Talk:Uzbeks/Archive 1

Alina Kabaeva image
Just wondering about Alina Kabaeva being included in the picture of "Uzbeks" since isn't she actually of Tatar ancestry not Uzbek ancestry? I think part of the confusion is due to her being born in Uzbekistan. Abstrakt 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

you have deleted Alina Kabaeva's image why you don't include many famous Uzbeks image who lived from X century until now. Many fellows and great scientists lived in Uzbekistan.

---I think the ones who edit the content are anti-uzbek. Please be neutral, especially when you are writing about other people.

Origin of term
The origin of ethnonim  itself  is in dispute. One view holds that group name derives from Uzbek Khan, though the nomadic Uzbeks were never subject to him. Etymological argument states that the name means “ independent” or the lord itself”, from Uz –self, Bek- a noble title of leadership.(Uzbekistan. Golden Road to Samarkand, p.31 - book of the Oxford University historians)


 * The most popular point of view, represented in the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, is that the Uzbeks take their name from Uzbeg Khan, just like Nogai people take their name from Nogai Khan. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which you cite as your source, actually says that Uzbekistan was part of the Golden Horde, of which Uzbeg Khan was the most famous ruler. Uzbeg's name is translated as "the lord of self" or "independent", as you correctly point out. If Uzbekistani scholars are so full of megalomania as to think that the name was applied to theeir nomadic ancestors not to the great khan, it should be expressly stated in the text that such an opinion is prevalent in Uzbekistan.
 * In any case, removing the redirect is unacceptable: it doesn't state that Uzbeg and Uzbeg Khan have something in common; it simply informs people searching for "Uzbeg" that Uzbeg leads to the article on people and they have to click Uzbeg Khan to get the article on the ruler.

Image is given by the artist itself here in Uzbekistan. It was photographed and saved on the disc. AcademicResearch 15:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what is wrong with Prokudin's fine picture? Why do you consider the people photographed by him in Samarkand as Kazakhs? Prokudin-Gorskii's photo is preferrable because it was taken before the Russian Revolution and consequently is copyfree. Your modern illustration is apparently subject to copyright; and Wikipedia discourages using copyrighted images. Please make sure that it is not a violation of the painter's copyright. --Ghirla | talk 15:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much AcademicResearch 15:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, it's difficult to identify a facial (racial, ethnic, etc.) type that would characterize Uzbeks. They vary from typical South-Asian to Middle Eastern outlook. Uzbek has become less a name for ethnic group but more a name for a people (heirs of nomadic and settled culture). One can engage in endless (and rather fruitless) discussions about how a proper Uzbek looks like.

The better way should be put few images that would convey this idea (which is btw is supported by the scientific findings mentioned in the article). --Sahib-qiron (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is historically, and anthropologically incorrectly written. First of all, Uzbeks are a Turkic people and are Caucasoids. Uzbeks don't have Mongol Mixes, and the picture of the man in the title is not authentic. He does not look Uzbek, because he doesn't look Caucasian. Please correct these mistakes, and check the history, in order not to use the term Turko-Mongol incorrectly. (CKSS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihan.safa (talk • contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition, addition, it doesn't mention the turkic settlements there before the Mongol Invasion. It doesn't talk about Turan or anything. I think this article was severely edited by a Tadjik that probably hates Uzbeks, and for some reason wants to show them as Mongols. I urge the Wikipedia team to 1) replace the picture with a picture of a real Uzbek person, 2) edit the genetic make-up section, since there is no such proof that Uzbeks are Mongoloids, and that the only Caucasians are of Persian Origin. The Karluk and Oghuz Turks that comprise the majority of the Uzbek identity have always been Caucasians. -User:Cihan.safa, 21:06, 26 February 2008

