Talk:Mamluk Sultanate

Untitled
I have begun this page in order to disambiguate the political government of the Mamluk Sultanate (1250-1517) from the wider social phenomenon of mamlukery (9th-19th centuries). See discussion at Talk:Mamluk. This page is still very new. I have entered section headings to organize future writing. Most are empty now and a few have substubs. These will be filled in soon, inshallah. Worlingham (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Extend to March 1, 1811 coup by Muhammad Ali
Perhaps being overbold (& knowing nothing of the subject), based on the March 1, 2011 "On this day..." item on the front page, I have extended the article from the 14th Century to the 1811 coup by Muhammad Ali, as seems needed based on the article title. I have just copied text from three subsections of Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) to here. I hope other editors will correct any necessary disconnects that result. I just want readers from the front page to find what the link there suggests they (as I) will want to learn. I have also made some of the spelling and capitalization consistent. Wwheaton (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Transfer to Mamluk Sultanate
Why the title includes the specifier (Cairo)? There isn't other Mamluk Sultanate, if there is then the Mamluk Sultanate must become a disambiguation page. --Περίεργος (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Barakah
"In 1377 a revolt broke out in Syria which spread to Egypt, and the government was taken over by the Circassians Barakah and Barquq" (section "Change in regime"). Could anybody clarify who's that Barakah? Certainly, he is not sultan (not Al-Said Barakah, of course). I can't find emir of this name in secondary sources such as Cambridge History of Egypt. --Bahatur (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding georgians to Mamluk Dynasty
Stop adding georgians to Mamluk Dynasty. there were two dynasty Bahri and Burji. Bahris were Turks and Burjis were Circassians. if you can show a ref for georgian Mamluk Sultan in Cairo you can add georgians, until then stop changing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneki (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, You have been given a warning for edit warring.
 * Also, this source, "The Georgian Mameluks in Egypt", by Alexander Mikaberidze, checks out. "1382-1517 (in fact till 1811, including period of supremacy of Ottoman Empire) - Dynasty of Burji ("Burgites") Mameluks, mostly of Georgian and Circassian origin. Their name has its origins in the Arabic word "burj" which means tower, castle or fortress where the Mameluk garrisons was deployed".
 * However, this source "A History of African Societies to 1870", Elizabeth Isichei, p192, states, "Kurds or Slavs", and mentions, "a majority in the later Mamluk period in Egypt came from the Caucasus". but does not directly mention Georgians.
 * Therefore, the first source does mention Georgian Mamluks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources for Georgian mamluks;
 * , The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, Thomas Philipp, Ulrich Haarmann.
 * , The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of the Qazdaglis, Jane Hathaway.
 * , The Knights of Islam: The Wars of the Mamluks, James Waterson.
 * , Merchants, Mamluks, and Murder, Thabit Abdullah.
 * , The Gulf States: A Modern History, David Commins.
 * , An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire:1600 - 1914, Halil İnalcık, Suraiya Faroqhi, Donald Quataert. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Show a ref for georgian Mamluk Sultan. there were dozen of nations in Mamluks but Sultans were Turks and Circassians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneki (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No. I have presented sources and it is quite clear you have not read any of them.
 * The sources, I have presented, show that Georgians were one of the ethnicities making up the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt. You have shown nothing that states Georgians were not mamluks in the Sultanate of Egypt. Therefore, I will be adding Georgian to the article along with the reliable sources listed above. Continued removal of referenced information, can result in being blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Name a georgian Mamluk sultan then, and we can all accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneki (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Prove you have read the references listed above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Art and Architecture Missing Graphic
As of today, the Art and Architecture section contains this text:

"This leaf contains portions of Surat (Chapter) Al’Ala(The most high) and was for use in a local mosque in Cairo. The leaf dates back to 1300 AD during the mamluk sultanate and its age clearly shows based on the tears that appear at the top of the leaf. Surat Al'Ala discusses the wonders that Allah has created and the rewards for those who believe the message of Islam, as well as the punishment for those who reject Islam. It is likely that the illuminator of the leaf was Abu Bakr aka Sandal, who was centered in the artistic hub of Islam at the time; Cairo, Egypt. The Qur'an verses are written in black ink and in the Naskh writing style, which was the easiest for the common man to read, opposed to other scripts that required individuals to be familiar with calligraphic styles."

