Talk:Uyghurs

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uyghurs article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Central Asia High‑importance

	Asia portal Uyghurs is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Asia (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Uyghurs was copied or moved into History of the Uyghur people with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Skip to table of contents

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Add the fact that they have nothing to do with acient uyghurs

Add that 2603:8001:8446:6EBB:72A:8D7E:94A5:D773 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Beshogur (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it is Beshogur, and you know it. The present uyghurs are descendants of migrants. 2A00:23C4:95:EA01:719C:3C05:89AC:BDF6 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The present day pretender uyghurs and the ancient uyghurs are two different genetically unrelated peoples, in the same way Native American Indians are not indians of india. It is a case European languages making a fool of everyone. 2A00:23C4:95:EA01:719C:3C05:89AC:BDF6 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the truth Beshogur, and you know it. You deny it because in your mind you side with bias with the pretender uyghurs whom you see as your cousins. 2A00:23C4:95:EA01:1C8C:2C1E:920:38C4 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with nonsense conspiracy theories. What the? Beshogur (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

@JArthur1984: Hi, it is regarding this. Can't we use "According to reports, at least..." in place of "Scholars estimate that at least"? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a reason to have the template there. The scholarly reports are generally around or above that number. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This estimate is usually sourced back to one researcher, Zenz, about whom the reader could be concerned about for a variety of reasons (the ties between his eschatological thinking and his concerns of a "new world order", his ideological commitments, his very bad IUD study, and so forth). So it is a desire to avoid the circular reportage problem by specifying. There is a difference between plural "scholars" making a independent estimates or multiple scholars repeating, "According to Adrian Zenz ..." So a proponent of these sources should specify. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding the history a bit. Zenz originally made public his estimate in in May 2018, which was later peer reviewed and published in Central Asian Survey online in September of that year. Another estimate that gets cited in scholarly literature originates from CHRD in August 2018, which uses a completely different methodology and dataset but still arrives at approximately the same number. And the estimate of 1 million is generally taken to be credible, after both the aforementioned estimates had been released, The New York Times was quite straightforward in its reporting at that point: Scholars and activists estimate that a million people are now held in hundreds of re-education camps across Xinjiang and that roughly two million other people are undergoing some form of coercive re-education or indoctrination. And the estimates have generally been accepted by other scholars; for example, Framing the Xinjiang Emergency (2020) by Michael E. Clarke reports the first estimate as a fact without some sort of hedging language. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful detail and I'm now persuaded there's no need to template. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being interested in this topic, I found your citations less than convincing. The CHRD seems to be a very opaque organization, and their report (to which you helpfully linked) uses "dozens" to make their estimate. Dozens would actually be quite a low number from which to derive an estimate, specially given Xinjiang's area (which is between two to three times the size of Texas and just shy of the area of Alaska), but their first table derives an estimate from EIGHT interviewees, whence the figure of 12.8%. They then use TWO interviewees (or possibly three, it's not very clearly written), to derive a figure of 30%.

The NYT article refers to studies and scholars, but other than Adrian Zenz and a Honk Kong based group, cites no one by name.

If anyone is actually concerned about the plight of the Uyghurs, they do themselves no favors by citing such poor research! It is laughably, childishly bad. It is concerning that this is what passes for proper sources. WilliamGoodington (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

@Beshogur, Thanks for reviewing my edit. I noticed that you reverted the category "Religious faiths, traditions and movements." Could you share your reasoning for the change? The article references the religious aspects of this topic multiple times. Let me know if I overlooked something. Path2space (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur is not a religious faith.

Uyghur is not a tradition.

Uyghur is not a movement.

What exactly are you asking? Beshogur (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your perspective. Path2space (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]