Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments on GA Review

Uness232, splendid review. Credit where it's due, and thanks for your time and effort. As you may have already noticed, a voluminous work is already underway to promptly tackle the issues raised in your comprehensive review, but I would also like to comment on two of your reasonable suggestions forthwith. Regarding those pictures that you suggested focused too much on military history, they are there simply because Turkomans of the past were known mostly as founders of formidable states, just rulers and fierce warriors. Concerning your prudent doubt that the quotes presented in this page may have been translated into English by editors and hence, are of poor quality, I checked few of them and no, they were taken directly from the source (specifically those wise sayings from the Book of Dede Korkut (Gonbad manuscript)). I anticipate resolving other remaining issues shortly as well and hope further interested parties will give me a hand with this benevolent endeavor. Uness232, thank you once again for your great work! --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your comments and your response. If the pictures are a deliberate choice made by the editors as you said, I would not want to force any changes on anything, so I see no problem giving that criterion a pass at this point. As for the translations, can't say I'm happy with them, however if they are directly from the sources I have no option but to accept. I will update the criteria accordingly, and continue the review process. Uness232 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Issues

Where do I even start? GAs need to be reviewed by people who have some minimum knowledge about the subject area. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my review has glossed over issues and/or I have made mistakes, but I was not aware of such a rule at WP:GA. Furthermore, I would really appreciate it if you detailed your issues instead of making this comment. Simply writing this is incredibly unproductive; and if there is rough consensus that my review wasn't what it should have been, we can put it up for reassessment. Uness232 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I will provide a few cases out of many:

They later found themselves divided into Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, which most of the time turned them into archenemies. - This line is sourced from a book of military history (!) by one Steven R. Ward who has no academic training in history/sociology but is an intelligence analyst for CIA. Such sources shall not be used except for mil-hist usage like describing battle maneuvers etc. Notwithstanding that, the provided quote is Selim was a devout Sunni who hated the Shia as much as Ismail despised the Sunni. He saw the Shia Turkman of Anatolia as a potential "fifth column". It takes a leap of faith (rather than logic) to conclude that Sunni and Shia Turkmen were archenemies for most of the time from what is essentially the description of an Ottoman-Safavid conflict.

A book aimed at clinical social workers, family therapists, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and clinical psychologists is quite the source to use in an article of history about the changes manifested by Islam on its introduction into Turkmen society. As Lynn Edgar notes, In Turkmenistan, as in other parts of Central Asia with a recent history of pastoral nomadism, women were not secluded and did not wear the paranji and chachvon [..] Throughout the Islamic world, veiling is generally less common in rural areas, especially among nomadic and tribal population. Lines like wearing a veil [was] must for a Turkmen woman is ahistorical nonsense.

What is UNESCO's 2000 literary work of the year? The source is only about enlisting Kitaby Dädem Gorkut in a fancy list maintained by UNESCO.

The modern [..] literature of [..] Turkmenistan [is] also considered Oghuz literature since it was produced by their descendants — I cannot even guess what was intended to be conveyed.

Agadzhanov was speculative about Тō-kü-mǒng; in our article, it has become a fact. This hypothesis has since fallen out of favor in mainstream scholarship.

Turkomans primarily spoke languages that belong or belonged to the Oghuz branch of Turkic languages and Oghuz branch of Turkic languages are languages spoken by Turkomen - both are factually correct (to a degree) but hardly aids a reader. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

While I do see your point, and have no problems with a reassessment, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. While I did not have access to all of the sources you talked about, I did have access to the vast majority of sources on this page, and what I've checked was whether the sources stated what was written in the article, not imposing quality standards that are not on the GAC (This is not to say that I made no mistakes even when considering this, but The Tokümong argument, for example, falls into this area). This is similar to how there are 50 pages in the Manual of Style, but GAC only requires articles to conform to five.

