firstly, I encourage you both to temporarily abstain from engaging with each other further as I think you two have both made your points quite clear. I am not as informed as you lot on the particulars of your disagreements, so I can only go off from my understanding of the requests/grievances listed and how to approach them per Wikipedia guidelines. Here are my comments:

• The inclusion of "AASI" in parentheses is something that Ghizz Archus has asked to be removed. It is true that the original study cited does not mention "AASI"; thus, I believe that my oversight with the original request by 103.154.184.104 led to a minor error in judgement.
• My understanding of one of Ghizz Archus' arguments is that other studies that cite the 2017 study use the term "West South Asian" when referring to the data in the 2017 study which is labelled "South Asian". I am not even close to an expert on the subject so I do not know if the authors of the studies which cited the 2017 one made their own assumptions or not, and if they did, I do not know how accurate those assumptions are.
  • Thus, I cannot change "South Asian" to "West South Asian" because that is not what the source given (the 2017 study) states, and doing so with the argument laid out would be a synthesis of sources.
• It seems to me that a bulk of this discussion is a debate over the topic in general; not "What do sources say about our specific grievance(s)" but "What is the established scholarship on the matter in general and how does it relate to our discussion".
• Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it.
• I cannot comment further and I hope that someone else who is more informed on the matter, besides you two, will leave their thoughts and better engage with your request(s). For now, I am removing "AASI" and keeping the terminology as vague as the study given, and I welcome any objections by 103.154.184.104 to this change in particular.

All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: I do not object the removal of the term AASI. As I previously mentioned, it may be better and more clear for readers, and prevents such discussions, if we give more details about the components, such as:"...indigenous South Asian ancestry (12–20%), which peaks among the Mala (caste), a Dravidian-speaking Dalit community in Southern India, as well as among the Kharia people, and Onge". The same can be done with "West-Eurasian ancestry, which peaks among Europeans, followed by Middle Easterners" etc.. In this way, we mention the results[[[[19]]]], and in which group which ancestry component is most frequently found. But if you think we should stay more vague, and only mention the names of the component like we do now, than I have no problem with that either, as long as we use terms which are according to the source. Alternatively, we may include a note with the above information of frequency.103.154.184.104 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely should remove "one indigenous" from South Asians ancestry and change it to this ---> " South Asians (or West South Asians ) ancestry ", or just "West South Asians like in the 2021 study, either way I'm fine. It is ludicrous to all of sudden just include indigenous South Asian ancestry in the Uyghurs out of nowhere. Where does it say indigenous South Asians in the 2017 study (provided by 103.154.184.104) ? The AASI or indigenous South Asian was something all falsely asserted by 103.154.184.104. Just like his recent request for " indigenous South Asian ancestry (12–20%), which peaks among the Mala (caste), a Dravidian-speaking Dalit community in Southern India, as well as among the Kharia people, and Onge" " AGAIN. Nothing but false assertions and original research ( Wikipedia:No original research).

Even in this chart provided by 103.154.184.104. He uses only black skinned population of South Indian (Dravidian speaking tribal) or Negrito like Onge Andamanese to represent South Asia/SA. Is this a deliberate attempt to mislead wikipedian readers to believe Uyghurs are actually partially related with black skinned dalits and negrito Onge? He avoids including South Asia's Dardic Iranian speaking Kalash, Burusho people of Kashmir who have nearly just as much South Asian ancestry, or is it because they South Asians who look like European/West Asian population. In fact, the ethnic Kalash was also used for Proxy for SA/South Asia in the 2017 study.

"In the second scenario, we dated XJU from each region with Korean, Itelmen, Sardinian and Kalash as proxies of EA, SIB, WE, and SA,".

He also avoids including South Asia's Indo-Aryan speaking Punjabi and Gujarati people who also have peaked South Asian ancestry , only few percent different from the Dravidian Mala. South Asia is a diverse. There is more ANI ancestry in Northwest South Asia than there is AASI in Southern India. Uyghurs live next to Iranic Tajiks Pamiri Tajikistan and Dardic Iranians of Kashmir ( very north of India and Pakistan). Geographically speaking, it is absurd it is to think Uyghurs 12-20% South Asian is related with the Mala/Dalits in the very depths of South India instead of those from Kashmir ( North India) where South Indian related DNA like Mala or Onge is rare to non-existent.