Whatever opinions are exposed here, there's a science which has own and independent ways to reach conclusions. DNA analysis demonstrates the admixture in the gene pool. Uzbeks do combine Mongoloid and Caucasoid features. I see no reason to be ashamed of Mongoloid affiliation - we are proud for what we are and do not need to engage in artificial discourses about origins, as some nations do (e.g. Kazakhs who feel ashamed to be Mongoloid and claim they are Caucasoid - funny, to say the least). We just do not need that. Our mixed race brings that beauty which is a combination of different traits. At the same time I disagree with the picture of the so-called "Tadjik man". He is Uzbek because he lives in our country. Yes, he may have Kazakh or Kyrgyz ancestors but it does not make him less Uzbek. This is the greatness of our nation that we are all-inclusive.--Sahib-qiron (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Uzbek elites were Mongols —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.1.11 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To Sahib-qiran: It seems your knowledge of ethnography and anthropology is very limited. I would suggest you reading a wiki article about "Tadjik man":  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks and if you want to learn further then follow the links provided. Farid2053 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Never understood what you meant to say, my learnt friend Farid. Here I'm talking about Uzbeks and not Tadjiks. Lets "speak English".--Sahib-qiron (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess, one of the best views offered on the subject is perhaps an essay by Prof. Schoberlein-Engel about the Uzbek identity. It was written in 1992 I guess and I happenn to have read it but lost since. If anyone has that, it would help us get some good insights and improve the article. --Sahib-qiron (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, just today I checked out the work you're talking about, Schoeberlein-Engel's dissertation Identity in Central Asia: Construction and contention in the conceptions of "Özbek," "Tâjik, " "Muslim, " "Samarqandi" and other groups. If you remember any specific points from it you want to cite, I'll keep an eye out for them and pass along the page numbers. Otebig (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Uzbeks
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Uzbeks's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cp": From History of Uzbekistan:. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (February 2007). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. From Education in Afghanistan: Afghanistan country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (May 2006). ''This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of the name
I can't belive that the etymology of the name is so obscure. I don't believe it may have something to do with Uzbeg Khan who never ruled over Uzbekistan. What was the local name of the country when the three khanates were subdued. ? Why didn't the names like Turk, Uighur, Karluk, Karakhanid, Shaybanid or Sart survive ? I hope an Uzbek editor may clarify the subject Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The name doesn't have to have much sense. The term is made-up by Russian "experts" in whatever grounds to designate Turkic people living in Central Turkestan. Very different names for Turkic peoples under occupation were given by Russians to prevent separatist movements. This is well documented, but I see no reference here. I will try to include them. Also, the page is definitively pan-Iranian biased. Stokastik (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture on the profile does Not represent all Uzbeks. I think you have confusion about Uzbeks and Bukharian Jews look. Uzbeks have diverse look. Please change profile picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.49.20 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

4% of world population? Surely closer to 0.4%

Genetic origins vandalism
User:Sonic99 reverted my change. First, there is NO passage in the research paper that says "the genetic admixture of the Uzbeks clusters somewhere between the Iranian peoples and the Mongols". It is purely personal conclusion. One has to read to understand the whole reality before making such a bizarre statement. Second, Central Asia was ALSO in fact invaded by Turks. Why did he delete my edit [...]emanating out of Turks and Mongolia[...]? So I am putting my edit back. Before making any other reverting, discuss the matter here, please. Stokastik (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus, and I'd have to agree that no valid reason has been given for the move, or even accurate data. Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Uzbeks → Uzbek people – (* Other ethnic group articles also have "people" in their titles e.g. Turkmen people. Khestwol (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not always. Just look in and you'll see many without "people" in the title, such as Kazakhs and Bulgars. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why move it? —  AjaxSmack   02:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Under the Turkification of Transoxiana
Qarakhanids or Karakhanids? All the Karakhanids should be replaced by the Qarakhanids (because an article redirection exists in this name). Should be a standard in the text. So I have changed it already.--Movietech (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Text cited in article
I am assuming that the cited text ''Lubin, Nancy. "Early history". In Curtis.'' refers to: "Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan: Country Studies (Area Handbook Series)" Edited by Glenn E. Curtis, Publication Date: November 12, 1997, ISBN-10: 0844409383, ISBN-13: 978-0844409382, Edition: 1st ed?