I think it's important to keep this in mind when trying to get something reassessed, as it could potentially pass again without the issues being solved. Instead, I would suggest editing (I could help too, although I definitely do disagree on one of the statements you made) per WP:BRD first. Uness232 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Uness232, my issue is not that you failed to recognize the falling out of favor. It is that you did not insist the nominating editor use the language of speculation, like the source. I would like to hear about the statement, you disagree with - it is plausible that I made an error of judgment. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry for taking issue with the statement you provided, misunderstanding on my part. I could continue to defend my review, but at this point, I understand its shortcomings and I'm willing to accept that I was too lenient in regards to sourcing. (To be fair to myself, I was a very new editor when I reviewed the sourcing, and in my second review, I made the ill-advised decision of not revisiting old sources I had already checked, but still, you are right.)

The statement I disagree with is the one on veiling. You are correct that veiling was not common in Central Asia, and that Turkmen women almost never used the paranja. The sentence "wearing a veil [was] must for a Turkmen woman" relates to Turkomans in Asia Minor, however, and women there absolutely did practice veiling, even if it only involved a headscarf and/or a jilbab, and more conservative and wealthy women often wore the yashmak or the çarşaf. Of course, if a jilbab and a headscarf isn't considered veiling, that statement is completely wrong, but according to most Islamic commentaries, at least, it would be considered hijab, so I would think that it is considered as such. Uness232 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Uness232, thanks. It was not (at all) clear from the line that we were talking about Turkmen women in Asia Minor. Yet, I am not convinced — consult Hillenbrand, Carole (2010). "Seljuq Women". In Balim-Harding, Çigdem; Imber, Colin (eds.). The Balance of Truth: Essays in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Lewis. Analecta Isisiana: Ottoman and Turkish Studies. Gorgias Press. ISBN 9781463231576. Nothing significantly changed under the Beyliks.

Even for the Ottoman empire, where your claims stand on a firmer ground, academic scholarship shows a lot of complexity. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Thanks for your response, I am aware of the complexities of veiling in the Ottomans, at least ever since I expanded the Women in the Ottoman Empire article (my focus on editing is more on music and current events, and less on history, so my knowledge might still be incomplete), although it is clear to me now that I do not have enough knowledge about the situation for the Seljuks and the beyliks. Thanks for clearing this up, and I am, again, sorry for wasting your time on this. Uness232 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You might wish to consult Peacock (2010), who provides a decent coverage of the multifaceted complexities surrounding "Türkmen", that is missing in our article. Off to delisting. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your "In Turkmenistan, as in other parts of Central Asia with a recent history of pastoral nomadism, women were not secluded and did not wear the paranji and chachvon [..] Lines like wearing a veil [was] must for a Turkmen woman is ahistorical nonsense", do you actually understand that this article is not about modern Turkmen people of Turkmenistan but about medieval Oghuz Turks? There's a line in the lead section which clearly explains that "Turkoman", "Turkmen", "Turkman" and "Torkaman" were – and continue to be – used interchangeably. Moreover, you started with: "Where do I even start? I will provide a few cases out of many...", as if there were serious violations of Wikipedia rules and principles. Moreover, you have provided only 3 or 4 issues since, that you believe beg for immediate attention. In fact, all of them are so minor that your request to reassess this page looks as a complete joke. You also refused to respond to Uness232 proposal of "it could potentially pass again without the issues being solved. Instead, I would suggest editing (I could help too)", which clearly shows that you are pursuing only one goal: to cause disruption. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 12:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your inaccurate claim about the lifetime of Turkomen, have you consulted the works of Eric Hanne and Omid Safi? What do they say? I have cited some other sources (Hildenbrand et al) to Visioncurve, as well.

Another source,

Thus, as we see from medieval authors writing from an urban perspective such as Ibn Bībī and İmam Kadı, there were perceived differences between the urban and rural practices of Islam. Indeed, these differences were not based on doctrinal issues but rather on cultural issues.