That's why it's better to follow the 2021 study which:: Here's two 2021 genetic study mentioning the previous 2017 genetic study of Uyghurs. The "South Asian" ancestries it's now replaced with West South Asian ancestries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8719170/

"Feng et al. (Feng et al., 2017) used genome-wide human SNP array and found that the Uyghur population from XUAR have four major ancestral components, which were the result of two earlier admixed groups: one of them was from the West containing European (25%–37%) and West South Asian ancestries (12–20%), while the second one was from the East, with Siberian (15%–17%) and East Asian (29%–47%) ancestries."

References

More importantly

(Go ahead and check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Genetics)

Every study on the Uyghurs in (2004), (2005, (2008), (2009), (2013) and (2018) shows European related/Western Eurasian and East Asian-related Eastern Eurasian make up total 100% of Uyghur ancestry...... I want to know how the 2017 study of Uyghurs with South Asian fits in all of a sudden ?

A few examples

One study by Xu et al. (2008), using samples from Hetian (Hotan) only, found Uyghurs have about an average of 60% European or West Asian (Western Eurasian) ancestry and about 40% East Asian or Siberian ancestry (Eastern Eurasian) =100% total ancestry

A different study by Li et al. (2009) East Asian 70% on average, European/West Asian 30% =100% total ancestry

A 2018 study of 206 Uyghur samples from Xinjiang, average genetic ancestry of Uyghurs is 63.7% East Asian-related and 36.3% European-related = 100% total ancestry

I didn't even include (2004), (2005) were Western Eurasian haplogroups and Eastern Eurasian haplogroups = 100% haplogroup of Uyghur. (2013) They mention again related groups with Europeans, West Asian or East Asian and Siberians. There is NO mention of indigenous South Asians. I hope this is clear enough.Ghizz Archus (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same POV synthesis BS without realizing what the sources actually say... and every time you came up with more hilarious ideas and completely unrelated papers, trying hard to restore wording by a blocked sock. Maybe someone should check your accounts affiliations? I do not avoid mentioning Punjabi and Gujarat samples, but compared to Mala (and Kharia or Onge) they do not have as much Green (South Asian) ancestry, while having more Blue (West-Eurasian) ancestry. So why should they be mentioned regarding the highest amount of South Asian ancestry?! Where is the logic? Furthermore, Punjabi and Gujarat are diverse. Lower Caste and Dalits are considered Punjabi/Gujarat too, who says that only Bhramin samples were used? Fact remains that the South Asian (Green) ancestry peaks among the Mala, which are a Dalit caste without much external geneflow (existing geneflow is shown in Blue and Red), as such, the South Asian ancestry can impossible be "West South Asian" or any West-Eurasian ancestry type, especially when West-Eurasian is already a own component!

And what should that misleading accusation about my request (which actually was an alternative idea)? Quoting the results of the chart is not OR, your claims and arguments are OR. And no, Kalash and Burusho do not have "nearly as much South Asian ancestry". I think it is quite questionable that you are actively spreading lies here.

Where is your source that Onge/Mala like DNA is "rare to non-existant" in North India? In fact, it is frequently found there:[[20]] eg. Damgaard et al. 2018:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar7711 or a recent 2022 paper, which found ~8% South Asian ancestry (samplified by Great Andamanese) among Tajiks of Tajikistan, much further North than Northernmost India! Source:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-04144-4

Quote:

"We also note that the Tajiks present a positive D-statistic with an historical individual from India (Great Andaman) (Fig. 3) showing a possible connection with South Asia. ... and around 8% ancestry from a South Asian individual (Indian_GreatAndaman_100BP) representing a deep ancestry in South Asia (Table 1)."

I think you should stop your POV agenda and read WP:Weight and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, synthesis is not allowed, see WP:Synth. Your personal ideas and arguments based on your feelings or ideology is not a reliable source either!