Not only has it been used here copiously, but also in Uzbekistan, and History of Uzbekistan. I'm not confident of the chapter names and no pages number/s have been provided. In the context, I find it difficult to feel convinced that it is a genuine citation. For the moment, I'm tagging it for page number/s. Hopefully, someone can assist me further with this difficult-to-obtain text. If it isn't properly sourced, I'm sorely tempted to remove it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015
KanishkaKagan (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 13:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015
SAlfanfafafa (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This "request" should be denied. I suspect this "new user" is a sock of O.Turani. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no request made Cannolis (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally mess article
After reading the article i came to opinion it was written by pan-Iranist or pan-aryan people who wrongly illustrated the picture. I am from Uzbekistan and ethnic Uzbek. Please note the term 'Uzbek' became in use only in 1924, before the people Uzbekistan were referred by the city he or she lives. Outside people, mainly nomads called them as 'Sart' meaning 'settled'. (however the real meaning could be 'merchant' since most people were engaged in trae). At the moment, Uzbeks combine all Turkic Karluk-speaking (even tajik-speaking) people of Uzbekistan.

The territory of modern Uzbekistan was conquerred for many times. Uzbek khan in 14 century or Uzbek Shaybanids cannot be taken as identification of Uzbek ethnic. Since the word "Uzbek" existed during Tamerlane (no link to Uzbek khan or Shaybanids) and 7-8 centuries when earlies Turkic tribes invaded. Since Shabanid dynasty ruled over Central Asia until XX century, it is possible people were lately identified as Uzbeks. But still Shaybanids have less impacts on modern Uzbek ethnic.

Ancestors of modern Uzbeks are both Turkic and Sogdian, Bactrian and Toharian who were assimilated. The proof is preserved traditions. Uzbek culture is mixture of Turkic and Iranian. But Uzbek people usually do not consider themselves as turkic or iranian. There are a few pan-turkist among Uzbeks and most of them believe that their ancess Modern Uzbeks have been formed during the Karakhanid dynasty.

Before posting article you should know Uzbekistan itself and Uzbeks, their culture, traditions. Regions of Uzbekistan differ not only in traditions but also dialects and even sometimes outlooks of people. Uzbeks are between Caucasoid and Turkic in ethnical terms and the former leads.Simply Uzbeks are Eurasians, mixed of different ethnics.

Uzbek language is Turkic close to Uyghur (because of Karakhanid) and the culture is close to Iran. But for centuries Uzbeks have developed own cultural identity.

Actually, Vladimir Dzhanibekov should not be included here. He was actually Russian but actually adopted his Uzbek wife's family name. Le Anh-Huy 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Uzbeks.png"


 * The Caucasoid "Uzbeks" are actually either Russians or Tajiks (descent from Persians/Bactrians/Soghdians). Uzbeks are by defintion Mongoloid. Dupree3 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I live in Tashkent, I am Uzbek, I see everyday a lot of Uzbeks, and most of them are Caucasoids. So called "Mongoloid Uzbeks" have Kazakh or Kyrgyz ancestors. Abdullais4u (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uzbeks weren't originally mongoloid. Mongoloid features are met mostly among descendants of turkic uzbeks mixed with mongols or who have mongol ancestry, but turkic uzbeks are not mongoloid. People who claim that uzbeks are mongoloid only because they're turkic didn't study this subject enough. I'm kazakh myself, I'm NOT mongoloid, nor my father or grandfather. So this conclusion, that all "true" uzbeks are mongoloid, is simply unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.217.231 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Caucasian looking Uzbeks are ethnical Tajiks or descandants of other Indo-european people who are registered as Uzbeks. The ethnical Uzbeks are of Turko-Mongolian origine. Islam Karimov f.ex. is an Uzbek with jewish ancestory whose grand-father converted to Islam, thus his name. The majority of Uzbeks are east-Asian looking people, only some 30% to 40% are Caucasian looking and are of Iranian descandts, also known as Tajiks who just call themself as Uzbek (citizen, spoken language in the public etc.)--178.4.99.48 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