The North African traveller Ibn Baṭṭūṭa’s testimony reveals the fluidity and heterogeneity of Muslim society and provides us with an important record of many aspects of early fourteenth-century Anatolian cultural and religious life, providing evidence of the latitudinarian practice of Islam among both the ruling elite and the urban population as well as among Turkmen. In a similar vein, Ibn Baṭṭūṭa was astonished by the liberal attitudes among Anatolian Muslims with respect to their women, who did not veil and received guests in their homes as if they were family members.

The first contact with Islam by various Turkmen beys (rulers) was often through the teachings of charismatic Sufi masters and dervishes. [...] Hacı Bektaş, perhaps the most enigmatic figure of Turkish Sufism, provides us with another good example of the religious fluidity of medieval Anatolia. On the one hand, the incompatibility of his actions with religious law is persistently noted by the sources. On the other hand, even his adversaries recognised that he was a great saint who commanded miracle-working powers and possessed mystical knowledge of God.

Sarı Saltuk (alternatively, Sarı Saltık) is depicted along the same lines in contemporary accounts. The earliest available source for Sarı Saltuk, the Tuffāḥ al-Arwāḥ, written in Arabic in 716/1316 by Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Sarrāj al-Rifāʿī, reports that Saltuk was an ascetic, antinomian, miracle-working Sufi who had been a disciple of Maḥmūd al-Rifāʿī. Stereotypically, he periodically spent time in seclusion on mountain tops, miraculously converted Christians to Islam and commanded ‘the waters of the sea’. Yet, he appears to have not been approved of by the legalistically minded who demanded stricter conformity with the religious law.
— Peacock, A.C.S., & Nicola, B.D. (2015). Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 293-297

Minor? You wish for a detailed scrutiny of every line like at Tuqaq?

Assuming you have read Karamustafa (2020), how did your proceed to create such bland sub-section the Ottoman before filling them with details, largely irrelevant to our subject? As Karamustafa shows, various powers were using and disusing the term —with different perspectives in different contexts— towards different political ends. I will leave one particular line:

Ottoman court historians and religious scholars distinguished between Türk and Türkmen, frequently using the former for loyal sedentary subjects and the latter for nomadic tribes who “resisted against the Ottoman regime,” especially the Karamānids.

You claim the Burids to be of Turkomen origin — however the quoted source (EI) notes them to be of Turkish origin. So does, Bosworth's The New Islamic Dynasties (1996). I have not seen any prim. source refer to them as Turkoman, either. Afirov explicitly rejects that they were Turkomen.

You claim Bosworth 1996, p. 191. to support the claim of Zangids having a Turkoman origin. Can you quote the line for me? What I see is,

Zangī was the son of Aq Sunqur, who was a Turkish slave commander of the Great Seljuq Sultan Malik Shāh and governor of Aleppo from 479/1086 to 487/1094 (the origin of the name Zangī is unclear; an obvious meaning would be ‘black African’, possibly relating to a swarthy complexion, but this would be unusual for a Turk.)

However, in this particular case, you were right - Ibn Athir noted of Sunqur to be from the Turkmen tribe of Sabyo (as noted by El-Azharii [2006]).

This article should have been about the variant usage (and meanings) of the term "Turkoman" across the centuries — this has been the only focus of scholars [please find me an exception], from Peacock to Karmustafa.

Instead, our article is filled with content about dynasties of Turkmen origin, copied from other articles. How many scholars comment on "Turkoman literature", as against "Turkmen literature"? You need to fix the scope of any article in tune with available sources, and ensure that content is not duplicated across our articles.