Furthermore do you realize that phenotype is not genotype! Only racists think otherwise! Your obsession with phenotypes and ignorance about the diverse makeup of Indian ethnic groups, especially the numerous lower and scheduled castes and Dalit population of Northwestern India is really making me worry! Punjab has the highest amount of Dalit people (32% of its total population, Census 2011)! So stop your ignorant and racist smear attacks against darker skinned people!103.154.184.104 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: I have something that completely disproves the inaccuracies that 103.154.184.104 had been promoting. Apart from all the genetic studies on Uyghur that I mentioned from my previous post,. Uyghurs genetic studies from from 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2018 like it's clearly shown in the genetic of Uyghur (Uyghur genetics) which clearly shows Uyghurs East Eurasian and West Eurasian make up total of 100% ancestry. So it makes no sense to have this South Indian/Onge in the Uyghurs in the first place.

This DNA study and chart should put a end to all lies and misinterpretations. By Gyaneshwer Chaubey (2012)

"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355372/

DNA chart here: Showing South Asian's ancestry's population are divided by ANI and ASI and the latter is nearly non-existent in Uyghurs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=3355372_ukmss-47882-f0003.jpg

The light green (represents ANI) which is South Asia's West Eurasian component, peaking 70-98% in the Indo-Europeans speakers of North Indians/and other Northern South Asians groups. Dravidic speaking Indians is represented by the dark green component ( ASI representing South Indian/Onge) is 70-80%. Both South Asia's Indo-European and Dravidic have also a substantial minority of their ancestry mixed with ANI and ASI and that is what makes up South Asian ancestries. Every day DNA result will show Norths-South Indians South Asian ancestry are mixed between ANI and ASI. Now as for Uyghurs, they have only 0% o 1% of that dark green (South Indian/Onge) but shared nearly 12-20% of that light green (ANI or South Asians type of West Eurasian). Geographically, Uyghurs from Xinjiang are located between Mongolia, Siberia, Kazakhstan in the north and is in the South between Tajikistan Pamiri ( East Tajikistan is Pamiri) and Kashmirs in North India and Pakistan. Kashmir was only recently part of India ( Union of India) in 1947, thanks to British colonization. The point is anyone with half the intellect and commonsense will there know is no way that South Insian/Onge can make up such a substantial percentage in Uyghurs. DNA chart clearly shows only 0-1% and every genetic study of Uyghurs from 2004 to 2021 and all of them were Eastern and western Eurasian. Without a doubt, the South Asia component in Uyghurs represents South Asian's western eurasian type's of component.

To the user 103.154.184.104, perhaps you should be editing in the Tajiks of Tajikistan instead. You obviously cannot find anything about Uyghurs being partly South Indian/Onge. You think 8% is a lot ? That is less than 1/10 of a fraction. Doesn't matter if it was the result of ancient contact or the result of Timur invasion bringing 100,000 Hindu slaves to Central Asia (sold all over) in 15th century. I was talking about Tajiks Pamiri anyway, not Tajiks of Tajikistan. Obviously this 8% Adamanese/Onge related DNA in Tajiks isn't actually from people like Onge Adamanese/Negrito with their tight coiled hair or else people from North India and South India would look like part negrito with coiled hair. I still can't believe why anyone would take 103.154.184.104 seriously. Based on his beliefs, every ethnic from Caucasus and Europe also have substantial Onge/Andamanese or South Indian because they all have 6% to 30% South Asian.

Oceanic/South Indian ASI/Onge Adamanese are all grouped into one genetic group when clearly Australian Aborigines, Onge, Dalits, Sri Lanka Veddas even they all belong to different physical types. Anyway as shown from the Lazaridis et al. 2014)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/

DNA chart. The purple component being ASI South Indian/Onge Andamanese/Oceanic is nearly non-existent in Uyghurs.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s1600/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png

It's better to change it like this "South Asian ( West South Asia ) ancestry". This way people would stop having have the wrong and misleading idea.Ghizz Archus (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you realize what illogical stuff you are giving from you? At first, WP:Synth is forbidden! That means you must not use another study to change the study with which you disagree... furthermore it does not make sense. Different studies get different results. Than realize that phenotype is not genotype! All the East Asians, Southeast Asians, AASI, Papuans, Aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, Polynesians etc. are ENA (eastern non-African) also known as East-Eurasian. That means you absurd arguments are nothing but misleading. You claim previous studies did only show East-Eurasian or East Asian-related ancestry... well they only tested against East Asians. The 2017 paper also included the Andamanese Onge and various tribal peoples into the calculations. Refer to Narasimhan et al. 2019 or Shinde et al. 2019, who were even able to use "Eastern Siberian hunter-gatherers" instead of Andamanese, to estimate AASI ancestry among various populations of South and Central Asia. The chaotic way and obsession with phenotypes make clear personal bias instead of useful arguments.