YOU ARE WRONG..I am Uzbek from Tashkent. I am Caucasoid looking. I am not russian or tajik. My grand father has blue eyes. I know my 7 generation. Even the names. I know how Uzbeks looks. Only 10% looks asian in Tashkent. Real Uzbeks not mixed ones have kind of blonde hair. I ahve bunch of friends who have blonde hair. They are Uzbeks not mixed. At least I know their parents and grandparents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.156.163 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

-Reality- Just don't get one thing: Why does not Uzbek accept the real facts? To your information: The origin of the term is not agreed on by everyone, however, those who subscribe to the "Arab" origin of the name agree that it was ultimately applied to those Iranian-speaking Central Asians who adopted Islam. However, the existence of a similar term for the Iranian-speaking people of Azerbaijan, the Tats, leads other linguists and scholars to believe that this is a term used to denote the non-Turkic peoples of the region who were Iranian speaking. I would challenge you to provide a single source documenting that the Tajiks are the descendants of people that moved from Persia - not once have I ever encountered this theory, although I must say that I tend not to read Uzbek accounts of history, because they tend to be quite ridiculous. To act as if there is no physical difference between Tajiks and Uzbeks is not only ridiculous, it defies all reality. You can also say that the sky is green, but it will continue to be blue in reality - Tajiks appear generally Caucasian (I don't think I can be confused for Mongol), while Uzbeks appear generally Asiatic/Mongol. Whatever fantasies the Uzbek nationalists may cherish, unfortunately they will be at odds with reality. There is no shame in being a Turk, or the descendant of later migrants from Mongolia, but it's unfortunate that you and others feel this way about your origins. It is also clear that you do not speak either Tajik or Iranian Farsi, because you don't seem to know anything about the linguistic structure or lexicography of either one - I would suggest that before making sweeping statements or comments about either dialect, you should probably know how to speak it. The Persian element in Uzbek exists because Persian was the primary literary language of the area, and thus all the other regional languages, such as Uzbek, Pashto, Turkish, etc. borrowed extensively from it. Further, the Russian words are obviously from recent origin and in part the result of efforts by the Soviets to Russify the languages of Central Asia. Thus, this analogy is entirely irrelevant. Just as Uzbeks fantasize about being the area's original inhabitants, or descendants of Sogdians, or any number of nonsensical theories, Kazakhs may well fantasize about being European. Both groups need to simply accept reality - they are Altaic-speaking, and Asiatic-looking, and any scholarly publication will tell you that both are the descendants of a wave of Altaic, Turkic migrants from the east. The Tajiks are the direct descendants of the Iranian peoples whose continuous presence in Central Asia and northern Afghanistan is attested from the middle of the 1st millennium bc. The ancestors of the Tajiks constituted the core of the ancient population of Khwārezm (Khorezm) and Bactria, which formed part of Transoxania (Sogdiana). Sogdian is one of the most important Middle Iranian languages, along with Middle Persian and Parthian. It possesses a large literary corpus. The language is usually assigned to the Northeastern branch of the Iranian languages. Sogdiana existed at least since the Achaemenid era (559-323 BC). Like Khotanese Sogdian possesses a more conservative grammar and morphology than Middle Persian. The modern Iranian language Yaghnobi is the descendant of a variant of Sogdian. They were included in the empires of Persia and Alexander the Great, and they intermingled with such later invaders as the Kushāns. How can you possibly and ignorantly say that Uzbek are descendants of Soghdian???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AryanMK (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Tajiks have NOTHING to do with Northern Afghanistan, they are immigrants from upper Central Asia. Besides Tajik is not even an ethnic group its a lingustic term meaning "Persian speaker." Get your facts straight!Akmal94 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Timurids
O.Turani has been repeatedly adding pictures of Timurids, claiming they are Uzbeks.. They eventually mention a source but the source directly contradicts O.Turani's claim, say the Timurids were "rivals and opponents of the Uzbeks". In spite of this, O.Turani continues to add claims that the Timurids were Uzbeks.   Edward321 Edward321 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The "source" provided by O.Turani supposedly states, "Timor belongs to Turkic tribe of Barlas, and Barlas tribe is one of 92 tribe of Uzbeks, Allworth Edward, The modern Uzbeks from the fourteenth century to the present: a cultural history, Hoover Press, 1990, p.74. A search for Barlas in Allworth's book shows up only on page 82. Even on that page Timurids and Uzbeks are presented as two different groups. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Edward321, it was a power struggle between Temurids and Sheibanids rather than ethnic war.Uzbeks to the USSR had two ethnonim - Uzbeks and Turk. Temurids were Barlas tribe and their language was Chagatai (old Uzbek). Barlas are considered today one of the Uzbek tribes. By the way Arthur Conan Doyle also acknowledged that Babur was a great Uzbek. Other Turkic peoples also recognized as Temurids ethnic Uzbeks. Do you think Temurids not Uzbeks then who are they?195.158.27.106 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a random webpage, not a reliable source. For that matter, Conan Doyle believed the Cottingley Fairies were real, so he's not a good source for areas he was not expert in. Edward321 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you why removed my comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAlfanfafafa (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Edward321. you think that modern Uzbeks happened from Öz Beg Khan and no attitude toward Temurids does not have, so? Well all right you want it I will not counteract you. But for the sake of justice you too will delete from the article of Tadjiks historical not Tadjiks (Khwarizmi, Avicena, Biruni, Jami ...). МишаПанко (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Uzbek ultra-nationalists should be banned from editing this article, all they do is fill it with nonsense and that destroys Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015
195.158.18.74 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 12:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015,
I want you to delete this sentence "Uzbeks are largest turkic people" this sentence is wrong because Largest turkic people is turkey turks. if you search, you can see it.

