Talk:Uyghurs/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Uyghurs in Kazakhstan genetics

The study in the link says 55% West Eurasian mtDNA which was removed by Hunan201p. This study could mean Uyghurs in Kazakhstan either represent purer Uyghurs or that they are Uyghurs with other admixture or Uyghurs with higher west Eurasian DNA from a region.Ghizz Archus (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to add this content? As I explained at this talk page discussion and the link included in it, the study is erroneous. It mis-quotes the studies it refers to, which actually say that the Kazakhstan Uighurs are 55% East Eurasian mtDNA, not 55% Western Eurasian. So it's a simple typo which happens from time to time even in peer reviewed studies. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I just checked. Uyghurs in Kazakhstan do have 55% European mtDNA and the conversation in the (2008) " A Genome-wide Analysis of Admixture in Uyghurs and a High-Density Admixture Map for Disease-Gene Discovery ". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556439/

showed you showed you didn't reply to the explanation Vamlos and KIENGER said. Here offers a full explanation "However, there were also much higher estimations (> 50%) when both classical markers7 and mtDNA8 were used; especially, sequences of 55% European mtDNA were found in Uyghurs sampled in the easternmost section of Kazakhstan, which is only 18 km from the boundary with northern Xinjiang,8 "

Also a reason to include Uyghur's Kazakhstan. https://minorityrights.org/minorities/uyghurs-2/

" Kazakhstan’s historical Uyghur minority are for the most part the remnants of the vast Uyghur Empire which towards the 8th Century stretched from the Caspian Sea to Manchuria. Eventually to be overrun by the tribes that became the Kazakhs, most Uyghurs migrated into what is now China, though some remained in the Almaty oblast close to China. During the Soviet era, many Uyghur were assimilated into the Russian-speaking society, with the result that a majority of Uyghur today speak Russian rather than Kazakh or even Uyghur. "

" More recently, substantial numbers of Uyghurs fleeing Chinese repression in Xinjiang have joined the historically well-established Uyghur population in Almaty oblast. In 1962 between 60,000 and 120,000 Uyghurs and Kazakhs fled into Kazakhstan to avoid repression in China." Ghizz Archus (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ghizz Archus: Stop making stuff up. KIENGER never disagreed with me in the archived talk page discussion, and Vamlos (a banned sockpuppet) never offered an explanation for anything. He even concedes in the talk page discussion that Kazakhstan Uighurs are majority East Asian (maternally): "Overall, Uyghurs from Kazakhstan have slightly more west Eurasian mtDNA than Uyghurs from Xinjiang but still more East Asian"

Again I will show you why your source:

A Genome-wide Analysis of Admixture in Uyghurs and a High-Density Admixture Map for Disease-Gene Discovery (2008), by Jin, et al.

... is erroneous.

This is the paper it cites for the erroneous statement that Kazakh Uighurs have 55% European maternal DNA

Trading genes along the silk road: mtDNA sequences and the origin of central Asian populations (1998), by Comas et al. Here is the PDF to the full study:

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

It is obvious that Jin, et al. (2008) made a simple but critical typing error in their paper. They wrote that Kazakhstan Uighurs are 55% European maternally, but that is impossible, because the source they cite for this statement (Comas) says that Uighurs are 55% EAST ASIAN maternally. Another source citing Comas also says they are 55% East Asian, maternally.

Comas, et al. (1998) do not list the Uighurs in their sample as having 55% European mtDNA. See Table 3, page 1832.[1] Uighurs have 54.5% East Asian mtDNA, 34.5% European.

Jin, et al (2008) must have meant to say that Kazakh Uighurs have 55% East Asian mtDNA, but accidentally typed "European", and this was missed by the editors. This kind of mistake happens from time to time, and can be missed in the peer review process.

Furthermore, from another study (Yong-Gang (2004), which summarizes Comas:

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

[...]

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

So not only do Yong-Gang, et al. describe the Comas, et al. mtDNA sample as majority East Asian, they also compile an mtDNA data pool (which includes the Comas, et al. 1998 sample) which shows Uighurs in Kazakhstan as roughly 55% East Asian, maternally. Jin, et al. clearly made a simple typing error, because Comas' data clearly shows that Kazakh Uighurs are 55% East Asian maternally, as also seen in Yong-Gang (2004).

Note:, for the people who are reading this who may not be aware, the spelling "Uighur" denotes Uighurs from Kazakhstan, while "Uyghur" refers to those who live in Xinjiang, (see Fig. 1 from Yong Gang (2004)) although "Uyghur" may be commonly used for all Uyghurs regardless of their national origin. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

And if we needed even another example to show that Jin (2008) made a typing error in their reference to Comas, here's yet another source correctly describing Comas:

Human Population Dynamics: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives, Macbeth & Collinson (2002)

An analysis of four central Asian populations (Comas et al 1998; Perez-Lezaum et al 1999; Calafel et al 2000) addressed the unravelling of sex-specific migration patterns from genetic data. They studied four population samples, two from highland populations, the Kazakh and the highland Kirghiz, both living above 2,000m, and two from lowland populations, the Uighur and the lowland Kirghiz, and they typed the mtDNA and the Y-chromosome markers of the same individuals. They described within-population genetic diversity and genetic differentiation between populations, as well ss the origin of mtDNA lineages from elsewhere. They found that, in all four central Asian populations, roughly one-third of mtDNA lineages had their origins in west Eurasia, while the remaining fraction was shared with East Asian populations.