As I stated, this article does not provide a whiff of the multifaceted complexities that surround the subject and narrates a reductive (and often, incorrect) version of events with a hefty dose of careless synthesis. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) 14:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead section contains new information that is not talked about in the body of the article. The lead section should rather be a summary of what is already talked about in more detail in the body. This concerns particularly the first two paragraphs of the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   There seems to be alot of parts that are about general Oghuz Turkic things and not Turkoman specifically. (See comments next few comments down below.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   In the section Turkoman_(ethnonym)#Language, the quote does not seem relevant because it is not talking or referring to Turkmens in any way. Or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

   The section Turkoman_(ethnonym)#Literature seems to just be about general Oghuz Literature and not about Turkoman literature specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Compliant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Maybe remove the images that are not specifically about or of things that are Turkmen/Turcoman/Turkoman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Can pass with some organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• In the section Turkoman_(ethnonym)#Language where you use the world "peculiar" do you actually mean to use the word "particular" that would make more sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Religion and culture can probably be combined into the same section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by TrangaBellam (the prev. GA delister + reviewer of this GA)

The OP exhibits a IDHT attitude and is unaware of where his competencies lie. I will request Gazozlu —who appears to have taken over the mantle of review from me— to fail this GA.

When I had delisted the GA, I wrote:

As Karamustafa shows, various powers were using and disusing the term [Turkoman] —with different perspectives in different contexts— towards different political ends [..] This article should have been about the variant usage (and meanings) of the term "Turkoman" across the centuries — this has been the only focus of scholars [please find me an exception], from Peacock to Karmustafa.

Does our article have anything on this barring a single line?

I also wrote:

How many scholars comment on "Turkoman literature", as against "Turkmen literature"?

Gazozlu raises the same point in their review, once again. Why do we have the quote in the language section is equally perplexing.

Besides, there are unsourced lines like

The greatest spread of the term "Turkmen" occurred in the era of the Seljuq conquests.

I am reasonably sure that this is a dubious claim.

To dig further, why do you cite the fact of the first mention of the term to the translation of a primary source from 1942? Why are you citing some generic social psychology text on paternity and aspects thereof (Fathers and Their Families) to describe medieval Turkoman culture? Equally ridiculous to use some random author with no scholarly credentials to describe the changes inflicted by Islam on Turkmen culture! TrangaBellam (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Golden (1992; p. 212) speculates that a Chinese and Sogdian source from the 9th century might have been the first source to mention the ethnonym; we have nothing on that. that non-Oghuz Turks such as Karluks also have been called Turkomans and Turkmens is a misrepresentation of source. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Visioncurve, TrangaBellam, and Gazozlu: What is the status of this review? Have any improvements been made since the comments in September? CMD (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The nominators last real edits to wikipedia seem to have been a month prior to the comments here being made, which is over two months ago from now. There is no indication that they will be back any time soon. There was also almost a 2 month gap between this review being started, and its first comments. Gazozlu (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I will fail in a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi TrangaBellam, thanks for your objective remarks and professional review. I'm sorry to have responded this late, as I've been a little occupied with a handful of important things lately. I will start implementing your suggestions right away. Thanks again and take care! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To whom it may concern (I don't even know who is the page's GA reviewer here?!), please, your initial suggestions have all been implemented. Waiting for your further remarks, thanks. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Noted; let me go through the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by a455bcd9

This map seems to be WP:OR. I don't say that the map is wrong, but it doesn't provide any sources, so it's OR. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justification for this article's existence separate from Turkmen

Can someone provide a source saying that "Turkoman" and "Turkmen" mean different things? The only source I've looked at so far simply calls "Turcoman" "the French spelling" [1]. If the issue is simply that the name Turkmen used to be applied more widely, than that should be covered at Turkmens, we should not be making up terminology.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there are no sources that would say so. There are different pronunciations of the same term: Turkmen, Turkman, Turcomen, Turkomen, Terekeme, Trukhmeny. Britannica says that alternatives names of the Turkmen people who live in Turkmenistan and ajacent parts of Central Asia are Turcomen, Turkomen. Peter Hopkirk in his "The Great Game" book talks about Turkmenistan's Turkmens as Turcoman. There are many more similar examples. Bayram A (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Random musings

• A few months ago, I wrote:

  I also wrote:

  How many scholars comment on "Turkoman literature", as against "Turkmen literature"?