thank you

Osmanfatih40 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

❌ - it doesn't say what you have said it does. What it actually says is that they are the largest "Turkic ethnic group in Central Asia" - not in Turkey, or in the Middle East, or in the whole of Asia - but in Uzbekistan and surrounding countries. - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015
It would be logical to move Afganistan 1 place up in the "Regions with significant populations" list, as it definetly has more Uzbeks than Tajikistan. Thank you.


 * I'm not sure exactly how these lists are usually ordered, but Russia is below Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan on the list, Saudi Arabia is also below Turkmenistan, and Australia is below Pakistan and Turkey. /wia 🎄 /tlk  18:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Tengriism
The community that is since 1917 called "Uzbeks" were never Tengriists. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
Nothing about Uzbek Khan in etymology? YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a sort of love-hate attitude toward these collages. They are gratuitous and somewhat condescending, yet I actually learn something from them.--75.164.155.194 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Locked?
How far back in time were the Uzbek edit wars? As a non-Uzbek English speaker, I see some Uzbek and/or other foreign grammar in this article, which I'd prefer to excise. If it seems safe to do so, please unlock this article to permit editing.--75.164.155.194 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please use a wp:Edit request. If you would, use this format: "Please change original sentences to new sentences. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017
2605:E000:9152:8F00:C45C:714E:3B67:6265 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nihlus kryik (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uzbeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.perepis2010.ru/content.html?id=11&docid=10715289081463
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208073821/http://www.stat.kz/news/Pages/pr_04_02_10.aspx to http://www.stat.kz/news/Pages/pr_04_02_10.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201192304/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/nationality_population/nationality_1/s5/?botton=cens_db&box=5.1W&k_t=00&p=100&rz=1_1&rz_b=2_1%20&n_page=6 to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/nationality_population/nationality_1/s5/?botton=cens_db&box=5.1W&k_t=00&p=100&rz=1_1&rz_b=2_1%20&n_page=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mingling of Iranian, Turkic, and Mongol populations.
I don't think the lead section is a proper section for your edit. Uzbeks are ethnolinguistically Turkic. Edits like, are problematic and that's the reason why I reverted both of them and restored the last accepted revision. Ethnogenesis stuff should be moved to the other sections of article, e.g. "Origins". All modern ethnic groups are mixed and have influenced from various sources (genetic, culture, language, religion and etc). Consider Tajiks and Hazaras. As you see, we do don't call them Sogdian, Bactrian, or Mongols. They are just modern Persian-speaking ethnic groups. Same story for the Uzbeks. Move your edits and expand origins, history and other ethnogenesis-related section. What do you think about my concern? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be proper to write Turkic-speaking group, and move ethnogenesis to the origins section. --Lingveno (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would have to concur with . - LouisAragon (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being tardy with a response, but Wario-Man's response got a 'ditto' from LouisAragon... and I can be added to that list. The WP:LEAD of an article dealing with a specific contemporary ethnic group should reflect the most salient information about that specific group, not try to cram historical and genetic content into such a terse lead. While I understand that your changes to the lead are in good faith, I don't believe them to be appropriate within the scope of this article. As has already been noted, the information is for the relevant sections of the article. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing Turkic to Turkic-speaking is not really helpful. Because:
 * Turkic peoples are a collection of ethno-linguistic groups of Central, Eastern, Northern and Western Asia as well as parts of Europe and North Africa. They speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family. They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits, common ancestry and historical backgrounds.
 * Turkic = Turkic-speaking
