Talk:Xinjiang/Archive 2

Demographics and population growth
http://books.google.com/books?id=K3XdB5o4VFAC&pg=PA102&dq=In+the+mid-1960s,+there+were+about+4+million+Uygurs+and+500,000+Kazaks.+By+1982,+the+Uygur+population+had+grown+to+almost+6+million,+and+Kazaks+numbered+over+900,000.+The+total+population+ofXinjiang+in+1987+exceeded+14+million.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jYdYU-HpC-etsATkqYH4Dw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20the%20mid-1960s%2C%20there%20were%20about%204%20million%20Uygurs%20and%20500%2C000%20Kazaks.%20By%201982%2C%20the%20Uygur%20population%20had%20grown%20to%20almost%206%20million%2C%20and%20Kazaks%20numbered%20over%20900%2C000.%20The%20total%20population%20ofXinjiang%20in%201987%20exceeded%2014%20million.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA64&dq=of+Xinjiang,+Toops+gives+an+overall+figure+and+the+province+population+in+1941+of+3,730,000,+of+which+2,984,000+were+Uyghur,+187,000+Han,+326,000+Kazakh,+92,000+Hui+and+65,000+Kirghiz.46+For+1949,+Hoppe+estimates+the+total+population+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIdYU4-LEvjNsQT974LQDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=of%20Xinjiang%2C%20Toops%20gives%20an%20overall%20figure%20and%20the%20province%20population%20in%201941%20of%203%2C730%2C000%2C%20of%20which%202%2C984%2C000%20were%20Uyghur%2C%20187%2C000%20Han%2C%20326%2C000%20Kazakh%2C%2092%2C000%20Hui%20and%2065%2C000%20Kirghiz.46%20For%201949%2C%20Hoppe%20estimates%20the%20total%20population%20to%20...&f=false

There seems to be some ideology creeping in to the talk of Kazakh emmigration in 1962: 'After the Sino-Soviet split in 1962, over 60,000 Uyghurs and Kazakhs defected from Xinjiang to the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, in response to Soviet propaganda which promised Xinjiang independence. Uyghur exiles later threatened China with rumors of a Uyghur "liberation army" in the thousands that were supposedly recruited from Sovietized emigres.[155]'

The fact that the famine in the region isn't mentioned is disingenuous, at best.... 37.205.58.146 (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Manchu, Daur, Tartar, Tajik, Xibo, Uzbeks, Russians, Kirgiz, Hui, Mongols, Kazakhs, Han, and Uyghur make up the ethniciites in Xinjiang, the Uyghur population has grown along with the Kazakh, there were 1.3 million Kazakhs and 8.4 million Uyghurs in 2001, a increase from 900,000 Kazakhs and 6 million Uyghurs in 1982, which was an increase from 500,000 Kazakhs and 4 million Uyghurs in the 1960s, there was been a declining death rate for child birth and diseases have been checked by advanced medical care, helping Xinjiang's population growth, and China does not strictly apply birth control to the area.

The Qing dynasty gave large amounts of land to Chinese Hui Muslims and Han Chinese who settled in Dzungaria, while Turkic Muslim Taranchis were also moved into Dzungaria in the Ili region from Aqsu in 1760, the population of the Tarim Basin swelled to twice its original size during Qing rule for 60 years since the start, No permanent settlement was allowed in the Tarim Basin, with only merchants and soldiers being allowed to stay temporarily, up into the 1830's after Jahangir's invasion and Altishahr was open to Han Chinese and Hui (Tungan) colonization, the 19th century rebellions caused the population of Han to drop, the name "Eastern Turkestan" was used for the area consisting of Uyghuristan (Turfan and Hami) in the northeast and Altishahr/Kashgaria in the southwest, with various estimates given by foreign visitors on the entire region's population- At the start of Qing rule, the population was concentrated more towards Kucha's western region with around 260,000 people living in Altishahr, with 300,000 living at the start of the 19th century, one tenth of them lived in Uyghuristan in the east while Kashgaria had seven tenths of the population.

Around 1,200,000 people lived in Kashgaria according to Kuropatkin at the close of the 19th century, while 1,015,000 people lived in Kashgaria according to Forsyth. 2.5 million was the population guessed by Grennard, the population was commonly estimated at 2-3 million in 1922s according to Golomb while it was estimated at 5 million according to Yang Zengxin, it was then estimated at 6-8 million in 1931.

An estimate of 65,000 Kirghiz, 92,000 Hui, 326,000 Kazakh, 187,000 Han, and 2,984,000 Uyghur adding up to a total population of 3,730,000 in all of Xinjiang in 1941 was estimated by Toops, and 4,334,000 people lived in Xinjiang according to Hoppe in 1949.

In China, Muslim population growth was 2.7% during 1964-1982, compared to 2.1% for the population as the next two decades from 2011. Pew Research Center projects a slowing down of Muslim population growth in China than in previous years, with Muslim women in China having a 1.7 fertility rate. Many Hui Muslims voluntarily limit themselves to one child in China since their Imams preach to them about the benefits of population control. The amount of children, in different areas, people are allowed to have varies between one and three children. Chinese family planning policy allows minorities, including Muslims, to have up to two children in urban areas, and three to four children in rural areas.