  Gazozlu raises the same point in their review, once again. Why do we have the quote in the language section is equally perplexing.

  Yet, the section exists.
• A year ago, I wrote:

  As Karamustafa shows, various powers were using and disusing the term —with different perspectives in different contexts— towards different political ends. I will leave one particular line:

  Ottoman court historians and religious scholars distinguished between Türk and Türkmen, frequently using the former for loyal sedentary subjects and the latter for nomadic tribes who “resisted against the Ottoman regime,” especially the Karamānids.

  Yet, we have nothing relevant.
• The first paragraph of the "The ethnonym today" section is cited to Kushner (1997). I have no objections to the source except that it never mentions the word Turkmen or variants thereof. Please correct me if I failed to spot the relevant passages but otherwise, this runs afoul of WP:SYNTH.
• "Shamanism and Islam" is by a medical anthropologist and an academic, specializing in intellectual history. Not a decent source at all esp. one that can be used to source an entire paragraph.
• By the 10th century A.D, Turkmens were predominantly Muslim, bound by a single religion and purpose. - May I know what was this purpose? The citation goes to a text on military history by one Steven R. Ward who has no academic training in history/sociology but is an intelligence analyst for CIA.
• However, they still managed to preserve elements of their nomadic culture even during the peak years of their sedentary states. Steppe influences were also apparent in Turkmen marriages. Tughril, a sultan of the Great Seljuq Empire, in accordance with an old Oghuz custom, married his late brother Chaghri's widow, a practice despised in Islam. - Sourced to (Peacock 2015; p. 6-8) when it shall be to (Peacock 2015; p. 183) - Nonetheless, how is Seljuqs marriage custom representative of Turkmens? This is a leap of faith than reason.
• By the time Turkmens settled in Asia Minor, their commitment to Islam replaced any national consciousness and changed their traditional values. - Source?
• A particular citation reads Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur, «Genealogy of the Turkmens» Commentary 132. Nothing amiss except that Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur was the Khan of Kiva in early seventeenth century. WP:PRIMARY etc.
• Muslim Oghuz people, generally identified as Turkmens by then,[12] rallied around the Qinik tribe that made up the core of the future Seljuq tribal union and the state they would create in the 11th century. - If that is the case, who were the Turkmens whom the Seljuqs had repeatedly promised to keep at bay, before the Ghaznavids? See (Peacock 2015; p. 33-35)
• More, later.

TrangaBellam (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is supposedly about an ethnonym; the entire culture section should have been at Turkmens! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that an article about an ethnonym shouldn't have a culture section (perhaps this could be fixed by changing the article's title?), but it's important to remember that the content currently in the culture section is about many Oghuz peoples (which the word "Turkmen" was referring to), not just modern Turkmens, so moving it to the Turkmens article makes little sense. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

• I feel like the several different languages stated would be better as a note as it's very long. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• , is a term that was widely used during the Middle Ages for the people of Oghuz Turkic origin. - put this the other way around. A lede sentence needs to get across what something is above all else, so the time it was used is secondary. Saying that this "was a term for the people of... that was widely used during the Middle Ages" is a good way to explain easier to the causal reader (such as myself). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• such as "Bayat", "Bayandur", "Afshar", "Kayi", and others - you don't need to say "such as" and also "and others", both mean the same thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Why is the article at "Turkomen" when the rest of the lede talks about "Turkmen"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your timely suggestions. Regarding your last point, "Turkomen" and "Turkmen" are simply two variants of the same ethnonym. However, I would still keep the "Turkmen" variant instead of the "Turkoman" one for the rest of the article, because the latter has not been used as much as the "Turkmen" one since the second half of the last century as can be seen in Google Ngram Viewer (1). Moreover, these two variants, along with "Turcoman" and "Turkomen", have been used interchangeably since the emergence of the term (which is also discussed in the article) and my guess is - leaving this one as it is should not be a big deal. Please, tell me what you think?