 * Plus it's a common standard among editors to add ethno-linguistic intro to the lead section. For example, see Germanic peoples => Dutch people, English people. Of course you could write that part in any way you prefer, but it should be clear and not confusing. Also when you write about Iranian and Mongolian influences, it's better to improve it by adding relevant content otherwise it would be confusing and unclear for our readers. For example, create a new section "Culture" and you could write about Nowruz in Uzbekistan and among Uzbeks. Again, I recommend to browse and read articles about other ethnic groups and see their structure and sections. This is one of the best ways to improve this article. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image
Instead of edit warring, discuss your concern here. Iryna Harpy has clarified it for you.,, , So what's your point? --Wario-Man (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Drama over adding a picture of the people?
I don't understand this. Why is there so much controversy over adding a picture of some Uzbek people to the page? Naturally if a curious reader was searching for a particular ethnic group or nationality on Wikipedia then one of the first things they'd want to know is what do they look like? You can see this on numerous other ethnic group pages, like Sa'idi people.

I could understand if there was some sort of intentionally skewed, likely agenda driven portrayal of the people, like pictures that only show Uzbeks who have Blonde hair or who have a certain facial appearance, but the wikimedia collage being removed doesn't come across that way at all.

Why not have a set-up similar to other ethnic groups with a Flag of Uzbekistan as the header image, and then images of various Uzbek people to demonstrate the variety of appearances, maybe some famous/notables like politicians, actors, musicians, athletes, academics, etc. From a mild skim over of wikimedia commons, there are definitely enough relevant pictures.

We need photos of real Uzbek people, not just middle-ages drawings and a deceptively archaic picture of a woman clad in a burqa. ReformedPenal (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Which ethnicity articles are set up in this manner? Have you read WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES and the links to the hefty discussions on this subject? What does an Uzbek look like? What's 'typical' or 'atypical'? Wikipedia is not a collection of random personal ideas as to what would be nice, or what isn't nice. Please explain how your proposed content is informative to a reader. Well, no, don't. This is ground that has been gone over in depth. Wikipedia is not a school project, nor is it original research. There is a link to WikiCommons so that, should readers be interested, they can find a huge collections of images of Uzbeks, or they can easily search Google images. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Typo in the image description
The description of the last image has a typo in it. It reads "A page in Uzbek language Arabic script printed in Tashkant 1911", but the correct name of the city is Tashkent. Cheers! Sitagi (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it's an alternate historical spelling/transliteration that was used in Roman text at the time as the Cyrillic was closer to "Tashkand" or "Toshkant" etc. Can go either way, if it's not going to be explained should be changed to make it standardized. JesseRafe (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! I did more research and you are correct. To clarify, I don't speak Uzbek (alas!), all I knew was that it was written with an "a" in all instances I've seen, including the Uzbek government and universities. This really reminds me of the Kyiv/Kiev dichotomy. I guess I don't have a strong "say" on the matter anymore, though it's a bit odd that other references to the same image have the city written with an "a". Sitagi (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Afghan Pashtun conquest
This whole section is written in a POV and biased manner to defame the Pashtuns and make Uzbeks look like victims. I skimmed through both the sources and the first makes no mention of the British providing arms to Abdur Rahman's forces and the second source says no such thing either. I want to re-edit this part or better yet remove it altogether but i want to hear opinions from other editors first. Akmal94 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet's leftovers
User:AsadalEditor's stuff: --Wario-Man (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Genetic origins
This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Removed vandalistic revision." I think it is relevant and should be included.