Ethnic issues in China

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_issues_in_China&oldid=688951174

There was a 1.7 growth in the Uyghur population in Xinjiang while there was a 4.4% growth from 1940-1982 in the Hui population in Xinjiang. Uyghur Muslims and Hui Muslims have experiened a growth in major tensions against each other due to the Hui population surging in its growth. Some old Uyghurs in Kashgar remember that the Hui army at the Battle of Kashgar (1934) massacred 2,000 to 8,000 Uyghurs, which caused tension as more Hui moved into Kashgar from other parts of China. Some Hui criticize Uyghur separatism, Dru C. Gladney said the Hui “don't tend to get too involved in international Islamic conflict, They don't want to be branded as radical Muslims." Hui and Uyghur live separately, attending different mosques.

Kazakh exodus from Xinjiang

Kazakhs in China

In 1936, after Sheng Shicai expelled 30,000 Kazakhs from Xinjiang to Qinghai, Hui led by General Ma Bufang massacred their fellow Muslim Kazakhs, until there were 135 of them left.

From Northern Xinjiang over 7,000 Kazakhs fled to the Tibetan-Qinghai plateau region via Gansu and were wreaking massive havoc so Ma Bufang solved the problem by relegating the Kazakhs into designated pastureland in Qinghai, but Hui, Tibetans, and Kazakhs in the region continued to clash against each other.

Tibetans attacked and fought against the Kazakhs as they entered Tibet via Gansu and Qinghai.

In northern Tibet Kazakhs clashed with Tibetan soldiers and then the Kazakhs were sent to Ladakh.

Tibetan troops robbed and killed Kazakhs 400 miles east of Lhasa at Chamdo when the Kazakhs were entering Tibet.

In 1934, 1935, 1936-1938 from Qumil Eliqsan led the Kerey Kazakhs to migrate to Gansu and the amount was estimated at 18,000, and they entered Gansu and Qinghai.

History section
The history of Xinjiang has an own article, couldn't this article simply have a shorter summary of the history? It is hard to read in the present state. K9re11 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Xinjiang. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/20130727021210/http://www.stats.gov.cn:80/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722516.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722516.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100718220855/http://asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=81687 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=81687
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923025246/http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/February_2007/Lin.pdf to http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/February_2007/Lin.pdf
 * Added archive https://wayback.archive.org/web/20110427172440/http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf to http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Xinjiang. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204115929/http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/10018/10008/00017/2005/22694.htm to http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/10018/10008/00017/2005/22694.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110521034314/http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/10050/10051/index.htm to http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/10050/10051/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Xinjiang. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160420074720/http://www.lsqn.cn/ChinaHistory/qing/200703/110049_9.html to http://www.lsqn.cn/ChinaHistory/qing/200703/110049_9.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110106144335/http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/May_2006/GunaratnaPereire.pdf to http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/May_2006/GunaratnaPereire.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090805174810/http://www.stats.gov.cn:80/TJGB/RKPCGB/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16767.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16767.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120914173158/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16768.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16768.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120510075429/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16769.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16769.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120619002216/http://www.stats.gov.cn:80/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16772.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16772.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120829052024/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020331_15435.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020331_15435.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925123928/https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/baylor-ir/bitstream/handle/2104/9326/WANG-THESIS-2015.pdf?sequence=1 to https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/baylor-ir/bitstream/handle/2104/9326/WANG-THESIS-2015.pdf?sequence=1
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wQnNChmw to http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20061121.163131/public/02Whole.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150705185320/http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2010/gb20100528_168520.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2010/gb20100528_168520.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101204205212/http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/ to http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051031084033/http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn:80/ to http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ürümqi, a Han and Hui city
There is no irony in that, it just shows how preposterous separatist claims are. --84.57.192.168 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2017

 * The following is a closed 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Xinjiang → Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region – The context of this article is actually only about Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, but not of the whole "Xinjiang", There were also 4 Xingjiang provinces in Qing dynasty, ROC and PRC etc.Please check up it in Xinjiang (disambiguation) Hidayetullah (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. --123.161.170.96 (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose X.U.A.R is verbose.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. The hatnote is sufficient for the historical/other regions. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 1 November 2017 (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.

