This bibliography of the history and culture of Xinjiang contains sixteen sections, going from online databases (part I) to historical and hagiographical primary sources (part VI), from sources in linguistic (part X) to political issues (part XVI). The author has courageously surveyed a wide range of references in various languages, including non-English western languages like German and French, but also Uighur, Chinese and Japanese. Also worth noticing are the diversity of ressources collected and the clarity of their presentation. All this being said, as for any bibliography the question is to know to whom this listing might be useful. No doubt, such a meticulous inventory will be extremely helpful to beginners and graduate students. But what about the experts in Xinjiang studies? The answer is regrettably less positive, especially for historians. In fact, almost all the references briefly described in this bibliography are well-known to any scholars working on Xinjiang. Several less ordinary though unavoidable works are missing: It is necessary to mention the important journals Shinjang täzkirichiliki (essential for historians) and Shinjang mädäniyat yadikarliqliri; the basic bibliographical survey by Eziz Atawulla Sartekin, Uyghurchä näshr qilinghan äsärlär katalogi (tarikh-mädäniyät qismi), Urumchi: Shinjang Universiteti Näshriyati, 2004; and classical historical monographs such as Haji Nur Haji & Chen Goguang, Shinjiang islam tarikhi, Beijing: Millätlär näshriyati, 1995 or the collective volume untitled Qazaqlarning qisqichä tarikhi, Urumchi: Shinjang khälq näshriyati, 1998; there is unfortunately no reference to the numerous Kazakh and Kyrgyz books published in Xinjiang. In general, the inventory proves very poor in what is perhaps the most crucial part in the bibliography of Xinjiang studies, i.e. primary sources. Part VI cannot but cite the major hagiography by Muhämmäd Sadiq Qäshqäri, Täzkiräyi äzizan, ed. Nijat Mukhlis & Shämsidin Ämät, Kashghar: Qäshqär khälq näshriyati, 1988. Part I and V (bibliographies and manuscript descriptions) do not feature the very rich Gunnar Jarring collection (http://www1.ub.lu.se/externt/ apps/jarring/ digitised.cfm), nor the invaluable Martin Hartmann Collection preserved at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, without mentioning the library of the Oriental Institute in St-Petersburg, one of the richest collections of manuscripts from or about Eastern Turkistan. In conclusion, I would like to remind that, despite all its qualities, for showing not only brave but efficient this type of scholarly exercise needs to be collective, certainly not solitary.