• • • My only argument is if the article should live at Turkmen instead, and move the disambig page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

General

• Turkomania of the Ottoman Empire, as shown on the German map - presumably "a" German map? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Turkic-Persian derivation is now viewed as incorrect.
• Central Asia.[7][8][9][10] - WP:CITEKILL Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• 11th century - never start a sentence with a number. Reorder to avoid. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Turkomans settled in Islamic countries and showed great character. So much so that they rule most of these lands, becoming kings and sultans .... Those who live in deserts and steppes and lead a nomadic lifestyle in summer and winter, they are the strongest of people and the most persistent in battle and war. - not sure why this needs to be written out in full, could easily be summarised. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• .[21][22][23][24] The - CITEKILL, happens a few more times in the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• term "Turkmen" was gradually supplanted by the term "Ottomans". - who said this and where's the source? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Waiting for further remarks. Regards, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• What makes an era notable - List of notable Turkmen (Oghuz) dynasties? There's no citations. I'd rather we discussed them or put them in a navbox, not just listed.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• bol- "to be(come)" - why is this bolded? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. That's a good idea, frankly. Newly designed Turkoman Navbox is on its way, coming out soon. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire}

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A strange citation

A few days ago, a citation was added that reads: "Zachariadou, Elizabeth (1991). Alexander Kazhdan (ed.). "Turkomans". Oxford University Press. pp. 10–32." First things first, the name of the book - "The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium" - is missing and I was confused about the source for a good few minutes, since there is no ISBN or OCLC metadata.

That said, I reproduce the content of the source:

(Τουρκομάνοι), a term first appearing in Islamic texts during the 10th C. and used alternatively with Oghuz, i.e., the Turkic nomadic people that one century later and after a long migration invaded Asia Minor. More precisely, Turkoman came to mean the Muslim Oghuz in contrast to the pagan, shamanist, or the Christian Oghuz, a minority group. The term had already passed into Greek in the first half of the 12th C.

Which stands as a citation for "It was during those years that "Turkoman" entered into the usage of the Western world through the Byzantines in the 12th century, since by that time Oghuz Turks were largely Muslim." What is the source (and relevance) of the coordinate clause? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed, pending source/clarification. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet another strange citation

Turkmen sources note that Turcomania — an anglicized version of ‘‘Turkmeneli’’ — appears on a map of the region published by William Guthrie in 1785, but there is no clear reference to Turkmeneli until the end of the twentieth century.
— Anderson, Liam; Stansfield, Gareth (2011). Crisis in Kirkuk: The Ethnopolitics of Conflict and Compromise. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 56

How can this source be cited to write that "Towards the High Middle Ages [c. 1000 to 1300 AD], the eastern part of Anatolia became known as "Turkomania" in European texts and as "Turkmeneli" in Ottoman sources"?

Maybe, Visioncurve and/or Lee Vilenski has an explanation. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The same source has been used to write that "The center of the Turkmen settlement in the territory of modern-day Iraq became Kirkuk. Going by the preceding line and the following section, this happened sometime in the High Middle Ages.

I have no idea about what material in the pages (let alone, the entire chapter) can lend to such an impression. For the second source (Osman, 2014), I offer the same comments. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the content for failing WP:INTEGRITY pending clarification. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

More strange citations

In Anatolia in the late Middle Ages, the term "Turkmen" was gradually supplanted by the term "Ottomans".

The citation spans eight (!) pages of a Soviet source. In my reading, I do not see where the author holds Ottoman to have replaced Turkmen. But this is a case where I might be wrong since I am not fluent in Russian. Though, please avoid synthesis and believing that Turk = Turkmen = ... TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the nominator has written that [the Ottomans] preferred to return to a more common term Turk instead of Turkmen, whereas previously Turk was used to exclusively refer to Anatolian peasants. Obviously, they were cognizant of the differences between Turk, Turkmen, and others. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)