east iranian and east indo-european!
Akocsg removed referenced stuff and replaced it with his own stuff. changed "iranian" to "indo-european". while source just says: "...And not the high-nosd, bearded Iranian peoples who were then still the primary inhabitants of the Tarim, and who remain a major component of Xinjiang's historical population." 2nd quote: "...before centuries of interrmarriage with local peoples of eastern Iranian stock." i reverted his disruption and restored the text his other changes seems not constructive too.94.176.89.105 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes - avoiding edit wars
The best way to avoid edit wars is to make incremental changes ideally with discussion and consensus. The main reason I reverted the most recent is because it was clearly written in a manner that violated WP:NPOV (the use of terms "ironically", the reference to ideologically Islamic terrorism as though it were a simple fact rather than a highly contested argument) and the citation to the AP story a claim that did not appear in it, which is a major red flag. This main article should not be a WP:BATTLE ground for the competing views on how the Uyghur/Xinjiang issue is depicted. Make changes one at a time and open a discussion on each of them so we can examine the sources, discuss the weights which different views should be afforded, and edit together in an incremental fashion. Edit warring is very unproductive. And make sure that your sources actually say what you say they say, or else you lose credibility and frustrate everyone. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Need to rephrase as Earwig Copyvio detected
Need to rephrase with help of Earwig Copyvio (Copyvio detected 91% on June 27, 2019). PoetVeches (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Earwig Copyvio detected that Wikpedia Xinjiang 91% coincides with a website "https://www.slideshare.net/superboinkjeni/sinkiang-or-xinjiang", so I rephrased a bit, but there was question for me because I am not sure about the copyvio who made? because if the website was first copied the text from Wikipedia then Earwig was puzzling. The website slideshareDotnet is currently not reachable (while Earwig found somehow the website so probably the website is blocked only in my country). There sometimes the cases occurred when Earwig Copyvio is puzzling with other websites which copied text from Wikipedia. I may guess the slideshareDotnet was aggregator that was also wrong for finding copyvio. But Wikipedia article Xinjiang is strange also, I don't see citation at all for section, for example, "Geology", "Rivers and lakes" (that had in Copyvio detected with two or three sentences). PoetVeches (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see now the website SlideShare on Wikipedia but it blocked with LinkedIn in my country. May SlideShare have first copied from here Wikipedia Xinjiang? I am puzzled a bit. PoetVeches (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrative divisions
"Xinjiang is divided into thirteen prefecture-level divisions: four prefecture-level cities, six prefectures, and five autonomous prefectures". How does that add up? Ivo (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tacheng and Altay prefectures are subordinate to Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture. Lojbanic (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Number of births dropped big time again in 2019
https://mercatornet.com/the-world-is-ignoring-a-demographic-holocaust-in-xinjiang/47908/

From 10.69 births per 1000 people in 2018 to 8.14 births per 1000 people in 2019

Author from the source in the link uses some harsh words against the chinese government but the births number he mentiones seems legit.

62.226.85.65 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Radio Free Asia a reputable source?
Should we be basing parts of this article on a US funded broadcasting operation specifically started to spread CIA propaganda? To quote our own article about Radio Free Asia

'' In 1999, Catharin Dalpino of the Brookings Institution, who served in the Clinton State Department as a deputy assistant secretary deputy for human rights, called Radio Free Asia "a waste of money." "Wherever we feel there is an ideological enemy, we're going to have a Radio Free Something," she says. Dalpino said she has reviewed scripts of Radio Free Asia's broadcasts and views the station's reporting as unbalanced. "They lean very heavily on reports by and about dissidents in exile. It doesn't sound like reporting about what's going on in a country. Often, it reads like a textbook on democracy, which is fine, but even to an American it's rather propagandistic." ''

180.150.101.44 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a “western” (i.e. American and Western European) bias so it considers media outlets like Russian state-financed RT “unreliable” while the British state-financed BBC, American state-financed Voice of * franchises and other media networks with blatant pro-western slants are considered “reliable.” User2346 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * RT is as much propaganda as the BBC is. Wikipedia has a pro-US bias, so it ignores bias in the latter. RF* is literally US government propaganda, and has been so since ww2 94.189.193.233 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Utter rubbish. Btw, Russia-Today is a gov't sponsored and controlled outfit, little more than a propaganda organ for the Putin regime. 2) see WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM

Fake news
So can we now ban Western fake news like CNN? And promote fairer real news for once in your lifetime?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/688430344583422/permalink/2262870960472678/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/947867908642430/permalink/1868637549898790/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/688430344583422/permalink/2155365471223228/ https://journal-neo.org/2018/10/24/us-fueling-terrorism-in-china/ https://aresnews.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/foreign-diplomats-take-tour-of-xinjiang-to-dispel-western-claims-of-oppression/ https://thegrayzone.com/2018/08/23/un-did-not-report-china-internment-camps-uighur-muslims/ https://www.wikitribune.com/article/85822/ https://twitter.com/Dogu_Perincek/status/1101118970894184449 http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/1018/c90000-9281738.html


 * All news sources have their biases but if you're going to provide an alternative then please do better than Wordpress blogs and Facebook posts by some guy named Dennis. Thebobbrom (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "You could say Dennis." "I didn't know you were called Dennis!"  "Well, you didn't ask, did you?  And I'm not old, I'm 37!"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"East Turkestan" in lede
Per WP:BRD, the insertion of the above term in the lede, absent thru 21 Sep, is to be considered a "bold" edit. It is well-documented that the term was coined in the 19th century by Russian scholars, most notably Nikita Bichurin. Per the Bellér-Hann source in the same section there, locals even used the term Altishahr to refer to the six major cities south of the Tian Shan, not "Turkestan" or any derived terms.

Even in one of the added sources, there is a strong hint at the differing definitions of "East Turkestan": "The general boundaries of East Turkistan are the Altai range on the northeast, Mongolia on the east, the Kansu corridor or the Su-lo-ho basin on the southeast, the K'un-lun system on the south, the Sarygol and Muztay-ata on the west, the main range of the T'ien-shan system on the north to the approximate longitude of Aqsu (80 deg. E), then generally northeast to the Altai system which the boundary joins in the vicinity of the Khrebët Nalinsk and Khrebët Sailjuginsk."

Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 00:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"Caucasoid" in Early History and Demographics sections
In both sections there are references to what I believe is an outdated race science term "Caucasoid". A prior editor, Hunan201p had removed one such use of the word in October 2019 but it seems to have made its way back into the current version somewhere I can't pin down, nor find any reason why it was reverted. In the 20 year old sources cited for these claims the "-oid" racial terminology was used. Are such terms still in use in anthropology today (and do they belong in the section on demographics)? Gracchus123 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide
I will add the leading paragraph of Uyghur genocide article - which includes a lot of citations and sources - to the leading part of this article.