It's obviously talking about a specific photo or graphic, but there is nothing accompanying the text. Either the editor who inserted it should remove it, or they should supply the graphic. I would do it myself, but I don't know enough about the topic.Darkstar8799 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

is there any sources for Circassian language?
Hey, I removed Circassian language from spoken language. because there isn't any sources + I've read many poems of Circassian Mamluk Sultans, they wrote their poems in Turkish (not Kypchak but Turkish) also, their language more understandable than Ottoman poems to modern Turkish people. (They used a language which very close to modern Turkish) I couldn't find their poems on internet. if I find, I'll add some ref.
 * Yes, Ibn Taghribirdi in his Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa'l-Qahira. mentions them as speaking Circassian. Irānshahr (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ok then, could you send a link to his book?
 * Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa'l-Qahira, xi, 224. The current citation is another reference. Irānshahr (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't read Arabic. :( anyway, I won't change it anymore. btw, adding Oghuz to list is good move. because in late era (mostly in Circassian era) they spoke Oghuz Turkish. I still couldn't find poems of Circassian Sultans. but, if I find I'll add some of them.

Removal of "ed-Devletü't-Türkiyye" from the Infobox,
Sorry I was just patrolling and looking into some Wikipedia articles, but this is outrageous, because Circassians are not a huge group to speak for themselves in Wikipedia, but you guys do realize that there were Circassian Sultans and during those periods it was known as dawlat al-jarākisa also the word Dawla doesn't mean Dynasty it means "period of rule". I propose to get rid of that, because it is clear that we are using modern historical name which is Mamluk Sultanate, although that is wrong, but it is what we use. Another reason to drop it in case you think of adding dawlat al-jarākisa and making a full measure rather than half-measure is there are other names, I just chose one of those, for example al-dawla al-turkiyya al-jarkasiyya this for Circassians who speak Turkish.