To insist on adding the Jin (2008) study when it's contradicted by multiple sources (including the very source it cited) is pretty suspicious considering this content is related to an LTA. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The study claiming Uyghurs from Kazakhs have 55% European mtDNA was in 2008. If you have given enough accurate information than I agree. You should be finding something from 2008 or upwards from others or Jin, et al himself stating that his 55% European mtDNA in his 2008 scientific journal was a error.

Something you chose to ignore was this (already stated in the link you provided)

"Jin, et al (2008) could be a error but the same was possibly true for Comas et al (1998). In his study it says 34.5% European mtDNA but in the Yong-Gang Yao (2004 ) study, Comas failed to include mtDNA R* representing 9.2% of Uyghurs from Kazakhstan as part of the West Eurasian mtDNA which in total is 43.6%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA) The Ust'-Ishim man fossil of Siberia, dated ca. 45,000 years old, belongs to haplogroup R* (formerly classified as U).[8][9] Distribution: The basal R clade is found among the Soqotri (1.2%), as well as in Northeast Africa (1.5%), the Middle East (0.8%), the Near East (0.8%), and the Arabian peninsula (0.3%).[10] I think it's pretty obvious that R* belongs to West Eurasian mtDNA. I suggest the writer of above read this: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/scientists-sequence-genome-of-45000yearold-man-20141022-119yvy.html 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:9A4:11BB:CF99:4FEB "

Now, all I'm asking for is you find a study, author or name of the scientist claiming the 55% European mtDNA in Uyghur Kazakhs was a mistake made by Gao. Don't use something from 1998 or 2004, while they may be linked, a lot could have changed just by revisions.Ghizz Archus (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you've pretty much confirmed by now that you're WorldCreaterFighter as that's the same argument he made in the archived talk page discussion. So I'm just going to revert you again and add that Jin (2008) is not a primary study. They don't provide any data, and don't correct anything. They merely cite Comas, and mistakenly describe their data. The majority of sources are describing Comas 1998 correctly - Hunan201p (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This reply of yours is innapropriate. I take it that you can't find anything new to disprove the 2008 study.

Somebody should point out your habit of trolling. It is abnormal that you keep editing a page in every 1-2 minutes just to change one letter.Ghizz Archus (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

I want to change current image which is not represent Uyghur people. Thanks! UlughBeg86 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Check out WP:Image Use Policy for guidelines on acceptable images. If you have one in mind that meets criteria, follow the instructions there on how to upload it, link to it here and reopen the request then. Cannolis (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Tarim Basin Mummies are from a local tribe

Tarim Basin Mummies are determined to be from local tribes by DNA analyses, and were not caucasoids. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:A0D8:F967:2BD7:D401 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Uyghur language template in lead

As a note to those involved in the recent back-and-forth editing, I've made an edit request that I think will solve the issue with how the {{lang-ug}} template is currently rendering. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Uyghurs in afghanistan

Uyghurs are 2,000-500,000 in afghanistan

https://dzen.ru/a/ZAj9Y5cDb3YQ2gDt 2A03:32C0:B:72F4:BAC0:1E32:5F2C:D4EF (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

False claims about China “abusing Uyghurs”

This page has made unsubstantiated claims that China is treating Uyghurs badly, it doesn’t even say “allegedly” or “claims of”, here is what real news has to say about that: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/06/ucwx-s06.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.149.151 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So, your "real news" source is the "World Socialist Web Site" which is, according to their own about page, "published by the International Committee of the Fourth International, the World Party of Socialist Revolution...".

The Article makes many, many biased claims with no substance whatsoever, and its only source is what the Chinese government said.

In contrast, the current Wikipedia article cites 20 different and independent sources for just this one paragraph.

I am actually confused how you even thought this would prompt anybody to even consider changing the article. LessUseless (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The World Socialist Web Site is a deprecated source. Moving on. Yue🌙 07:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Uyghur

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: I am not going to risk an edit war when you are clearly making up claims as you go, so I am going to reiterate my counter to your case and let another editor(s) make an action because a false claim this egregious will make someone else notice eventually.

You gave a Radio Free Asia article and claimed it gave a British English pronunciation of "OOY-ghurs" (both syllables are erroneous respellings), which it didn't.

I gave four dictionary sources that gave the pronunciation long-listed here and on Wiktionary, and you replaced them with two from howtopronounce.com, which is an open contribution website for users to contribute and rate pronunciations, and spelfabet.com, a corporate blog so fringe and poorly maintained that I had to block it from forcing a popup virus onto my computer.

So neither are reliable sources and not sufficient. Also, regarding the rest of your claim:

the correct “Ooy-ghur” pronunciation is prevalent in the English language and in fact if you look up “How to pronounce Uyghur” (singular form) the first result is the “Ooy-ghur” pronunciation. On top of that, Uyghur people themselves prefer it over the “Weegers” pronunciation which is incorrect, as the former is closer to their language, therefore it is better to have the preferred pronunciation in the lead.