The comment in the article tells me to discuss it here first, so I do.

Note - I don't know much about Xinjiang or China. However, the Uyghur genocide article has lots of citations, while this information is missing in leading paragraphs of this article; while it does include information about terrorist attacks. --- Running 08:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Help changing infobox
Minor edit, but the template is quite confusing and I don't know how to do it. Provided its not an issue, I want to 1) change the transcriptions for Uyghur and the Chinese abbreviation to how the first Chinese name is written, since the fact that it's a transliteration should be clear (and to make it look cleaner) 2) rename from Name transcription(s) to Name transcriptions

Current:

Name transcription(s)

Chinese   新疆维吾尔自治区

(Xīnjiāng Wéiwú'ěr Zìzhìqū)

Abbreviation   XJ / 新 (Pinyin: Xīn)

Uyghur   شىنجاڭ ئۇيغۇر ئاپتونوم رايونى‎

Uyghur transl. Shinjang Uyghur Aptonom Rayoni

Desired:

Name transcriptions

Chinese   新疆维吾尔自治区

(Xīnjiāng Wéiwú'ěr Zìzhìqū)

Abbreviation   XJ / 新 (Xīn) Uyghur   شىنجاڭ ئۇيغۇر ئاپتونوم رايونى‎

(Shinjang Uyghur Aptonom Rayoni)

If anyone can assist I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-education centers / concentration camps
The history section has nothing about the current alleged forced labor, forced sterilization etc., nor about the call for a boycott of the 2022 Olympics because of, at least in large measure, the claimed abuse of civil rights. Kdammers (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course it doesn't mention. This website promotes a certain ideological viewpoint. Consider alternative fact sources. 124.169.149.140 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Xinjiang: numbers don't add up
I am not sure where the mistake is exactly, but mathematically if the Uyghur count is 11,303,300 and the Han count is 8,611,000 (i.e. 31% more Uyghurs than Han), then their respective percentages cannot be 46.42% and 38.99% (i.e. 12% more Uyghurs than Han). Can someone check this table? Morgengave (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"East Turkestan independence movement" section?
Should this article have "East Turkestan independence movement" as a separate level-2 section, or should it be integrated into the history section (perhaps as a subsection)? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Appalling minimisation of Concentration Camps issue in this article
The Xinjiang internment camps article is lengthy, with detail. But any reader of this article alone would finish it with virtually no information added to their knowledge of the situation for up to three million detainees. They are virtually ignored here! What the…..!

Further, two other Talk discussions here that said similar things to this one have not even had the courtesy of a reply from those editors who work this article. I’m sorry, but this is shameful. Where a section hat notice says “main article: … “ there should at the very least be a summation of what is said in that article. But not here. Boscaswell  talk  07:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an overview article for a province of China that has been historically notable for some 2000 years or more. The sort of WP:RECENTISM you are describing is why the Xinjiang internment camps article exists in the first place. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That the internment camps are very recent while and the province is 2000 years old does nothing to excuse the minimisation of them in this article. Boscaswell   talk  04:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for accuracy sake Xinjiang has not been a province of China for 2000 years - it was formed in the Qing dynasty in the 19th century. Parts of Xinjiang were intermittently ruled by China during the Han dynasty and Tang dynasty, but for most the 2,000 years the region had independent states. Hzh (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally everything you just said is wrong, Xinjiang is an Autonomous regions of China not a province. We cover the history on other pages, extensively, but this page is primarily for the history of the Autonomous region. We call the article Xinjiang so not really sure what the recentism criticism is, you know what Xinjiang means right? It isn't one of the indigenous ancient names for the region. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223 Wikipedia articles are made to give an overview of everything to do with their topic matter. Why should the history of Xinjiang take precedence in this article over the camps? After all, there is a whole article already about the history of Xinjiang, so why not barely talk about its history in this article? Why not just have the article be a map of Xinjiang saying 'this is Xinjiang, please see other articles for anything else about it'. This article should give an overview of Xinjiang, that includes its history, but also includes an alleged human rights abuses unprecedented in the region which are a major factor in international relations with the entire of China and which most educated people will have heard of. Lucius Cornelius Balbus (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

LTA edits
On 27 February 2021, an LTA inserted erroneous content. See diff.

Below, a quote from The Cultures of Ancient Xinjiang, western China: Crossroads of the Silk Roads (2019), page 50. Emphasis mine:

From World Prehistory and Archaeology (2017), page 346:

From Globalization (2015), page 91:

It's easy to see how the changes that were surreptitiously inserted by the LTA are exactly the opposite of the secondary sources say about these studies.

