Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/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
, 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. , 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)

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". 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
TrangaBellam (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A few months ago, I wrote:Yet, the section exists.
 * A year ago, I wrote: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.


 * 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)

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:

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
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, and/or  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
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)