"The modern Uzbek population represents varying degrees of diversity derived from the high traffic invasion routes through Central Asia. Once populated by Iranian tribes and other Indo-European people, Central Asia experienced numerous invasions emanating out of Mongolia that would drastically affect the region. According to recent genetic genealogy testing, the genetic admixture of the Uzbeks clusters somewhere between the Iranian peoples and the Mongols.

"From the 3rd century B.C., Central Asia experienced nomadic expansions of Altaic-speaking oriental-looking people, and their incursions continued for hundreds of years, beginning with the Hsiung-Nu (who may be ancestors of the Huns), in ~300 B.C., and followed by the Turks, in the 1st millennium A.D., and the Mongol expansions of the 13th century. High levels of haplogroup 10 [C-M130] and its derivative, haplogroup 36 [C-M210], are found in most of the Altaic-speaking populations and are a good indicator of the genetic impact of these nomadic groups. The expanding waves of Altaic-speaking nomads involved not only eastern Central Asia—where their genetic contribution is strong, [...]—but also regions farther west, like Iran, Iraq, Anatolia, and the Caucasus, as well as Europe, which was reached by both the Huns and the Mongols. In these western regions, however, the genetic contribution is low or undetectable (...), even though the power of these invaders was sometimes strong enough to impose a language replacement, as in Turkey and Azerbaijan (...). The difference could be due to the population density of the different geographical areas. Eastern regions of Central Asia must have had a low population density at the time, so an external contribution could have had a great genetic impact. In contrast, the western regions were more densely inhabited, and it is likely that the existing populations were more numerous than the conquering nomads, therefore leading to only a small genetic impact. Thus, the admixture estimate from North-East Asia is high in the east, but is barely detectable west of Uzbekistan.."Another study shows that the Uzbeks are closely related to other Turkic peoples of Central Asia and rather distant from Iranian people. The study also analysed the maternal and paternal DNA haplogroups and shows that Turkic speaking groups are more homogenous than Iranian speaking groups.

According to a recent study, the Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and Turkmens share more of their gene pool with various East Asian and Siberian populations than with West Asian or European populations. The study further suggests that both migration and linguistic assimilation helped to spread the Turkic languages in Eurasia."

Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The references cited here are primary research concerning genetic origins of human populations. The consensus (at WP:SCIRS is that such material should be sourced per WP:SCIRS, meaning, among other criteria, that it should be a secondary source. The lengthy quotation from the author is also WP:UNDUE. That's why this section was removed in the first place. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020
Olimjon7 (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not done, Facebook is not a reliable source, please cite a published WP:RS. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2020 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Uzbek Man of Tashkent.png

Sogdiana and Sasanid empire

 * There is no evidence that the Sogdiana was a part of Sasanid Empire.Khorazmiy (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2020 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Uzbek Man of Tashkent.png

Genetic origins
This statement: According to recent genetic genealogy testing, the genetic admixture of the Uzbeks clusters somewhere between the Iranian peoples and the Mongols.[32] is not confirmed by the (quoted) source, which says Thus, the admixture estimate from northeast Asia is high in the east, but is barely detectable west of Uzbekistan. "West of Uzbekistan" is the sparsely populated South-Western tip of Kazakstan and the Caspian sea. I don't say that the Iranian/Mongol statement is false. It is just not corroborated in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortakturiktili (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)