See also, more LTA edits: - Hunan201p (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * From "Early history" section:


 * "In the late Iron Age, geneflow from "Yellow river farmers" increased throughout Xinjiang, associated with Han Chinese.[39][40][41]"


 * Not seeing anything in these sources about Yellow River farmers:


 * https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/10/2572/3864506?login=false


 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011967


 * Source [41] is a history book from 1997. Removed. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A few problems
I saw 3 problems with this page. No. 1, the ethnic group percentages do not add up to 100 percent, No. 2 the name of the Autonomous Region in the article and No. 3, the redirect information. For the first problem I checked the source of figures- reference number 4. That reference, in section 1, subsection 3, revealed the following: “Among Xinjiang’s permanent population, the population of the Han ethnic group was 10,920,098 persons, accounting for 42.24 percent; that of the ethnic minorities was 14,932,247 persons, accounting for 57.76 percent. Of the ethnic minority population, the population of the Uyghur ethnic group was 11,624,257 persons, accounting for 44.96 percent of the autonomous regional total population and 77.85 percent of its ethnic minority population.” 57.76 percent minus 44.96 equals 12.80 percent. From this, I can deduce that the figure “15.80” was probably a miscalculation, as I did not see on the page a figure of 15.80 percent. Secondly, as to why the article uses the term Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region as opposed to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is likely because that is the Chinese government’s translation. With regards to that I do not know what action should be taken. Thirdly, I saw that the page tells the reader that “Uyghur China” redirects to this article, and that for historical Uyghur states and polities, they should read History of the Uyghur people. That appears to be mundane, as I am sure very little readers will search for “Uyghur China” when the want to read about historical Uyghur states and polities, so I have removed that information. Crab2814 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Crab2814. It is normal for census data to not add up to 100% if complex identities are assumed. This is typical in the United States, where Hispanic people will commonly identify as black or white in addition to Hispanic. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Early history of Xinjiang
The early history of Xinjiang is full of original research. Thelordofsword (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thelordofsword. Please specifiy exactly what you mean by "full of original research". Declaring the mere existence of original research at the talk page does nothing to help, nor does blanket deletion of paragraphs and inline citation content. Something to bear in mind. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The references used here were not fake, but it doesn't say that Xiaohe people got replaced by east eurasian over many hundreds of years. The Xiaohe population are still mostly Caucasoid. If they were replaced by east eurasian mtdna, they become a Caucasoid-Mongoloid instead of Caucasoid.

Between 2009 and 2015, the remains of 92 individuals in the Xiaohe Cemetery were analyzed for Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers. Genetic analyses of the mummies showed that the paternal lineages of the Xiaohe people were of European origin, while the maternal lineages of the early population were diverse, featuring both East Eurasian and West Eurasian lineages. Over time, the west Eurasian maternal lineages were gradually replaced by east Eurasian maternal lineages. This implies a pattern of outmarriage to women from Siberian communities, which, over many hundreds of years, led to the loss of the original diversity of mtDNA lineages observed in the earlier Xiaohe population.


 * Mitochondrial DNA analysis, which reveals the maternal ancestry, showed that maternal lineages carried by the Xiaohe people include West Eurasian haplogroups H, K, U5, U7, U2e, T and R*; East Asian haplogroups B5, D and G2a; haplogroups of most likely Central Asian or Siberian origin C4 and C5; as well as typically South Asian haplogroups M5 and M*. On the other hand, nearly all (11 out of 12 - or around 92%) of surveyed paternal lines are of West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1, and one is of exceptionally rare Asian basal paragroup K*. The geographic location of this admixing is unknown, although south Siberia is likely.

The Tarim Basin were mostly or vastly majority Ancient North Eurasian or West Eurasian. But nobody bothers to mention what proportion of West Eurasians they were.

The Tarim population was therefore always notably diverse, reflecting a complex history of admixture between people of Ancient North Eurasian, South Asian and Northeast Asian descent. The Tarim mummies have been found in various locations in the Western Tarim Basin such as Loulan, the Xiaohe Tomb complex and Qäwrighul. These mummies have been previously suggested to have been Tocharian or Indo-European speakers, but recent evidence suggest that the earliest mummies belonged to a distinct population unrelated to Indo-European pastoralists and spoke an unknown language, probably a language isolate.


 * we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%) (Supplementary Data 1E and Fig. 3a). Tarim_EMBA2 from Beifang can also be modelled as a mixture of Tarim_EMBA1 (about 89%) and Baikal_EBA (about 11%).}