1. You provided no reliable sources yet you claim "OOY-ghurs" is prevalent in English.
2. You insist I take an online search (without further details) as a sufficient source / evidence.
3. You claim that a pronunciation closer to the native language is the preferred pronunciation in the lead. Not only is there no such policy, but it's counter-intuitive as well. Should the lead of France then make the claim that France should be pronounced "Frahns" Or Russia as Rossiya?

What I do know, which can be taken from the Radio Free Asia article as well, is that Uyghur organisations dislike the common pronunciation in English because that's not at all how it's pronounced in Uyghur. That's something absent that's worth noting in the article, but why are you so insistent on pretending that "OOY-ghurs" is the common pronunciation when none of the reliable sources in the English language support that claim?

I digress though; if I put another reliable source into the mix, you'll just find another obscure site that doesn't backup a claim(s) you make and we'll both get blocked for edit warring. Again, a false claim this egregious will make someone else notice eventually. Yue🌙 05:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A similar example would be pronouncing Iran as “Ee-ran” instead of “Eye-ran”. Both are used in the English language, but the former is preferable as it is more phonetically correct. While the “Weeger” pronunciation is used, so is “Ooy-ghur”. My sources do not negate the pronunciation of “weeger”, but instead present another English pronunciation which is closer to the actual word. On top of that, Uyghurs prefer the usage of the word “Uyghur” instead of “Uighur” or “Uigur”, paired with the pronunciation of the word Uyghur as “Ooy-ghur” instead of “weeger” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

historically buddhism

Talk pages are not forums. This discussion has been closed; do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
there is no uyghurs following buddhism today whats the point in that seriously??? 2A02:C7C:507D:0:A130:A279:F018:5FB4 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Because it's an incredibly important part of their culture, and absolutely essential to their historic identity. It's also one of the primary shared links to the groups that formed the ethnogenesis of the historical Uyghur people, and remained central to Uyghur identity throughout most of their history. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Is it now? The article literally says they destroyed Buddhist monuments because they believed they were built by Dzungers. So much for central part of their culture lmfao 2A02:C7C:507D:0:745F:9390:1452:BFDB (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Closing discussion per WP:NOTFORUM. Your off-handed tone, and the fact that you are responding on different IPs, indicates to me that you are just here to provoke others and start trouble. Yue🌙 21:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources needed

The last paragraph of the main section states "Various scholars, human rights organizations and governments consider abuses perpetrated against the Uyghurs". I feel sources are needed here, not only to add to its reliability but also to prompt further reading. 87.95.5.71 (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

See Uyghur Genocide. Beshogur (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

I'd like to replace the picture of the Uyghur man with a sheepskin hat with the following picture. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muqam.jpg The reason the photo needs to be replaced is it misleads anyone who wants to know about Uyghurs. Uyghurs are diverse people and members of today's modern society. They cannot not be represented by an outdated photo of a man with a dusty sheepskin hat. YulghunA (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The current image has been in this article for far too long, so consensus is required to replace it. Also, the target media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 13:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The point is not the painting or the image of the painting. The point is the current photo on the Uyghur page doesn’t reflect Uyghur people as a whole. The current one being there for far too long doesn’t mean it’s the appropriate one. Women having no voting rights for centuries doesn’t mean it was a right thing. 167.98.170.146 (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Replacing a photo with a painting would be against MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. I feel like this shouldn't be said, but representing a real group of people with a painting is less, not more inappropriate. I also don't think you own the copyright to that painting as you claim, especially since you ripped it from a Medium blog and the painter, Ghazi Ehmet, is deceased. Yue🌙 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not claim the copyright to the paining. I merely uploaded the photo of the painting to Wikimedia which is widely available on the internet from a page where the photo had better resolution. The blogger doesn’t claim any right to the photo. I do know the painter is deceased. The point is not the image of the painting. The point is the current photo on the Uyghur page doesn’t reflect Uyghur people as a whole. The current one being there for far too long doesn’t mean it’s the appropriate one. Women having no voting rights for centuries doesn’t mean it was a right thing. YulghunA (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyright is paramount for us here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but my point is for yhe picture to be either removed or changed to something else that’s more appropriate. YulghunA (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Marked the edit request as answered, as it's being dealt with. NotAGenious (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

How long does it take to change or remove a photo? Status of this matter has been set as 'being dealt with' for almost 2 months. YulghunA (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The photo you added without having permission to use the image was removed from commons a while ago. Looks like its been dealt with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Horse Eye's Back. If you read this thread, it’ll be apparent to you that my aim is removal or replacement of the photo of a shepherd with dusty sheep skin hat that’s currently being displayed on the page. YulghunA (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that the image you uploaded is no longer an option is there one of the pictures currently used on the page which you think would work better? I would also look at the archives, I believe that there's been some discussion about this at before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

So,tajiks are closest nation to uyghurs. Link https://dzen.ru/a/ZKOC-y7rPiFy_aiT

Al-Khujandi (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The source you provided is not reliable. Yue🌙 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)