I forgot to say that Jarakisa comes from Shirkas meaning Circassian. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mamluk vs mamluk
Just a note: I think its best to avert confusion by using the proper word "Mamluk" when describing anything related to the Mamluk state as in "the Mamluk sultan", "the Mamluks invaded ...", "the Mamluks concluded agreements with ...", "Mamluk architecture", while reserving the lowercased and italicized word mamluk to refer to the actual slave soldiers as in "an emir was assigned his own group of mamluks", "the mamluks of the Bahri regiment" or "as a result of a mamluk revolt", etc. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Enough of Linda Northup
She is furthering misconceptions of the Mamluk Society. I would take with a grain of salt. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dablink and redirects
I removed the dablink on the grounds that the title "Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)" is not ambiguous, that is, it makes clear that the article is about This removal was reverted ("ambiguous enough for dab"). I've looked at the redirects here and found a couple were actually ambiguous (Mameluke Sultanate and Mamluk State), so I've changed them to point at the dab page Mamluk dynasty. The only potentially ambiguous redirects left are IMO at least the dablink to Mamluk should be removed, since there's no way one could confuse this article about the Sultanate with the general topic of mamluks. The other one is debatable, but it possibly could be removed if the incoming redirects are sorted out. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) a sultanate, not mamluks in general
 * 2) the sultanate based in Cairo, not any other, in particular not the one in Delhi
 * Mamluk Empire and The Mamluk Empire: These should probably go to Mamluk dynasty as well, but it's arguable whether the Delhi Sultanate is likely to be described as an empire; if not, there should still be a dablink here using redirect.
 * Turkish State and Türkiye Devleti: I gather the latter means "State of Turkey". My first assumption would be that these names (especially the first) should redirect to Turkey, but they go here because it's apparently a historical name for the Cairo Sultanate, at least during the Turkish-dominated period. I suggest turning that redirect into a disambiguation page.
 * State of Turkey: IMO this should definitely go to Turkey, perhaps with a dablink there.
 * Dawla al-Turkiyya: I gather this also means "State of Turkey", in Arabic. This possibly should go to Turkey, but I'm not sure whether an Arabic name for a secular Turkish state is appropriate.
 * One can not assume knowledge on the part of the reader. Be grateful that you are both intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject.  The dab link was placed there precisely because someone got confused, and I concur that the average reader could reasonably get confused.  Experts on the topic won't, but they already know the difference. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just the intelligentsia.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Countries listed by alphabetical order
Is there a way I can organise the countries under the section "Today part of" in alphabetical order?? . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Article name
Do we really need the disambiguator "(Cairo)" in the article name? It doesn't seem like anyone could confuse the Mamluk Sultanate (in Cairo, not a dynasty) with the Mamluk Dynasty (in Delhi, a dynasty). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Please see the discussion above (here). While I might not be particularly fussed, I think a good point is made about the validity of retaining the disambiguators. Are you sure the average reader will know that the sultanate in Cairo was not dynastic, etc? I don't believe that the addition of Cairo in parentheses oversteps WP:PRECISION, but if other editors disagree per WP:CCC, I have no qualms about a new consensus being formed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to bring this up a while ago but put it off as I was working on the article itself, and then I just forgot about it. I support removing the "(Cairo)" qualifier. In google book searches, "Mamluk Sultanate", "Mamluk sultan(s)" and "Mamluk state" all overwhelmingly prioritize hits for the medieval Mamluk sultanate in Egypt, not the Delhi-based dynasty. Similarly, "Mamluk" and "Egypt" return far more results than "Mamluk" and "India" or "Delhi". Moreover, as Marcocapelle alluded to, the other article is called "Mamluk Dynasty" not "Sultanate" so it's not a situation where the same name is being used. The Egypt-based sultanate also lasted far longer (around 200 years more) than the Indian Mamluk dynasty. As far as the average reader, he/she probably doesn't know much of anything about medieval Islamic history, let alone whether the Cairo-based state was a sultanate or a dynasty. But that shouldn't prevent a move to the simpler "Mamluk Sultanate" title. In fact, that name itself is partially for the readers' sake because the actual state wasn't called "Mamluk Sultanate" (See the "Name" section of this article"). --Al Ameer (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that it carries template hatnotes to direct readers who might be confused, I don't have any real objections to dropping the 'Cairo', but I'll ping who only recently objected to its removal from the title. If there is a change in consensus, I think it best that a few other editors should be consulted. It may seem like a bit of a headache, but perhaps an RM would be the best way to go? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Five years later I stumbled upon this article. Agreeing with the above points and having seen no objections, I WP:BOLDly moved the page using my Page Mover magic powers. Should anyone object, please ping me so we can have a full RM. No such user (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia under the Lusignan Dynasty (1341-1375).svg

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period
Hi. What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?