Thelordofsword (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thelordofsword, you recently made sweeping changes to the article, and although you seem concerned about original research, you seem to be doing quite a bit of your own. Terms like "Caucasoid" should not be conflated with population genetics by a Wikipedia editor.
 * And although you have quoted a study by Li (2010) givng specific frequencies of haplogroups, that was completely unnecessary, as the secondary source given for the stable version of this article already analyzed Li, et al. (2010), as well as Li (2010) and Li, et al. (2015):
 * From The Cultures of Ancient Xinjiang, Western China: Crossroads of the Silk Roads, Betts, et al. (2019):
 * Thus you're only analyzing one sample of Tarim mummies, from Li et al, 2010. One primary source. There are several other samples from later studies, and they show how these populations evolved over time.
 * The source that was already inline quoted in the article, a secondary source, summarizes all of these studies. This gives a good secondary source to rely on for the early history of Xinjiang. Remember, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should not be confuzzled with lots of minutiae about "xyz" haplogroups, or the precise percentage of ancestry of every little sample. An easy to digest, general overview of the genetics research based on the secondary sources is the way to go, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What types of Siberian do they mean? There are some Western Siberian tribes communities, and they don't look Mongoloid, so they probably mean genetic relationships with ethnic groups from Eastern Siberia. The study of Xiaohe people included Indian lineages but there is no mention of Indian lineages, and there is nothing that says they were mostly east Eurasian maternally. The Tarim individuals were anything from 72% to 89% West Eurasian, meaning they were Caucasoid or predominant Caucasoid. Tarim individuals were modelled as only 11% to 28% Baikal. I request that you that you include Indian mtDNA lineages and also include data on the genetic admixture of Tarim individual. More accuracy is needed "While the mummies appear to be mostly caucasoid, analysis of their genetic makeup has revealed that they represented an admixed population, that combined both West Eurasian and East Eurasian ancestry. Their paternal lineages were almost exclusively West Eurasian, while their maternal lineages were a mixture of east and west Eurasian." Thelordofsword (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the failure to mention the Indian mtDNA lineages from Li, et al. (2015). That's a great point, because the Indian lineages are tremendously important to the study of population movements throughout ancient Xinjiang. I added that to the article.
 * Regarding "what kind" of Siberians Li and colleagues are referring to, they make clear that it is central and eastern Siberians. All the studies show that maternal lineages were dominantly East Eurasian in the Xiaohe people.
 * From Li, et al. (2010):
 * And from Li, et al. (2015):
 * So, out of the 36 viable mtDNA samples in the study, only 25% were West Eurasian. A single East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroup made up 47% of all lineages in the study:
 * I won't bombard the talk page with more quotes, but the authors go on to describe the largely east Asian affinities of the haplogroups, "The presence of haplogroups C4, C5, D, G2a and B in Xiaohe people indicates close affinities to Siberians and East Asians.".
 * Clearly, these Siberian lineages aren't coming from "West Eurasian" western Siberians, but from distinctly East Eurasian central and eastern Siberians.
 * Regarding the racial terms like "Caucasoid" -- these have no bearing on population genomics. To include something like "The Xiaohe people were Caucasoid, but *insert genetics content here*" would be the epitome of original research, and also inconsistent with genetics research in general. I would also re-iterate that this is an "early history" section and not a section for minutia about specific haplogroups or ancestral percentages, which would surely clutter it and make it uncomfortable to read. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I request that you also edit the number of individuals carrying those East Eurasian lineages. The Xiaohe Cemetery is but one tiny little area of Xinjiang, they don't represent Tarim Basin populations. Historical records described the Tarim Basin population with blue eyes, blonde hair. If they have mostly East Eurasian maternal they wouldn't be mostly Caucasoid. Your study from Li, et al. (2015) contradicts your other study " Our results revealed that the first settlers carried both European and central Siberian maternal lineages ". It says Central Siberians, and appearance wise Central Siberians are clearly not fully Mongoloid. Ethnic groups like Khanty-Mansi from Central Siberia are basically Mongoloid-Caucasoid mixed races. They carry Y-DNA haplogroup N but half of their mtDNA are West Eurasian U, H, and the other half mostly C with some East Eurasian A. The Nenets are basically like them but they live on Northern Siberia. But is also possible, they were not the same as today, those Central Siberians with C4 were most likely the exact same as Eastern Siberians. Regarding Haplogroup C (mtDNA), it has a Central Asian origin and a 2014 study goes to say C1e and C1f which came from C1, has a European origin from Northwestern Russia from 7,500 years ago, predating the Tarim Basin mummies by 3000 years. This may explain, why the Xiaohe people were stilly mostly Caucasoid. C4 and C5 have affinities with Siberians, but Siberians are not entirely Mongoloid either, and have higher ANE ancestry. Xinjiang is such a huge area, one little population from Xiaohe cemetery should not represent the entire Tarim Basin.
 * Regarding the racial terms like "Caucasoid"-- If genetic studies is fine with it, than is fine with me too. If the Xiaohe people were mostly Caucasoid than that should be stated too Thelordofsword (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but most of what you're posting is original research. You suppose that that the Tarim Basin population "cannot" be blue eyed or blond if they have East Asian maternal lineages, but that simply isn't true, or in any of the sources.
 * You can be blond or blue eyed and have an East Asian mtDNA lineage. That's exactly what was observed in the iron age Kurgan culture samples from
 * From Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Keyser, et al. (2009):
 * Table 5 shows S26 and S33 have the East Eurasian mitochondrial haplogroup C and were predicted to have blue eyes, blond or light brown hair, fair to medium skin, based on European pigmentation alleles.
 * The genes controlling for pigmentation are a very small part of a person's genome. Selection can turn a population blond and blue eyed while retaining haplogroups from earlier, unadmixed populations.
