File talk:Uyghur girl in Turpan, Xinjiang, China - 20050712.jpg

  It is almost certain that this girl is Uyghur, see Turpan#Demography. 70.38% Uyghur (177,106 persons), 21.95% Han, 7.34% Hui, 0.07% Tuija, 0.05% Manchu (132 persons)- Of these, only Uyghur have significant Caucasoid admixture. According to Razib, quote: " Our results showed that UIG was formed by two-way admixture, with 60% European ancestry and 40% East Asian ancestry". [1] Han and Hui are typically mongoloid people, Chinese... The probability that the girl wasn't Uyghur is absolutely negligible. I therefore revert it to the original description.--Me ne frego (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You cannot do that. It's a living person, which means you need proof before assigning an ethnicity. It is fine the way it was. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And what about the other images in the gallery? You have no evidence that they are Uyghur too. And what about to remove all images of living persons form wikipedia until it is proven that they really belong to that given nationality? I think it it clear enough, original uploader also named the file Uyghur girl and I provided another evidence that she is Uyghur. According to some sources, Uyghurs are 60% European and for that reason is the statment nonsensical: "this file was originally captioned "Uyghur girl in July 2005", but another editor has commented that there is insufficient evidence that the girl in question is indeed Uyghur, and that she does not look typically Uyghur, although 'typically Uyghur' can cover a wide variety of autosomal traits."

That editor obviously didn't know what he was talking about. I revert it back.--Me ne frego (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that someone was photographed in Turpan doesn't prove anything about the person's ethnicity. Somewhere floating around the internet is a picture of me in the Uyghur quarter of Urumchi; that doesn't make me Uyghur. rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you don't look like an Uyghur. The girl does. The chance that she isn't Uyghur is so extremely small.--Me ne frego (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you don't know what I look like. Secondly, who says "the girl looks like a Uyghur"? There are already people who are arguing that nothing qualifies as "typically Uyghur" (see [2]), and if anything does qualify as "typically Uyghur-looking" it is certainly not blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Take a look at, for instance the photos on, http://www.meshrep.com/, or any Uyghur artwork or photographs of famous Uyghur figures; you won't find people who look like this. There certainly are blonde-haired Uyghurs, but they are not "prototypical". rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that the girl was "typically Uyghur-looking" or "prototypical". I said that she looks like an Uyghur and that's true. I already said that Uyghurs have 60% of European genes, majority of Uyghurs aren't blonde and blue or green-eyed, but significant minority is. See [3] [4] [5] --Me ne frego (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So now you're warring at commons. Interesting. Please refrain from personal attacks, e.g. claiming who knows what who is or isn't talking about. The other pictures are irrelevant, we're talking about this one. Bring proof before you label it thus. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the other pictures only in order to show how absurd is this. You can never be 100% sure that the persons photographed belong to that nationality. That girl is from 99% Uyghur, as I've proven here.--Me ne frego (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your monologues do not constitute proof. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have enough of your insolence. One girl on this photo, which is also in the gallery, has blue eyes too. I ask you: why do you not question the ethnic identity of the girl? Why did you not remove the photo from the gallery?--Me ne frego (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further objections?--Me ne frego (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Seb az86556 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant factual objections.--Me ne frego (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As nobody seems to disagree, I change the description.--Me ne frego (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This talkpage is simply not watched by anyone, there was a consensus with the rename, ask those editors, people usualy not watch too many pages on this project and file talkpages are rarely used (of 223,000 edits on this project I made 668 on file talkpages...). Stop adding your fantasy product into the file description. This file shows a girl in turpan, maybe a tourist maybe a local, who cares, it does not matter if she is uyghur, russian, chinese or of australian origin. Who cares. If you cant validate your fantasy description you will not be able to use this file for that purpose in an educational context, if you cant use it for such purpose you should not add fantasy to the description in the first place. If your intention however is to manipulate the file description in order to use the file for original research you are possibly on the wrong project here. --Martin H. (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is neither my fantasy, nor do I intend to use it for original research. This file was originally named "Uyghur girl", rjanag changed the description unnecessarily and he didn't know what he was doing. I'll repeat myself: if you want to change its description, you will have to rename most of the files on commons, because you can never be 100% sure that the persons photographed belong to that nationality. That girl is from 99% Uyghur, as I've proven here.--Me ne frego (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For Commons this is a Girl in Turpan, nothing more and nothing less. With the rename at least 4 users edited the file. Also you see disagreement with you reinclusion of the content here. Therefore: There is no consensus at all, stop including this again, the problem was resolved long, long time ago. --Martin H. (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, with what specifically do you disagree here? I told you why I want the description changed, but you did not, except that some other users disagree with me too. No one explained to me why the description should be such. I told you my arguments, you did not.--Me ne frego (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument was given in the version history. There is no reason to include POV in file descriptions. For Wikimedia Commons this file is a photo of a girl in tupan, for Commons it is unimportant (I repeat) if this girls parrents are from Greenland or from Australia, we are fine with this photo of a girl in Turpan, no matter where she comes from. Also Wikimedia Commons is not an original research project, if we dont know something for sure then we better not write it, especially if its about living people. --Martin H. (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why the description was changed. There are so many photos of people of various ethnicites including Uyghur and no one doubts it. Double standard? --85.162.48.109 13:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We would not have this discussion if she wasn't blond. That in itself strikes me as somewhat racist. --Joostik (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. I will request a rename option. --Agaceri (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know. Race and ethnicity is a very difficult subject in China. Having personally visited Xinjiang, I find Uyghurs different, perhaps more religiously than physically. And I suspect Uyghurs themselves do not use hair color or other superficial features to distinguish from Han population. Again, ethnicity in China is very much different than the White vs Black in US, where people judge you at the first glance. Therefore, I find this debate necessary and personally disapprove of any label on this girl other than a geological one. Stevexu95 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make any sense.--Fraziskus (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)