I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relevant new book + encouraging completion of history section
There's surprisingly not many (if any?) other English-language overviews of this kind, so I just thought I'd highlight the publication this year of a new English-language book, "The Mamluk Sultanate: A History", by Carl Petry, which broadly covers the history, culture, etc of the entire Mamluk period. Along with Petry's earlier book on Qaytbay and al-Ghuri's reigns, "Twilight of Majesty" (probably harder to access though), these references could help to fill the gap on the history of the late Burji period, which is still absent from the article. I keep bringing myself to the verge of writing out the subsections myself, but realistically I don't think I'll have time in the foreseeable future; so consider this an informal encouragement to anyone who does have the time and interest :) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made some major additions to the history section to fill out the unfinished sections for the rest of the Burji period (from Barsbay to al-Ghawri, ), in part with the help of Petry's new book. If anyone is reading through the new content, I'd encourage you to keep an eye out for any typos, errors, awkward phrasings, or other things that may need copy-editing. I hope this helps, R Prazeres (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The name of the so called Mamluk Sultanate
the name of the mamluk Sultanate stated by Sultan Baybers himself when he was talking to the prophets of Crusader states is the Egyptian Kingdom "فأي مرة وفيتم فيها لمملكة مصر بحمد الله نحن لا نحتاج إلى نصرتكم و لا إلى نجدتكم" Source: Al Suluk li Ma‘rifat Duwal Al Muluk part one page 553 Book by the medieval historian al-Maqrizi I hope this issue is fixed الرجل المصري (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:COMMONAME and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, among other obvious reasons why we won't change the name of this topic to "Egyptian Kingdom" or "Egyptian Sultanate" as you tried to do here. R Prazeres (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand,by the way I gave you my primary source of the Al suluk li ma'rifat duwal al Muluk part one page 553 which is written by the witness of the event the medieval historian Al-Maqrizi who lived the period of the sultanate directly. Yes I understand that the mamluk Sultanate name is a newly formed term even if it's not the official name but it's unfortunately the common name. I understand this but I beg you to write alongside the other names that it officially was called the Egyptian kingdom as the primary source states without deleting the other non official names. This really matters to me as a native Egyptian because the extreme nationalist Turks claim this Egyptian Kingdom just because of the race of the rulers. Again I would be thankful if you could just added the official name alongside the non official names just to protect the Sultanate from being stolen as the Turks use wikipedia as their source for this claiming. 196.157.51.218 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And in that kingdom were kings, who were Mamluks, and called themselves sultans. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fyi, the mamluks weren't just Turkish; many were Caucasian, Slavic and Sudanese, as well as some Copts. But overall, the mamluks arose out of slave army that was, yes, made up of more or less everything except Egyptians. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah the sultans were turkic caucasian slavic etc but mainly Turks claim them lol, and the army was mainly made from Egyptians according to the primary source of Al suluk li ma'rifat duwal al Muluk by the witness of the event the Egyptian medieval historian Al-Maqrizi and the official name of the army was Al Asaker Al Misria aka the Egyptian troops and another primary source: book of Al-Nujum al-Zahirah fi Muluk Misr wa Al Qahera by medieval Egyptian historian Abu al-Mahasin Yusuf ibn Taghribirdi الرجل المصري (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop editing the lead when you know there's opposition to your changes. The terminology in the article is what's used by historians and reliable sources. We don't cherry-pick through primary sources in order to insert vague POV material into articles, that's just what we call WP:OR and it's not permitted on Wikipedia. No "Turks" are trying to claim this page (and if they were, they'd be rebuffed in the same way), and you've essentially admitted that your motivation for these changes is nationalist sentiment. See Neutral point of view.
 * And please stay logged in to your account (الرجل المصري) from now on when you edit or post comments here. R Prazeres (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My motivation is protecting my people's history from being falsified is this now wrong? How can a country article doesn't have an official name? I gave you my two Egyptian medieval historians primary source who witnessed the event is this not strong enough? Did you even check the two books? I dare you to say yes. الرجل المصري (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Native names in infobox
Just to clarify: the recent IP should not have been edit-warring and did not explain themselves properly, but they do have a point. Until recently (March 2023), the other names (Dawlat al-Atrak, Dawlat al-Jarakisa) were in the infobox. They were removed here with the stated reasons that it crowded the infobox and that they were unsourced. The first reason is a good point, but the second reason was wrong in this case, since it's clearly explained in the first section (I assume it just wasn't noticed in the moment).

This parameter of the infobox is for the "native name" (see Template:Infobox country). The term "Mamluk Sultanate", as the sources state, is a modern historiographical term, not the term used by writers of the Mamluk period. The latter used Dawlat al-Atrak, Dawlat al-Jarakisa, and variations thereof. So the Arabic translation of Mamluk Sultanate (سلطنة المماليك, Salṭanat al-Mamālīk) is not the native or historical name of the state either, it's just the Arabic version of what modern historians use to refer to it.

If helpful, I can quote most of the sources cited on the topic, if they're not easily accessible to everyone.