 * Another example is from Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin, Neparáczki, et al. (2019). Authors note that one specimen, SH103, was blond haired despite being classified as Asian. She had 93% East Asian ancestry and belonged to haplogroup C4. See her at the bottom of Figure 4.
 * As for the origin of mtDNA C, most of what you're posting is original research which seems to have been inspired by the atrocious Wikipedia article. Haplogroup C in Europe is obviously a migrant from East Asia, and I've never heard of any scientist describe haplogroup C as an originally 'Caucasoid' lineage. I'm also not seeing where any of these studies use the phrase 'Caucasoid' -- except in scarequotes, denoting the outdated nature of that term. Most research seems to implicate mtDNA C carriers in Siberia and East Asia as having cranial features associated with Eastern Asians, for a very long time. And as already shown, several Xinjiang specimens are classified as East Asian even when they "look" West Eurasian, based on metrical traits, indicating widespread admixture by 1000 BC.
 * It would help if you could post your concerns one-by-one at the talk page. By cramming 5-8 different points, you are guaranteed to cause a clustered mess here that is impossiboe to read.
 * The same goes for your proposal to list the haplogroups of the samples studied. But from which study? Li has authored 3 studies with 3 different samples. That would cause a clusterfuck in a section that is supposed to be about history. Better to just stick with the general view of the secondary sources rather than assailing the history section with haplogroup data. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We keep writing back and forth. I prefer that you changed them to descendants of "Central Siberian" lineages, rather than East Asian. I also request that the article be written with more accuracy. Describing them with a messy admixture of ANE, South and East Asian, despite being a West Eurasian looking people with white skin, blue eye and blonde hair, makes no sense. Of all the Asian haplotypes found in the Xiaohe cemetery, only mtDNA C have Central Asian origin, and was the most common. The study from Li, et al. (2015) clearly said a mixture of European maternal and central Siberian maternal lineages. mtDNA Haplogroup C is believed to have arisen somewhere between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal some 24,000 years before present and those regions were not inhabited by Mongoloid in those times, even Mal'ta–Buret' culture, ancestor of ANE lineage, lived during the Last Glacial Maximum, 24,000 years ago in central Siberia. Even if the women who carried C lineages had cranial features associated with Eastern Asians, it's still possible, that they were not fully eastern Asians, at least not on a genetic level. This would explain why those Xiaohe mummies were Caucasoid and it's individuals were still blonde hair with blue eyes. You are likely to look East Asian or mixed race, when mixed with East Asians, but Siberians are different, Siberians have some of the highest Ancient North Eurasian admixture and looking at the distribution of mtDNA C, they have very high frequencies in Siberia but low in East Asia. 7,500 years ago in North Western Russia, that would be around 5,500 B.C https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913659/  Mitochondrial Genome Sequencing in Mesolithic North East Europe Unearths a New Sub-Clade within the Broadly Distributed Human Haplogroup C1.  It still not concluded if they have a North European origin, American origin, Siberian origin. Thelordofsword (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote: I prefer that you changed them to descendants of "Central Siberian" lineages, rather than East Asian.
 * The article doesn't say "East Asian", but rather "East Eurasian". All of the inline quotations use the term "East Eurasian".
 * You wrote:Describing them with a messy admixture of ANE, South and East Asian, despite being a West Eurasian looking people with white skin, blue eye and blonde hair, makes no sense
 * The paragraph is very clean and matches what the sources say. The racially mixed nature of the later Xiaohe remains is documented by metrical anthropology and is consistent with the genetic evidence for mixture. This is also noted in another source, which also describes the "Beauty of Kroran" mummy as having brown skin. I'm not aware of any genomic evidence that actually suggests the mummies were mostly light eyed or light haired. I have only seen quotes describing some mummies as blond, while others are described as dark.
 * You wrote: Of all the Asian haplotypes found in the Xiaohe cemetery, only mtDNA C have Central Asian origin, and was the most common. .... The study from Li, et al. (2015) clearly said a mixture of European maternal and central Siberian maternal lineages.
 * It does say that many of the West Eurasian maternal lineages do have an ultimate European origin. However it also says of the Eastern lineages:
 * You wrote: It still not concluded if they have a North European origin, American origin, Siberian origin.
 * Well, you must not have read your source very carefully because it clearly says C1 is of eastern Siberian origin.
 * From Mitochondrial Genome Sequencing in Mesolithic North East Europe Unearths a New Sub-Clade within the Broadly Distributed Human Haplogroup C1:
 * Those European hunter gatherers with C1 were proposed as having Asian origins. The paper doesn't say anywhere that C1 originates in West Eurasia much less Northern Europe. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In a genetic sense, the Xiaohe people are racially mixed, but not the extend of looking like they were a combination of Caucasian, East Asian and South Asian. The text that you edited are misleading to a certain degree. I still suggest you edit Central Siberian origin that was already stated in the 2015 study. The origins of C1 is still unclear, the study did proposed C1 have Asian origins but they also proposed they had Native American origin, or even European origin. Having Asian origins does not mean Mongoloid. The Native Americans, Jomons, Native have Y-dna and mtdna related with East Eurasians but with physical features that are clearly different from mainstream Mongoloids of Asia. The 2015 study says "the rare occurrence of the C1e and C1f sub-clades in Europe could be the result of their dilution within the pre-existing European mtDNA diversity when these lineages reached Europe". "In Europe, the dense and extensive sampling of the HVR-I diversity has revealed extremely low frequencies of hg C1, with very few haplotypes found in Germans [14], Canarians [15], Icelanders [16]–[17] and Bashkirs Claiming C1 is a East Eurasian lineage in Canary islands (in North-West Africa) is absurd, when not even the Spaniards have them.  