Furthermore who says that people with South Asian ancestry must look like Andamanese Onge? This is about a genetic ancestry component, not some fantasy. As example, Western Hunter-gatherer had dark to black skin, as such did not really look like modern Europeans, but are genetically European (West-Eurasian). What does that tell us? Yes, phenotyp is not genotype. Period!

You can cite a million of other older papers, they are irrelevant to this paper. They did use other models, other targets, and are from different authors. You can not change the wording of a reference only because you disagree or think it is wrong. And no, you did not cite anything which disproves what I said, actually not what I said, but what the study and authors said. So if you disagree with them, simply contact them. Period. The paper says "South Asian" and only South Asian, any deformation is original research and a violation of policies. EOD in this regard. And stop making sayings about what I or other users should do. Be careful.103.154.184.104 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop throwing wikipedia rules around. We will just have wait for CentreLeftRight. There are better things we can do to improve.

For example you forgotten the 2016 study that shows Uyghurs are slightly closer to European. Analysis of genetic admixture in Uyghur using the 26 Y-STR loci system Yingnan Bian,

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep19998

This show Uyghurs are much more diverse Ghizz Archus (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Good Hand, Band Hand sockpuppetry

I strongly suspect this entire fiasco may be a case of WP:GHBH editing, and that some of the parties involved are sockpuppets or meatpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter. The writing style is identical, particularly the liberal use of boldface. WorldCreaterFighter has been running this strategy lately, as evidenced by these recently confirmed socks (and many others):

• Whhu22
• Quapaw
• Vamlos

Please check out the SPI archive for WorldCreaterFighter for recent blocks. The ultimate goal of WorldCreaterFighter is to get his favored version of the genetics section altered by an admin, in hopes that it will 'stick'. To do this he will create extensive numbers of sockpuppets who will argue with eachother, edit war, and leave lengthy talk page critiques with liberal use of boldface type. He will also throw around and hide behind allegations of racism, and more specifically the keyword "racialist". The keyword "racialist" has persisted across all of his IP edits.

I impore all reviewers and administrators in this discussion to be extremely cautious in their actions here. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The current WCF sock case brought me here. This is not Good Hand, Bad Hand sockpuppetry. These are two editors with serious competence issues trying to read too much into an admixture discussion based on K=4! Obviously, with such a low K-value and given the breadth of the sample (covering all of Eurasia), you will not be able to capture the complex prehistory of admixture in South Asia. But that's not the point of the study by Feng et al. anyway, right? They make a sloppy cut-off at K=4 because nothing really changes in the admixture proportions of the Uyghur samples at higher K-values (fig. S10, it's in the first PDF of the ZIP-file you can download under "Supplmentary data"[21]). And don't mix up ADMIXTURE with admixture models based on f4-stats, so you cannot equate ADMIXTURE-components at any K-value with genomic ancestries.

But if you are really keen on details that are not even of concern to Feng et al., have a look at K=6: there, ANI- and ASI-ish components get separated out, and the Uyghurs only have the former (pale green). So obviously it is not the AS(S)I-ancestry in modern South Asians that produces the shared pale green component among Uyghurs and South Asians at K=4. But who cares? We don't do OR here; if Feng et al. considered this an important thing to mention, they would have done so. –Austronesier (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Do they also have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:3089:1D53:88B1:4943 (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary Era

The subsection of this section titled "Genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang" seems to be more about reports of state-backed human rights violations in general against the Uyghurs in the XUAR (ex. forced labour, internment camps, torture, etc.), rather than specifically singling out the ones that many sources have characterized as genocide (i.e. the sterilization and separations). Though I don't disagree personally with characterizing much of the abuses as genocide, it should also be noted that there's been heavy discussion on the Uyghur genocide talkpage regarding using Wikivoice on this matter. With that, I think it would be more appropriate to change the title of this section to better serve the content of the section - namely the human rights abuses in general rather than just referencing genocide.Dankmemes2 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)