So there is actually good reason to remove Salṭanat al-Mamālīk and keep Dawlat al-Atrāk and Dawlat al-Jarākisa instead. It might be good to compare with Byzantine Empire, a featured article, which deals with a very similar situation ("Byzantine Empire" is a modern convention too) and provides two different native names in the infobox, with a footnote for further details. What do editors think? R Prazeres (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I also don't mind them going below the common name in the infobox as the native names, but I would make them "small font" at the same time for display purposes, otherwise it is going to get pretty crowded there. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get back to this, but I think that's perfectly good suggestion, yes. Potentially, we could also omit the transliterations from the infobox, since they are in the first section of the article, and/or we could use a footnote to complete the details and save some space inline. R Prazeres (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I should have left a comment here earlier, before this revert, but the infobox has been updated by reflect these names (which, as pointed out above, were previously in the infobox). The new look seems much clearer. My only point of uncertainty, expressed earlier, is whether "Mamluk Sultanate" would be removed altogether from the infobox header? That does seem to be what has been done at Ottoman Empire, for example, and it does seem redundant to repeat "Mamluk Sultanate" when it's both in the title and the first sentence of the lead. Courtesy ping to Iskandar323, whom commented on the same question earlier. R Prazeres (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Having solely the common name in the infobox with the historic names in a footnote seems like a better, less confusing approach for readers not throughly familiar with the topic given that they're vastly differing. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's what the article title and lead section are for. The infobox is intended to summarize the article, and this is what it's doing, as the names are explained immediately in the first section. Whether it's still worth including the common name as the header (above the historical names) is still a question, though. R Prazeres (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The text in the lead barely does any justice explaining nor elaborating on this, instead it's done in the names section. Though as suggested by Iskandar, having the common name above in the infobox is a better approach, at least for now. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Flag
Hi. You have not provided any reliable source for the flag you uploaded, whereas the current flags in the infobox clearly state which primary sources they originate from. If your proposed flag is based on historical evidence, please provide the source that demonstrates this. And as a general point, as I noted earlier, it's unlikely that there was a single flag used by the Mamluks, so that's all the more reason for us to be specific when it comes to any flags shown in the article. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding "of Egypt" across the article
, please stop trying to change the name of the topic and do not engage in edit-warring. You can discuss the issue here on the talk page. Your previous edits were already reverted, so please undo your last edit or someone else will. I recommend you also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies, which require that information be verifiable, neutral, and not based on your personal opinion. These recent edits do not conform to those policies, and add nothing useful. R Prazeres (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Actually the name was Kingdom of Egypt. Commonly named Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt or Mamluk Egypt. This name doesn’t clarify the real identity of the country and is wrong. Thanks 197.46.40.59 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Article length
There's no hurry, but I'm opening this discussion to address the length issue. (Thanks to Al Ameer for the ongoing copy-edits and to Aintabli for the reminder about length.) I think we will inevitably need to transfer most of the "History" section content elsewhere, as it occupies over half this article. The other sections add up too, but they're not that long individually and I think they're useful for an overview article. The two simplest options I imagine are: I personally sort of prefer #1: it's the easiest fix, and given the importance and continuity of this period, I like the idea of having the full history shared explicitly in one place (like History of the Ottoman Empire, History of the Ming dynasty, etc). On the other hand, Bahri Mamluks and Burji Mamluks already exist and have plenty of room; it might depend on what editors think those two articles should focus on (i.e. whether it makes sense to use them as the "main" history articles). Anyways, all thoughts welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Copy History content to a new History of the Mamluk Sultanate article, condense the section here
 * 2) Copy History content to existing Bahri Mamluks and Burji Mamluks articles, condense the section here
 * Thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I agree that 'History' is the main section that needs condensing and that an overall 'History' subarticle is the best way to go about it. It's an easy undertaking, of course—just copy/paste the whole section to the new article and then cut down here. Also would be good at some point in the near future to improve our articles on the prominent sultans, at least partly by using some of the material we already have here.


 * Not sure what do with the Bahri and Burji articles, but I recommend we take our cues from the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed) (EI2), which dealt with the Bahriyya and Burjiyya as Mamluk regiments. EI2 's articles on these two regiments and their main article on the Mamluks note the Orientalist error of referring to the division of Mamluk history as the "Bahri and Burji periods"; rather, EI2 and more modern scholars prefer the "Turkish and Circassian periods", which is actually in line with the Mamluk-era sources. The terminology we're currenrly using is outdated. Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the initiative on this and for creating History of the Mamluk Sultanate. One minor thing to fix after all this is done: the lead of this article (and copied to the new article) only summarizes events up to the reign of Barsbay, so we should update it to reflect the rest of the articles' content in the future.
 * For the Bahri and Burji articles: yeah I like the idea of making them about the groups themselves, something often glossed over in other overviews. I don't think there's anything really wrong with the current titles, because they're common designations in secondary sources and I'm not sure if the purely ethnic designations might raise some confusion/ambiguity (more so with "Turkish Mamluks", less so with "Circassian Mamluks"). But in any case, that's up to discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)