Being East Eurasian does not mean being Mongoloid. People like Native Americans and Ainu are East Eurasian, but they do not resemble East Asians. It clearly says from the Li, et al. (2015) source " Our results revealed that the first settlers carried both European and central Siberian maternal lineages ". Thelordofsword (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a few a changes to the article, tell me if there is a problem. I changed European paternal to almost exclusively West Eurasian paternal, afterall, one of the y-DNA sample had K-M9, the Xiaohe cemetary article also tells you they are not 100% west Eurasian but I guessing it's still 95%. I also changed the maternal lineages being replaced (completely) by east eurasian maternal. They Xiaohe people were already a mixture of east and west, though I am not sure what the percentages were, it may be 50:50 east and west or 75:25, or 60:40, but still the later Xiaohe, still had 25:75, or more accurately, 72% east eurasian. 9 out of 36 is still a quarter (25%) of west, and if 72% of east, the remaining 2-3% is Indian. It is still diverse, but less diverse than before. Edit: Actually 11 out of 12 was R1a1, 92%, meaning 8% was not West Eurasian. As for maternal lineages, the original was probably 47% east, 47% west, 6% Indian. Thelordofsword (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote: It still not concluded if they have a North European origin, American origin, Siberian origin.
 * Well, you must not have read your source very carefully because it clearly says C1 is of eastern Siberian origin.
 * From Mitochondrial Genome Sequencing in Mesolithic North East Europe Unearths a New Sub-Clade within the Broadly Distributed Human Haplogroup C1:
 * Those European hunter gatherers with C1 were proposed as having Asian origins. The paper doesn't say anywhere that C1 originates in West Eurasia much less Northern Europe. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In a genetic sense, the Xiaohe people are racially mixed, but not the extend of looking like they were a combination of Caucasian, East Asian and South Asian. The text that you edited are misleading to a certain degree. I still suggest you edit Central Siberian origin that was already stated in the 2015 study. The origins of C1 is still unclear, the study did proposed C1 have Asian origins but they also proposed they had Native American origin, or even European origin. Having Asian origins does not mean Mongoloid. The Native Americans, Jomons, Native have Y-dna and mtdna related with East Eurasians but with physical features that are clearly different from mainstream Mongoloids of Asia. The 2015 study says "the rare occurrence of the C1e and C1f sub-clades in Europe could be the result of their dilution within the pre-existing European mtDNA diversity when these lineages reached Europe". "In Europe, the dense and extensive sampling of the HVR-I diversity has revealed extremely low frequencies of hg C1, with very few haplotypes found in Germans [14], Canarians [15], Icelanders [16]–[17] and Bashkirs Claiming C1 is a East Eurasian lineage in Canary islands (in North-West Africa) is absurd, when not even the Spaniards have them.  Being East Eurasian does not mean being Mongoloid. People like Native Americans and Ainu are East Eurasian, but they do not resemble East Asians. It clearly says from the Li, et al. (2015) source " Our results revealed that the first settlers carried both European and central Siberian maternal lineages ". Thelordofsword (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a few a changes to the article, tell me if there is a problem. I changed European paternal to almost exclusively West Eurasian paternal, afterall, one of the y-DNA sample had K-M9, the Xiaohe cemetary article also tells you they are not 100% west Eurasian but I guessing it's still 95%. I also changed the maternal lineages being replaced (completely) by east eurasian maternal. They Xiaohe people were already a mixture of east and west, though I am not sure what the percentages were, it may be 50:50 east and west or 75:25, or 60:40, but still the later Xiaohe, still had 25:75, or more accurately, 72% east eurasian. 9 out of 36 is still a quarter (25%) of west, and if 72% of east, the remaining 2-3% is Indian. It is still diverse, but less diverse than before. Edit: Actually 11 out of 12 was R1a1, 92%, meaning 8% was not West Eurasian. As for maternal lineages, the original was probably 47% east, 47% west, 6% Indian. Thelordofsword (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In a genetic sense, the Xiaohe people are racially mixed, but not the extend of looking like they were a combination of Caucasian, East Asian and South Asian. The text that you edited are misleading to a certain degree. I still suggest you edit Central Siberian origin that was already stated in the 2015 study. The origins of C1 is still unclear, the study did proposed C1 have Asian origins but they also proposed they had Native American origin, or even European origin. Having Asian origins does not mean Mongoloid. The Native Americans, Jomons, Native have Y-dna and mtdna related with East Eurasians but with physical features that are clearly different from mainstream Mongoloids of Asia. The 2015 study says "the rare occurrence of the C1e and C1f sub-clades in Europe could be the result of their dilution within the pre-existing European mtDNA diversity when these lineages reached Europe". "In Europe, the dense and extensive sampling of the HVR-I diversity has revealed extremely low frequencies of hg C1, with very few haplotypes found in Germans [14], Canarians [15], Icelanders [16]–[17] and Bashkirs Claiming C1 is a East Eurasian lineage in Canary islands (in North-West Africa) is absurd, when not even the Spaniards have them.  Being East Eurasian does not mean being Mongoloid. People like Native Americans and Ainu are East Eurasian, but they do not resemble East Asians. It clearly says from the Li, et al. (2015) source " Our results revealed that the first settlers carried both European and central Siberian maternal lineages ". Thelordofsword (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a few a changes to the article, tell me if there is a problem. I changed European paternal to almost exclusively West Eurasian paternal, afterall, one of the y-DNA sample had K-M9, the Xiaohe cemetary article also tells you they are not 100% west Eurasian but I guessing it's still 95%. I also changed the maternal lineages being replaced (completely) by east eurasian maternal. They Xiaohe people were already a mixture of east and west, though I am not sure what the percentages were, it may be 50:50 east and west or 75:25, or 60:40, but still the later Xiaohe, still had 25:75, or more accurately, 72% east eurasian. 9 out of 36 is still a quarter (25%) of west, and if 72% of east, the remaining 2-3% is Indian. It is still diverse, but less diverse than before. Edit: Actually 11 out of 12 was R1a1, 92%, meaning 8% was not West Eurasian. As for maternal lineages, the original was probably 47% east, 47% west, 6% Indian. Thelordofsword (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)